Johnson Era

Contrary to Kennedy, Johnson was from much humbler beginnings; though from an equally industrious family . Much like his predecessor, Johnson was quite intelligent but from a young age lacked the natural charisma that defined the communication style of John Kennedy. However, given his modest upbringing, Johnson was instilled with a sense of righteousness that would extend throughout his entire life. So, the question that needs to be asked is in what ways, if any, did Johnson’s upbringing effect the ways in which he spoke about the Vietnam Conflict. It is my belief that in order to gain any form of insight into sentiments that President Johnson may have felt towards sending thousands of young men off to die, given that he was often so reserved when speaking on the matter to the press, one must understand the ways in which he understood his fellow Americans. For example, if a president had a very detached relationship with his constituents, it would be within the realm of possibility that he would possibly be more open to the notion of sending them off to fight. Well in fact, the inverse could be argued to be true for Johnson. Given his sheer dedication and passion for the Civil Rights movement, it would be fair to make the conclusion Johnson was incredibly sympathetic towards the American people.

That being said, such an assertion holds very little weight without any form of concrete attachment to support it. In a press conference on July 28, 1965 Johnson attempts to answer a question that is increasingly on every American’s minds: why are we in Vietnam? Taking a moment to focus on the syntax used by Johnson in this press release. In many ways, it seemed as though Johnson was adopting a paternal role with the public during his speech. He spoke in a manner that was informative, yet personal. He explained the escalation that was occurring in Vietnam and gave somewhat of an attempt at justifying why American lives were being lost there. During his speech there was an air of reverence to the words that he was speaking, as if an acknowledgement that this was an unfortunate but necessary circumstance that the nation had found itself in. That being said, this speech was given just two years into his presidency and Johnson would still have to face four more years of heartbreak and ridicule over the nation’s participation in the war. Although he was reverent, Johnson still had a nation that more or less stood behind him. This, however, could not and would not last for much longer.

A facet of the presidency that can be easily translated through their rhetoric is public sentiment; the two cannot exist separate of each other. When a society is happy with their leader, it is represented in the words he speaks to them. But when there is unrest, disappointment, and impatient, the nation’s leader must choose his words carefully and with great thought. Johnson was forced to do this for much of his second term as president; especially when discussing Vietnam. In viewing the public’s sentiments towards the Vietnam War, it is best to understand it as a downward slope of support. Ranging from individual opinions to portrayals in media, feelings towards the war and Johnson by extension greatly deteriorated over the course of the decade. With an increase of approximately 100,000 people protesting the war in 1966 to over 300,000 by 1969 , Johnson was forced to use the final method of remedy that was truly under his control; his words. Unfortunately, this it is at this time in which the President’s rhetoric surrounding the conflict goes from being paternally directive to crossing more into the territory of a man on trial and then finally to just plain deception. Now that is not to say that Johnson’s deliberate misdirection as to the nature of the war was done so with any malicious intent, nor would it be fair to say that he did so simply as a means to “save face” as he approached the end of his term . In fact, the assertion of either of those claims would be downright incorrect. It is often speculated by those who worked closely with Johnson that not only did deceive the public as to the anticipated involvement in the Vietnam War as a means to protect many of his domestic efforts, that would have been inevitably dismissed and overshadowed by the conflict.

Deviating quickly from Johnson’s rhetoric surrounding public communications regarding the Vietnam War, I believe that in order to understand why Johnson spoke about the war in the way that he did, it is pertinent to fully comprehend the cultural temperature at the time. There are a handful of presidents, at least in my opinion, that were at a great disservice as a consequence of serving at the time they did. There are also some presidents who will be remembered quite fondly for the same reason. Johnson manages to fall onto each of these lists. During his term, the United States the explosion of a new counter-culture, the legal affirmation that every American is in fact created equal, and a sexual revolution brought forth with the onset of a much more user-friendly birth control. This rapid sequence of change that defined the culture allowed Johnson to propel Civil Rights legislation of such significance that it was unparalleled to anything the nation had seen following the Civil War. Conversely, however, this rapid change allowed many Americans to raise questions they would have never thought to ask before. Unfortunately for the Johnson administration, many of those questions were directly towards those in power. With all of these factors culminating in our nation’s culture, musicians like Bob Dylan and Woody Guthrie were heard among the airwaves and films like Fail-Safe and Greetings were seen at the box-office. I mention these external features to provide context into the nation that Johnson was trying to govern.

By the end of his term, LBJ was a little over 60 years old. On paper, he was the enemy for all of the youth that had learned to find their voice in the nation. However, I do not believe that he wished to see himself that way. In his address to the American people on March 31, 1968, Johnson arguably his most honest and impassioned speech of his career. It was not flowery, nor was it poetic. It did not need to sound elegant because it possessed something that could not be written on paper. This was an address that truly came from the heart. Aside from his announcement that he would not be seeking re-election and his intentions to halt bombings on North Vietnam, Johnson imparted the most resonant and impactful piece of rhetoric in his entire forty-minute address,

“There is division in the American house now. There is divisiveness among us all tonight. And holding the trust that is mine, as President of all the people, I cannot disregard the peril to the progress of the American people and the hope and the prospect of peace for all peoples. So, I would ask all Americans, whatever their personal interests or concern, to guard against divisiveness and all its ugly consequences.”

Johnson’s administration is often cited as the point in the 20th century in which the nation witnessed an intense division that its consequences are being directly seen today. This divisiveness was the result of all the previously mentioned shifts that the nation witnessed. Changed is always accompanied by resistance, and with resistance comes division among those moving forward and those who are content to be left behind. I believe that Johnson was cognizant of this and did his best to combat it; to the extent of essentially abdicating his presidency.

Following this decision, our nation’s history is tainted by another, and not the last, incomplete story. We may never know if Johnson would have won the 1968 election, it cannot be said with certainty that he would have lived to see end of his term. However, unlike his predecessor, the legacy of Lyndon Baines Johnson is not defined by charisma and public affection. We as a nation do not look back on his term with sorrowful nostalgia and ask the question of “what if?” History has remembered LBJ primarily by his involvement in Vietnam, his participation in the Civil Rights movement, and inexplicably his proclivity for tugging on his dog’s ears. But if one were to truly look at the administration of Lyndon Johnson, they would find a series of pained speeches about a war that he had an incredibly complex relationship with. They would find addresses to the American public regarding a movement that he felt great passion for and words to a generation that he did his best to understand.