Week 11 Blog -- Kennedy and Johnson
Using Lammers and Geneovese, and the additional readings for Thursday, provide your perspective on the positive and negatives of the leadership styles of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Which president do you view as more successful? Why? What could have the less successful president done to change things?
Presidents
One of the most surprising pieces of information I picked up in the readings this week was how populist JFK appeared to be. The Genovese and Lammers chapter listed a wide variety of legislation, from education funding to civil rights legislation to a rise in minimum wage. I've personally come to the conclusion that a lot of JFK's strengths are also his weaknesses-- for example, JFK is held in high esteem for his charisma and success in inspiring the American people, but critics can counter this by asserting that he pandered to the cries of the people at any chance he got. Kennedy's sudden switch in stances to the civil rights debate (after two years of largely staying neutral on the subject) could be evidence of that. To end on a positive note, I feel that JFK set a lot of presidential precedents (such as giving live news conferences) and laid a foundation that Lyndon B. Johnson could build upon.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Johnson goes, he is known for his negative image near the end of his presidency; however, he seems like much more of a workhorse than Kennedy ever was and had almost unprecedented several key successes during his time in office. Their leadership approaches and upbringings both seem to be polar opposites of each other-- Johnson was a relatively uneducated man with a rougher upbringing than the Harvard-educated, sheltered Kennedy. This likely accounts for Johnson's in-your-face, hardball leadership which he used to great effect in both the Senate and the Oval Office. A possible critique of Johnson is that he finished what Kennedy started and gained the advantage of passing legislation by using Kennedy as a martyr, which I find to be an interesting point. It is obviously hard to measure this potential effect, but some of Johnson's ideas certainly weren't far off from Kennedy's and especially FDR's, whom Johnson tried to emulate. A counter to this is that Johnson sometimes expanded upon those ideas, such as in the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Overall, however, I feel that Johnson's inability to work with the media hurt him greatly. This, combined with an incredibly unpopular invasion of Vietnam, is what doomed Johnson's chances at a second full term in office.
To wrap things up, I would say that Johnson overall had a better presidency than JFK and was thus more successful, but it's hard to say what JFK would have done with another year in office. However, I think that Johnson was certainly more polarizing in his actions-- the book notes that he either had overwhelming successes or "glaring weaknesses". JFK was perhaps more consistent or moderate in his actions, so given more time, JFK may have passed more landmark legislation and emerged as the more successful of the two.
Based on the information in the readings it seems that JFK and LBJ were two parts to one whole political machine. From what I know about the JFK regime, it seems he ran on and continued to provide the same "hope" that was characteristic of President Obama's 2008 campaign. But hope isn't enough and JFK (sadly) didn't live long enough to really accomplish anything substantial. While this might make him seem like an "unsuccessful" President, I feel that's a pretty unfair assessment. LBJ on the other hand was a different man, one who seemed very intent on "getting he job done." What JFK lacked in legislative and administrative power, LBJ made up for. But with how much legislative success LBJ enjoyed, he seemed to enjoy that much less success in connecting with the people (especially at the end of his term).
ReplyDeleteI guess I would say JFK would be the more "successful" of the two, but I think that also has a lot to do with the circumstances that surrounded his death.
The leadership styles of Johnson and Kennedy varied greatly and hence set the tone of the Sixties. Kennedy began the decade as a idealist striving for greatness. Johnson took over ended the decade in protest and revolution.
ReplyDeleteKennedy sought to realize numerous grandiose ideas and did so through his charismatic leadership, though one will easily find him guilty of nepotism. Johnson, according to Genovese and Lammers, was an “accidental president” who managed to smooth the administrative transition well, but who let his personal issues cloud his rational judgment as the years wore on.
In terms of success, I find Kennedy to be more successful (but I am doing my term paper on him so I am biased). Through my readings I have found that many of JFK’s plans were executed and Johnson’s successes, like the Civil Rights Act, would have been completed in a similar time frame if Kennedy had lived. However, we will never know. I also feel Johnson would be remembered more fondly if he had simply not gotten so caught up in Vietnam.
In my opinion Kennedy will always be remembered as the more popular president. When people look at America in the 1960s, I believe most think of JFK rather than LBJ. Before any of the readings I had always thought of Kennedy as the young, charismatic, strong advocate for civil rights who would have accomplished a great deal more if he was not assassinated. On the contrary, whenever I thought of President Johnson I envisioned a harsh, out of touch president who ramped up the Vietnam War. However, after reading Genovese I learned that these statements are only half-truths and do not tell the whole story of either president.
