Lyndon Johnson vs. Biden: A Comparison of Leadership Styles
Even with their flaws revealed, this comparison still gives us valuable insights into ourselves and both presidents.
Tim Naftali
On the eve of the 1964 elections, President Lyndon Johnson, who was poised for a significant political victory, addressed his supporters in Austin, Texas, saying, "I have spent my whole life preparing for this moment." Johnson, still grieving the shocking assassination of John F. Kennedy and yearning for success during a time marked by a powerful, growing nonviolent civil rights movement domestically and the chills of the Cold War internationally, sought to command leadership in a time of national turmoil.
Today, as the election for Joe Biden is not yet certain, one can forgive him if he believes that his long-standing public service in January 2021 may reach a similar climax, bringing great hopes and opportunities. He was sworn in amidst a pandemic that claimed 400,000 American lives and peaceful, nationwide protests spanning months, highlighting the urgency of finally dismantling racial injustice.
Just days prior to his inauguration, the capital was rocked by a right-wing insurrection triggered by the incumbent president's refusal to concede his election loss.
While both men possess the ability to navigate the significant challenges of their time and believe that America yearns for more than the pragmatism that characterized their extensive Senate careers, they also both recognize that the national trauma brought about by their presidencies has an alluring pull towards the left.
They have advanced platforms that transcend the legislative accomplishments of their Senate years and present far more ambitious agendas than what was proposed earlier by a younger, charismatic, but more cautious vice president. Johnson championed civil rights reforms specifically aimed at dismantling the segregated South, a cause he had advocated for throughout his adult life. He tirelessly worked towards "building the Great Society," an expansion of the New Deal's social safety net, in stark contrast to his nonpartisan stance against cost-cutting measures during the Eisenhower administration in the 1950s.
Following his successful nomination, Biden was in turn embraced as a proponent of the policies spearheaded by his more progressive former opponents, Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, which include student loan forgiveness, managed trade, free trade agreements, paid family leave at the federal level, and increased minimum wage.
Gauging legislative achievements, however, reveals a stark disparity between the two: ambition, not effectiveness. The comparison here centers on aspirations, not achievements, as the history of our political moment and the lessons it serves as a warning must be understood.
Is the next Lyndon Johnson here?
During a spree of legislative activity akin to none other than Franklin D. Roosevelt's first term, Johnson harnessed his potential into a new relationship between the American people and the national government. As Johnson stood at a critical juncture in his first major test (the Congress refusing to support the self-rule of Washington, D.C. in the fall of 1965), he had already signed into law the Health Security Act, introducing Medicare and Medicaid for the elderly and the poor, as well as the Voting Rights Act, Immigration and Nationality Act, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Housing and Urban Development Act, Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act, the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities Act, and the bill that would later become the 25th Amendment regarding succession and incapacity of the presidency.
In the early stages of his presidency, Biden sounded notably Johnsonian, "The biggest risk is not doing too much, but doing too little." Bold, progressive Democratic leaders welcomed his ambition and optimism, at least publicly relinquishing their previous doubts about Biden's commitment to his agenda. The chairwoman of the powerful Congressional Progressive Caucus, Pramila Jayapal, told The New Yorker, "This is a progressive moment. This is a populist moment. 'This is an emergency.'"
A year later, however, despite some minor victories in addressing poverty and inequality with the Covid-19 relief bill and infrastructure bill, it seems Biden has made little progress towards achieving the results he promised as a symbol of progressive success. His "Build Back Better" cabinet initially proposed a price tag of $3.5 trillion and continued to negotiate a version that could secure Senate approval. Just last month, Biden announced that the latest version, with an estimated price tag of approximately $1.75 trillion, would fail due to "persistent opposition" from Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. There remains a glimmer of hope that parts of the initiative, aimed at utilizing federal funds to combat climate change, may be implemented as a standalone bill, but there is little optimism for Congress passing comprehensive civil rights legislation, in honor of the late civil rights champion John Lewis, to reverse the erosion of constitutionally guaranteed rights during the Johnson moment.
