
Master of the Senate

Dear David,
I think I can anticipate what you think is problematic about Caro's treatment of the 1957 Civil Rights Act: He's trying to make it carry more thematic freight than is justified, right? For one, Caro wants the episode to illustrate Johnson's skill. When the bill is being debated, particularly in the chapter "Yeas and Nays," Caro makes it seem as if Johnson is fighting against nearly impossible odds. And yet, earlier in the book, in his biographical passage on Richard Russell, he highlights Russell's brilliance and cunning by portraying the Southern senators' pro-segregation stance as doomed unless the senators played their hand absolutely perfectly. When Johnson presents his bill, suddenly the Southern bloc—now in tandem with the conservative Republicans behind California's William Knowland—looks invincible again.
For another, Caro wants the battle over the 1957 bill to illustrate Johnson's compassion: It's evidence of his compassion that he is willing to engage in such desperate horse-trading and to alienate his old base.
And yet, throughout, I'm struck by how woefully weak the case for Johnson's "compassion" is. Johnson once yelled at his substitute limousine driver, "Let me tell you one thing, nigger. As long as you are black, and you're gonna be black till the day you die, no one's gonna call you by your goddamn name. So no matter what you are called, nigger, you just let it roll off your back like water, and you'll make it. Just pretend you're a goddamn piece of furniture." Wow. This strikes me as a pretty silver-lining-less piece of outright abuse, the worst kind of Jim Crow recreational racism—made worse by the pseudo-pedagogical "listen-to-your-betters" condescension. Caro doesn't read it that way. He says that Johnson "used these epithets, and the pain they caused, in a different way, to teach the employee the lesson Johnson felt everyone had to learn, a lesson Johnson felt would lead to an improvement in the employee's life: that it was necessary to accept reality, to face harsh facts and push beyond them …"
It's good that Caro has recovered this incident, but he has misread it. I find him wholly gullible on the matter of LBJ's sympathy for have-nots. This is the volume where Johnson the "liberal icon" (a cliché, but a useful one here) begins to nudge aside Johnson the realpolitiker, so we're constantly running across passages like this: "And [Johnson, as a young teacher,] saw into his pupils' hearts. 'I saw hunger in their eyes and pain in their bodies,' Lyndon Johnson would say years later. 'Those little brown bodies had so little and needed so much.' " This is schlock. Johnson's straitened upbringing in the Hill Country gave him a vocabulary with which to describe the downtrodden of all races. But the evidence that it gave him a jot of sympathy for them is weak or nonexistent.
Now, having brought this up, I should immediately add that it doesn't bother me. That's because Caro—whom you're right to view as almost as power-drunk as his subject—never loses sight of the fact that, for Johnson, everything always came second to power. To change the subject for a sec, that's why I also agree with you that LBJ is ultimately unworthy of a biography of this depth. Power is one of the most important things in human life, but it is also the least subtle and the most boring. Power-mania renders Johnson's "appetites" and his "compassion" and his "single-mindedness" mere superficialities. I don't think I've ever read a biography of a more two-dimensional person; over the long haul, he emerges as infantile, petty, and tedious.
What happened to make Johnson change from a dug-in seg speaking weepily about "we of the South" to a champion of civil rights? Well, for one, Brown v. Board of Education. For another, the lynching of Emmett Till and a series of other last-ditch outrages rendered Northern opinion rock-solid against segregation. In short, what changed was the political climate, at just the moment Johnson began to think about the presidential nomination in 1960. The New Deal strategist Tommy Corcoran (whose readings of day-to-day events are consistently the most astute things in this book) describes Johnson's bizarre, eleventh-hour effort to throw his name into consideration for the presidential nomination in 1956, after his shilly-shallying had already sent his natural Southern allies over to Adlai Stevenson. Johnson took an important lesson from the obdurate refusal of Walter Reuther and all the Northern Democratic delegations to play ball with him. Says Corcoran: "He really thought these guys were going to come around. Hell, as long as he wasn't with them on civil rights, they were never going to support him!" So, when Johnson trolled the Southern Caucus for votes for the 1957 bill, saying, "We have to give the Negroes something," what he meant was, "You have to give me something"—to run on three years from now. And this is something about which Caro is always admirably clear.
Let me finish by answering the question with which you start your letter: How will Caro fit the remaining 13 years of Johnson's life (actually 16, since this volume wraps itself up rather perfunctorily after 1957) into the remainder of the series? As a practical matter, there cannot be three more volumes. Caro is approaching 70 and writing at a 10-year-per-volume pace. But there's also a problem with two volumes: Johnson's presidency is stuck dead-center of three uneventful years as veep and five uneventful ones as a Texas rancher. So, you'd have to split them in the middle of his presidency—say, in 1965—after the enactment of the civil-rights and social legislation, but before the escalation in Vietnam. My prediction, then, is another door-stopper, maybe even a longer volume than this one, which would come out around 2015. Maybe Slate will let us review it.
Best,
C.
Why Is Obama Always Talking About "False Choices"?
The Lovely Bones: Peter Jackson's Attempt To Show Us Heaven
Is It Practical To Kill Someone by Boiling Him in Lye?
Justice Stevens Is the Court's Last WASP. Should Obama Replace Him With Another One?
How Hanukkah Became a Major Holiday
Will Avatar Be a Flop or Tremendously Successful?















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)