ReplyDeleteThe readings suggest that Kennedy actually remained fairly neutral in his stance on civil rights for most of his presidency. It was only after the 1963 police violence in Birmingham when Kennedy began taking a more aggressive approach towards desegregation via executive orders. After the JFK assassination, Johnson enacted a slew of legislation (Civil Rights Act of 1964, War on Poverty, etc) that gave the civil rights movement much of its legal teeth. Some scholars suggest that Kennedy laid the foundation for much of this legislation. Others argue that LBJ could only accomplish this legislative enactment by using Kennedy’s martyrdom as a stepping-stone. Regardless, I see President Johnson’s Great Society (which also included Medicare, Medicaid, and education reform) as the fulfillment of President Kennedy’s New Frontier.
In summary it is hard to determine which president was more successful when Kennedy’s tenure in office was so short. I agree with Rochelle that both of these presidents can be seen as two parts to one whole. Perhaps if given time, Kennedy would have enacted the same legislation Johnson did. However, Kennedy just as easily could have fallen victim to the same pitfalls that Vietnam posed for Johnson. Kennedy was much more camera friendly and better with the press. Kennedy’s approval ratings averaged above sixty percent, which still remains an all-time high. But I don’t think this alone determines presidential success. If you look at the two side by side, it is clear that Johnson accomplished much more. So while JFK will always be the popular choice, I believe LBJ was more successful.
It's a little difficult to pinpoint or compare and contrast on some sort of rubric the different Presidential Administrations. Kennedy, in my opinion, definitely was not one the greatest presidents. Yet, JFK remains if not the, one of the most admired presidents of the 20th century. But when you look at his presidency, it actually seems sort of hollow. The thing is, JFK was never just a president, from the moment he was sworn into office, he became a symbol. A symbol for hope and change which America was so desperate for. He stood for (although not at first) civil rights, equality, freedom, he said things like "Ask not what America can do..." and before this, no president had ever really leveled himself so well with his citizens. You can say he was lucky almost, although he wasn't around long, to have been able to be around in a time when the opportunity to unify this country and connect with his citizens was so available. He had a certain quality that just made Americans feel hopeful, some would argue it was his youth, or his looks, the way he spoke; kind of like Obama, although I believe the two are vehemently different.
ReplyDeleteLBJ on the other hand, was definitely a little rougher on the edges. The first thing that comes into mind is that Kennedy and Johnson are the perfect example of why this whole system that America has for choosing their vice presidents is extremely flawed. Kennedy and Johnson may have both been democrats, but they probably had about as much in common as a goat and a blow fish. However, Kennedy NEEDED Johnson to carry an anti-civil rights south. So that's why when you look at their presidency's, while you don't necessarily see a 360 degree turn, the ultimate differences in the basic political principles between the two cause an apparent shift in American political economy when we go from Kennedy to Johnson so abruptly. For example, many would argue to say that had Kennedy been alive, things in Vietnam would have gone EXTREMELY different.
Ultimately, the actual presidency's of both men were pretty average, but both had to deal with an America that was almost "shedding," Things were changing, and faster than they ever had before. They probably cradled America during some of her toughest years. So kudos to them!
The leadership styles of Kennedy and Johnson were very different and I don't know if you could say that one was more successful for two reasons. One, that Kennedy's Presidency was cut short by his assassination, and two, that the men almost seemed to have different goals to go along with their completely different styles.
ReplyDeleteKennedy was more of a heroic and inspiring leader. He led through his ability to unite and inspire Americans. this might even best be embodied in his promise that we would land on the moon by the end of the decade in the competition with the Soviet Union. In this respect he succeeded, holding the highest approval rating of any President since Hoover. However, he had much more trouble with getting legislation passed than Johnson. Some would say that Kennedy laid the groundwork for Johnson, and that he would have carried the domestic and social change policies through. Unfortunately we will never know due to the brevity of Kennedy's presidency.
Johnson was much more of a Washington insider and knew how to cut deals, and get legislation put threw. In this respect he was very successful, getting legislation like the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Although Johnson was not know for his appeals to the public he did have a few shining moments, particularly noteworthy was his speech on the troubling events in Selma, Alabama, which garnered support for voting rights legislation. If it had not been for Vietnam, Johnson would hardly have a spot on his record.
Overall I would say that, with the exception of Vietnam, Johnson was the more successful president. I believe that both were successful but Johnson was the president that ended up making lasting changes...
It is known by many of President Kennedy’s staff that he challenged advice and assumptions of experts all the time. During his presidency he was faced with a lot of dilemmas, the biggest being the threat of nuclear war. Kennedy was smart it assembling a cabinet and white house staff from all different backgrounds. I think Kennedy was genuine in his attempt to help the American people. He was a great motivational speaker and was presented to the world as a hero. Which in his own right he was. He approached congressional issues very cautiously and used flattery quite often to get his way. Kennedy preferred debating about policy rather then using intimidation or bargaining with congressman. His biggest mistake in office was the Pay of Pigs fiasco, yet he still held popularity in the US.