What went wrong? Some observers, like Robert Reich, the Labor Secretary under the Clinton administration, have focused criticism on Biden himself. "Now it's time for the kind of leadership Lyndon Johnson showed on civil and voting rights half a century ago," Reich wrote in the spring.
Johnson wielded every instrument of power at his disposal, as described by journalist Mary McGrory as "a fantastic, strong mixture of persuasion, pressure, threat, reminders of past favors and promises of future ones."
However, it is safe to say that Reich's approach will not achieve the desired results this time. To understand why Biden fell short of expectations and his rhetoric, one must comprehend what Lyndon Johnson and the liberal legislative achievements of 1965-67 made possible. They enabled Johnson's landslide victory. Johnson defeated Republican Barry Goldwater with 61% of the popular vote and 486 electoral votes. In the South, Goldwater was revered for his resistance against federal civil rights legislation, but outside the South, he secured virtually no Congressional victories. It was the most decisive popular victory for a Democratic candidate since 1936, at the peak of Roosevelt's power.
Furthermore, Johnson secured election victories by setting conditions. The expansion of Democratic control in the Senate to 68-32 and the gain of 37 House seats and a majority of 295-140 gave the Democrats their strongest position since a generation had passed. A conservative coalition in the Congress controlled at least 100 Southern Democratic and more than 100 Republican seats in the House from the Midwest and West. A newly-elected Johnson, an outsider from the South, supported a progressive legislative agenda.
Johnson seized this opportunity. In the years 1959 and 1960, Johnson as Senate majority leader and vice presidential candidate employed the "Johnson Method" – a method of understanding the influence points of every legislative leader and informing them that voting against progressive legislation would result in the failure of their own agendas, especially if the president had the ability to use a filibuster or veto power. As president with a stronger liberal faction within the Democratic caucus, Johnson would attempt the same strategy once more.
"Now your limits are limitless," Johnson told his young vice president, Hubert Humphrey, in a conversation in March 1965, as their administration began implementing the Great Society. "This is your platform; this is our program; this is our plan. You are half of it, and you are every day there. If you can, help us. If you succeed... you can say, 'We passed education. We passed the Appalachians. We passed healthcare.' If you give me that, I – in two years – will have a majority."
At some point, a miracle occurred. According to the book "Lyndon Johnson and the 89th Congress" by Roland Evans and Robert Novak, the 89th Congress agreed with 68.4% of Johnson's proposals in 1965, a significant increase from the 27.2% in 1963, two years before Kennedy moved into the White House.
As my CNN colleague Julian Zelizer pointed out in his insightful book "The Urgency of Now," this success was not attributable to Johnson's character or charisma but rather to the power he wielded. Zelizer argued for a more balanced perspective, emphasizing both Johnson's strength and the broad mandate that Johnson and the Democratic Party received in 1964 on the street and at the polls.
The year 2020 saw Biden's clear victory over Donald Trump, but he was not "gigantic"; he received 51.3% of the popular vote, not 61%. His election was not a landslide, and Congress did not fare well in the elections. Nancy Pelosi's faction shrank by 13 seats to 222. Chuck Schumer became Majority Leader, but the Senate was evenly split 50-50. Donald Trump defeated Biden in 210 Congressional districts, indicating that the representatives of those districts had no reason to challenge the new sheriff in town.
This is not Biden's only political hurdle. Johnson's Democratic Party was more fractured, with white racists and progressives united. Johnson's agenda had the support of a majority in the Congress. He could rely on crossover support from liberal Republicans in the House and Republican supporters of civil rights in the Senate. 30 Republican Senators and 112 House members backed the Voting Rights Act. 70 Republicans voted with 189 northern and western Democrats to pass Medicare in the House, and 13 Republicans in the Senate voted "Yes."
