HOME / the book club: New books dissected over e-mail.

Master of the Senate

Does LBJ Deserve This Jumbo Biography?

Posted Tuesday, April 30, 2002, at 2:13 PM ET

Who are these people?

This week's reading.

Buy the book.

Dear Chris,

As you say, the first thing any reader has to reckon with in reading Master of the Senate is its size. It's not just the sheer length of 1,167 pages, nor simply that those 1,167 pages cover only Lyndon Johnson's Senate career. (How will Caro ever squeeze the 1960 presidential race, Kennedy's presidency and LBJ's own presidency into just one volume? How many subdivisions do you predict? Let's take bets.)

No, more than the book's actual length, what struck me about this mammoth work is that Caro seems determined to give us a biography commensurate with what he considers Johnson's own outsized personality and immense historical significance. The monumental size of this trilogy-plus, in other words, is intrinsic to its portrait of Johnson—indeed to its argument about Johnson's importance in American history. More on which below.

Many of this book's virtues are obvious and will be widely praised: the research; the prose (which, despite lapsing into cliché, is redeemed because the style is so palpably Caro's own); the fine feel for the details of Senate politics. But there are other virtues, too, that those who dismiss the book as mere "story-telling" might overlook.

For example, Caro's 100 pages recounting the history of the Senate is surely excessive. But it serves an important purpose. Caro appreciates the role that history itself plays in the Senate, the way that the body's traditions (and, compared to the House, its undemocratic nature) served the segregationist South even after that region's racial attitudes had become anathema to most Americans. This focus on the Senate as a body—a focus that shapes the book—is a shrewd interpretive move. It goes a long way toward explaining why the civil rights cause languished even after Harry Truman's presidency and Brown v. Board of Education. Simply put, the Senate's rules and traditions allowed it to be controlled by a regional minority.

There are other merits, too, likely to be unsung: Caro's grasp of the rich ideological variation that used to exist within both parties; his understanding of the array of weapons in Johnson's arsenal (flattery, intimidation, self-pity, fake high-mindedness, etc.); his ability to keep you following along as he descends into legislative minutiae. If we don't discuss these qualities later, I want to credit them now.

But to address some of your questions: I do think Caro brilliantly captures LBJ's gargantuan appetites, and I do think he's more than a physically large man who liked to drink and have sex. The oft-used "Rabelasian" label applies. There's a wonderful passage—really, the entirety of Chapter 27—of Johnson's eating and drinking habits circa 1955, just before his heart attack, in which Caro vividly shows us Johnson shoveling down platters of black-eyed peas and tapioca pudding, gulping tumblers of Scotch in quick succession, chain-smoking "like a man who had a date with a firing squad" (Russell Baker's description). This behavior, Caro convincingly shows, was bound up with LBJ's bottomless ambition, his drive to push harder all the time. Caro's disquisitions on Johnson's crudeness also, I think, show the connections among size, appetite, and ambition. LBJ used to refer to his sex organ as "Jumbo," and sometimes, after urinating, would start talking to a colleague without zipping up, instead simply beginning the conversation: "Have you ever seen anything as big as this?" I'll let the psychoanalysts take it from there. (By the way, I had trouble finding this last passage but then discovered in the index under "Johnson, Lyndon B., sexual exhibitionism," a few lines below "Johnson, Lyndon B., scratching habit.")

Now you might ask: Does a physically big Johnson make for a historically big Johnson? Or as you wondered, does LBJ deserve this jumbo biography? I tend to think not. After all, Robert Dallek's excellent two-volume work (total pages: 1,500) certainly gives Johnson his due; and when I did a little cross-checking, I found that some of the "revelations" that reviewers have hailed as "new" in Caro's work—LBJ's secret involvement with the Southern Caucus (the unified bloc of Southerners who plotted anti-civil rights strategy); the McCarthy-like attack on Leland Olds that you mentioned—were also in Dallek's book, albeit in condensed form. Don't you agree that 1,167 pages on the Senate years, as enjoyable to read as they are, amount to overkill? Does it perhaps say more about Caro's grandiose ambitions, his Ahab-like quest to master the master of the Senate, than about Johnson himself?

I'll leave it there for today. I'm curious to know your thought about Caro and his outsized ambitions, his Johnson-like fascination with power (is there a hunger for power in his attempt to set forth a definitive life of someone whom I think he does hate, but in a love-hate kind of way?). Maybe we can also discuss of the civil rights bill that dominates the thrilling climax of this book—which is also where I think Caro's claims are historically the most problematic.

Over to you,
David

Does LBJ Deserve This Jumbo Biography?

Posted Tuesday, April 30, 2002, at 2:13 PM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTEmail to a FriendE-MAILShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Get Slate RSS FeedsRSS
Christopher Caldwell is a senior editor at the Weekly Standard. His book Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West will be published in the United States in July. David Greenberg, a professor of history and media studies at Rutgers and author of three books of political history, has written the "History Lesson" column since 1998.
Photograph of Lyndon Johnson on Slate's home page by Oscar White/Corbis.
COMMENTS

Reader Comments From The Fray:

David Greenberg states what many in the civil rights movement would like to think -- that blacks rose up and claimed their rights for themselves, with Johnson playing an arguably important but in no way essential role. This is nonsense. Civil rights legislation would not have happened without the civil rights movement, but it would not have happened without Johnson either. The 1970s made painfully clear that Northern sympathy for the plight of African Americans, while genuine, was limited. What the tactics of the civil rights movement in the South, and the violent reaction to it by segregationist Southerners did was open a window of opportunity. A President less determined than Johnson to put something worthwhile through that window would probably not have done so; time would have passed, the segregationists would have suppressed civil rights protesters, and the country would have passed on to other things.

To acknowledge Johnson's skill in knowing what the Congressional traffic would bear on civil rights as Majority Leader and President and getting as much as he did is not to derogate the achievements of the civil rights movement or anyone in it, any more than the achievements of the French Resistance are devalued by the acknowledgement that the chief liberators of France in 1944 were not French

--Zathras

(To find or answer this post, click here.)


I shook his hand in Southern California in the fall of '64. A vulgar, Rabelasian figure--no wonder not one general or admiral dared stand up to him and resign over the conduct of the Indo China War. If one of them had in 1964 or 1965, perhaps over 58,000 Americans would not have died in that futile effort. Can anyone name anybody on the Joint Chiefs of Staff that did rebel, man to man and tell him directly that it was not worth one American limb or life? LBJ did have reservations, but he would not admit it. How he kowtowed to Kennedy and accepted being a VP amazes me.

--MBD

(To find or answer this post, click here.)


Many English politicians rate Robert Caro's biography of Lyndon Johnson their favorite political biography. The reason for this is it shows not only what happened, but how it happened. This is what is special about Robert Caro's work. Yes he could have had a shorter biography if had only told what, when and where things happened in his life. He is trying to show us how American politics work. All of the compromises and deals that need to be cut..

--Martin Kannengieser

(To find or answer this post, click here.)

(5/1)

What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
TODAY'S PICTURES
TODAY'S CARTOONS
TODAY'S DOONESBURY
TODAY'S VIDEO
The smog of China.59/091210_TP.jpg
Cartoonists' take on health care.73/091210_TC.jpg
Tiger tanks.74/091210_TD.jpg