ReplyDeleteLBJ’s leadership style was very different from Kennedy. He was very aggressive and not afraid to use intimidation with fellow congressmen. To be fair he was 6’4. Johnson advisory staff was modeled after FDR, his hero. Despite what some may think, he was very involved in all operations. He was consistent and aggressive, waking up early, holding meetings in his bedroom, and calling congressman. His work ethic was consistent. Unfortunately, what over shadows all the great things he did was the Vietnam war. So I would say that LBJ was a more successful president despite the war. He enacted the “Great Society” along with its reforms like Medicare and Medicaid. He also passed important civil rights legislation. Kennedy had at the top of his agenda important issues like Medicare and civil rights and chose to hold off enacting such legislations. Sadly, his death only gave him a little over 300 days to be in office. If Kennedy would of lived he would of accomplished a lot more.
One of the positives of President Kennedy’s leadership style is that he attempted to create diversity within his own cabinet. He wanted to know all sides of an issue and take the best course of action. JFK attempted to get the best and the brightest to aid him. Another positive of Kennedy’s leadership style was that he tried to be inclusive. This is seen with President Kennedy including forty peoples opinion to find out how to expand the Office of Legislative Relations. One of the negatives of President Kennedy’s leadership style was that he was disinterested in the federal bureaucracy and therefore, was slow to act on civil right issues. Another negative of President Kennedy’s leadership style appeared in the public eye. In his attempt to portray himself as heroic, he used the bully pulpit excessively.
ReplyDeleteOne of the positives of President Johnson’s guidance style was “decisive leadership was essential.” This is a positive because once you make a decision you should stick with it. However, this can also be seen as a negative because if you are wrong and are stubborn, than it could cause serious damage. This is seen with Vietnam where LBJ was too stubborn to pull American troops. Another positive of President Johnson’s leadership style was that the “president should speak for all individuals and interests.” This is seen with President Johnson’s constant checking of public polls, which shows he cared about his constituents.
The president that I viewed as more successful was President Kennedy. I feel that if you hear all sides to a problem, than you can make a more informed decision. President Johnson could have improved his leadership skill by not being so stubborn. By being stubborn, you are making and all or nothing call son every issue. If you are unwilling to change your strategy when it is failing, then it could create even bigger issues.
From the readings presented from Lammers and Geneovese, we have an interesting view on two unique presidents. John Kennedy was the Camelot President, who swayed the country with his charm, good looks, family, intellect and family background. He became the martyr, his actual achievements more limited than the mysticism of the New Frontier. Kennedy's leadership style revolved around the large wheel, where everything came to center. This helped him with his military reservation regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis, failed him with his legislative failures and the Bay of Pigs incident. His authorization of President Diem's assassination was also a catastrophic mistake.
ReplyDeleteLyndon Johnson was the master of Congress, having influence over practically everyone. He held every major office of the U.S. Federal Government. His control of congressmen knew no bounds, and he dominated almost everyone. The "Johnson Treatment" could have him cajole, humor, threaten, belittle, blackmail, or numerous other emotions of the human spectrum. His miserable handling of the Vietnam War and the country unraveling under social turmoil came under his flawed lack of leadership. He lacked the charm, intellect and charisma of Kennedy. He was a magnificent success on legislative initiatives, greater than Kennedy could ever dream of and only second to Roosevelt.
A less successful could have shifted the agenda of an administration, as Johnson could have done with Vietnam. It is a hard question to say what a less successful president could have done, seeing how many different variables one would have to factor for.
*A less successful president
DeleteI find it very difficult to compare these two men in that their time served as president could not have varied more. JFK, a young charming president took the White House by storm, with his high approval ratings and a cabinet that could help him succeed as president. LBJ, however, termed as the “accidental president,” previously an overshadowed vice-president, was then thrown into his presidency in a time of great American sorrow.
ReplyDeleteKennedy’s time served as president was indeed monumental and he is without a doubt an inspiration, but nevertheless it was a very short presidency, LBJ however, not only completed Kennedy’s term, but served another term as well. LBJ encountered quite a bit more than Kennedy in his time as president and it is very hard to tell if JFK would have done anything differently. I feel LBJ was more successful on account of his accomplishments while in office focused on what he wanted to accomplished and saw most of them through.
One of the most significant things that President John F. Kennedy introduced into the presidency is what Genovese calls the "politics of expectation." He is largely responsible for enlarging the importance of a popular and public presidency in the United States. While this emphasis most definitely aided public consensus at the time, Camelot set highly unrealistic expectations on the presidents that would follow JFK, many of which were expectations that President Kennedy himself did not actually satisfy. That being said, Kennedy was a brilliant leader when it came to foreign policy. Had his life not been taken from him, I am sure that there would have been more to evaluate him on.