As the Congressional Progressive Caucus, led by Pelosi with 95 of 222 votes in the House, delayed the bipartisan Senate infrastructure bill until all Democrats in the Senate agreed to support a $2 trillion version of the "Build Back More" Better Bill, Pelosi could not fill the vacant seat with Republican votes.
Mystery surrounds why the president and his most radical allies in the progressive wing of the party fell so far short of expectations. A part of the answer lies in the difficulty of distinguishing between social power and political power. The strength of the popular vote and the narrow Democratic majority in the Congress indicate that this is not 1964, the year social change, activism, and political action marched hand in hand.
However, many – especially in an era of social media – believe that the intense mobilization of the base in response to the police killing of George Floyd and the popular disdain for the January 6th insurrection could sway the Congress. Both pointed to the possibility of a new, grassroots-led coalition in the Congress, in which the TikTok nation might supersede Trump nation, despite the lack of a decisive mandate in the polls.
In this analysis, this won't be Johnson's moment. But it can be Biden's and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party's, bringing something new to the history of American politics. Within the first week, the 117th Congress passed a comprehensive pandemic relief bill with provisions temporarily addressing some social inequities. The party also managed to pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill, representing the largest capital investment in transportation and communication networks in 60 years. Biden is not shy about seeking more, just like Johnson.
However, Biden has yet to achieve it. The comparison with LBJ is instructive. Six decades ago, Lyndon Johnson had the advantage of understanding how to work with a divided party. Biden does not enjoy this luxury. Today's Democratic Party is far more partisan than it was in 1965. With limited exceptions, Biden's legislative initiatives require Democratic Senate support to pass, or not pass at all, as in Johnson's time when his support of civil rights legislation did not depend on Democratic support.
Biden's approval rating never reached the same heights as Johnson's did upon his inauguration. Despite criticism for his handling of the Ukraine crisis, the Middle East, and South China Sea, Biden's overall approval rating remained around 40%. This is not surprising, given that Biden's popularity never reached the same heights as Johnson's during his first term.
In conclusion, the comparison with LBJ's moment is not favorable to Biden. While his presidency shares some similarities, such as facing a split Congress, there are also several significant differences. The Congress is far more ideologically diverse than it was in 1965, which makes it more challenging for Biden to secure enough support for his initiatives. Furthermore, unlike Johnson, Biden has struggled to build a strong relationship with the Republican Party and secure their support for his legislative agenda.
Enrichment Data:
Lyndon B. Johnson vs. Joe Biden: A Comparative Analysis
Despite the significant differences in their time periods and the contexts in which they operated, there are some similarities between the political strategies of Lyndon B. Johnson and Joe Biden. However, it is important to note that their approaches reflect different historical contexts and political priorities.
Domestic Policy
Johnson: - Great Society Programs: Johnson's presidency was marked by a series of ambitious domestic programs aimed at reducing poverty and improving civil rights. These included the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the creation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to address urban issues. - Vietnam War Funding: Johnson's presidency was also marred by the escalation of the Vietnam War, which diverted funds from his cherished Great Society programs and fueled inflation.
Biden: - Economic Recovery: Biden's presidency focused on economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. He enacted the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, which provided significant relief to individuals and businesses. He also signed the Inflation Reduction Act, aimed at reducing inflation and investing in clean energy. - Infrastructure and Climate Change: Biden's administration invested heavily in infrastructure and climate change mitigation. The American Jobs Plan and American Families Plan included significant investments in clean energy, transportation, and infrastructure, as well as measures to address climate change.
Foreign Policy
Johnson: - Johnson Doctrine: Johnson introduced the Johnson Doctrine, which stated that the U.S. would not permit the establishment of a communist government in the Western Hemisphere. This doctrine was a response to the Dominican Republic crisis in 1965 and reinforced U.S. opposition to communist expansion in the region.
Biden: - Foreign Policy Reorientation: Biden's foreign policy approach was characterized by a reorientation towards multilateralism and diplomacy. He emphasized the need for international cooperation to address global challenges like climate change and pandemics. However, his administration faced criticism for its handling of conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East, and the South China Sea.
Immigration Policy
Johnson: - Immigration Policy: Johnson's administration focused on issues related to the Western Hemisphere, primarily enforcing the Good Neighbor Policy, which emphasized non-intervention in the internal affairs of Latin American countries.
Biden: - Immigration Reform: Biden's immigration policy focused on reversing Trump-era policies, which he criticized as inhumane and ineffective. He proposed a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, restored the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and increased refugee admissions. His plan also emphasized addressing the root causes of migration from Central America.
Enrichment Data:
The political strategies of Lyndon B. Johnson and Joe Biden can be compared in several key areas, despite the significant differences in their time periods and the contexts in which they operated.
Domestic Policy
Lyndon B. Johnson: - Great Society Programs: Johnson's presidency was marked by a series of ambitious domestic programs aimed at reducing poverty and improving civil rights. These included the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the creation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to address urban issues[4]. - Vietnam War Funding: Despite his domestic achievements, Johnson's presidency was also marred by the escalation of the Vietnam War, which diverted funds from his cherished Great Society programs and fueled inflation[4].
Joe Biden: - Economic Recovery: Biden's presidency focused on economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. He enacted the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, which provided significant relief to individuals and businesses. He also signed the Inflation Reduction Act, aimed at reducing inflation and investing in clean energy[2][3]. - Infrastructure and Climate Change: Biden's administration invested heavily in infrastructure and climate change mitigation. The American Jobs Plan and American Families Plan included significant investments in clean energy, transportation, and infrastructure, as well as measures to address climate change[2][3].
Foreign Policy
Lyndon B. Johnson: - Johnson Doctrine: Johnson introduced the Johnson Doctrine, which stated that the U.S. would not permit the establishment of a communist government in the Western Hemisphere. This doctrine was a response to the Dominican Republic crisis in 1965 and reinforced U.S. opposition to communist expansion in the region[1]. - Vietnam War: Johnson's presidency was also marked by the escalation of the Vietnam War, which he authorized in response to the Gulf of Tonkin incident. This decision had significant domestic and international repercussions[4].
Joe Biden: - Foreign Policy Reorientation: Biden's foreign policy approach was characterized by a reorientation towards multilateralism and diplomacy. He emphasized the need for international cooperation to address global challenges like climate change and pandemics. However, his administration faced criticism for its handling of conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East, and the South China Sea[3]. - Climate Diplomacy: Unlike Johnson, who did not have a significant focus on climate change, Biden made it a central part of his foreign policy. He re-entered the Paris Agreement and pushed for increased climate action globally[2][3].
Immigration Policy
Lyndon B. Johnson: - Immigration Policy: There is limited information on Johnson's specific immigration policies. However, his administration generally followed the Good Neighbor Policy, which emphasized non-intervention in the internal affairs of Latin American countries[1].
Joe Biden: - Immigration Reform: Biden's immigration policy focused on reversing Trump-era policies, which he criticized as inhumane and ineffective. He proposed a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, restored the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and increased refugee admissions. His plan also emphasized addressing the root causes of migration from Central America[5].
Conclusion
While both presidents had significant domestic and foreign policy initiatives, their approaches reflect different historical contexts and political priorities. Johnson's presidency was marked by a focus on domestic reform and a robust foreign policy stance against communism, particularly in the Western Hemisphere. Biden's presidency, on the other hand, has been characterized by a focus on economic recovery, climate action, and a more multilateral approach to foreign policy. Biden's immigration policies also reflect a more humanitarian and inclusive approach compared to his predecessors.
The enrichment data provides additional information on the comparative analysis between Lyndon B. Johnson and Joe Biden. While their approaches and political priorities were different, they shared some similarities in their focus on addressing social and economic issues, as well as their roles in shaping U.S. foreign policy. Understanding these similarities and differences is essential to gaining a comprehensive perspective on their legacies and the impact of their policies on U.S. history.