ReplyDeleteAs previously noted, Kennedy's forte was foreign policy. It was an area he had placed great emphasis on from the time he was a teenager studying at Harvard. Johnson, on the other hand, was significantly stronger in domestic politics. He was a master legislator, perhaps one of the most, if not the most, talented in the area. Had his presidency not been tainted by the Vietnam War, his legislative leadership would probably receive the accolades it truly deserves.
Because the two differed so greatly in their approach to leadership, it is very difficult to compare their effectiveness. It can be said, though, that stylistically, Kennedy's leadership was definitely much more proficient. In terms of how much legislative progress was made, Johnson supersedes Kennedy.
I think the success of either president depends on the preference we spoke on earlier in the class, on percentage of goals accomplished, or on the success of big ticket goals. JFK certainly did not get to pass many big ticket items, as his presidency was cut short by assassination. However, many of his goals, that he often set in motion during his presidency, would come to fruition in the near future. Whether you can give JFK the credit for these successes is up for debate.
ReplyDeleteLBJ, by comparison, passed many of his big ticket items in his first couple years, and was, at first, generally successful in the legislature with his many connections and his party controlling Congress. However, in his later years, he lost Congressional control, and the Vietnam war chipped away at his popularity and efficacy.
Overall I would say LBJ was more successful. While LBJ eventually was seen as a bad president during his last few years, I think that this is all but inevitable for a president, especially one at war, and that this should not take away from the many social accomplishments he had. In the words of Harvey Dent: "you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become a villain."
In my opinion, President Kennedy and President Johnson were two dynamically different leaders. Kennedy utilized a general, idealistic style which relied on big picture ideas. On the other hand, Johnson was much more pragmatic in his approach, utilizing his decades of Washington experience.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, the personal characteristics distinguished their leadership styles as well. Kennedy tended to be more charismatic and sincere whereas Johnson was harsh, tough, and intimidating (as seen through "the treatment").
What makes it difficult to decide who was more successful is that fact that Johnson was an accidental president after Kennedy's assassination. The course of history may have been drastically different had Kennedy finished his term, and possibly a second. But to me, Johnson was more successful due to his passage of the Civil Rights Act. He had more long-lasting impact on the social lives of many American whereas Kennedy's impact was more of legend than practicality.
I believe that both Presidents had great leadership styles. However those styles were completely different, but more importantly both president’s got results by using their leadership to the fullest extent. President John F. Kennedy used his charisma and inspiration to get results. In my opinion he was a caring President that genuinely cared about the United States as a whole. However the reason that I admire him the most, his empathy, might be his biggest downfall. He had a lot of trouble getting congress to listen to him, especially on civil rights. He was also hounded because they criticized him for caring too much about the public and was always trying to appease the American people. Even the reason of his death was because he truly loved and cared for the American public, the plans for Kennedy’s parade route on that fateful November afternoon were public knowledge and he refused the get in a covered vehicle because he wanted the public to see him. Nonetheless Kennedy had many great successes like the first man on the moon, the avoidance of nuclear war against the USSR and the handling of the Cuban missile crisis. One thing is for certain, he would have gotten more accomplished if his presidency had not been cut short. One the other hand President Lyndon B. Johnson had a much more direct approach to leadership. He was raised in a poor family and was always in trouble with the law as a teenager. His mother only showed him love when he succeeds by bringing home good grades, and his dad was a drinker as well as a Politian. I believe that it was because of these circumstances in his childhood that President Johnson had such a tough and intimidating leadership style. He used his intimidating and hardball approach in order to get legislation passed congress including the civil rights act and reforms for Medicare. However, President Johnson became very unpopular with his involvement in the Vietnam War. In conclusion I think that Kennedy was a better president with less successes, and Johnson was a worst president with more successes.
ReplyDeleteJohn f. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson both had similar leadership styles in some ways, while largely remaining somewhat different. JFK preferred more of a style that let his cool demeanor and strong action influence the way his adversaries did not expect. Lyndon B. Johnson was more of the type that prefered more action and less controversy, which led to the way he was handled as president compared to JFK.
ReplyDeleteWhen you look at presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, you see two very distinct and different men on an abundance of issues ranging from their politics and personal lives, making their time spent together serving as President and Vice President all the more interesting. John F. Kennedy will always be widely remembered as a Democratic Party and American political legend due to the fact that he rose into the spotlight as the youngest elected President, came from a family of an American political dynasty, and led with a sort of cool charisma that inspired the masses and led to his historically high popularity. All of that combined with his tragic assassination is a large reason that Kennedy's presidency will likely remain as more of a legend than anything. Kennedy made some changes such as work on education funding, a raise in the minimum wage, and and getting the ball rolling on advancements on civil rights issues (after remaining largely silent on the issue for the early part of his time in office), but as his life and presidency was tragically cut short, so were his accomplishments. president Kennedy was unable to accomplish much of what I believe he was hoping to do and had the blunder with the Bay of Pigs incident, but I believe that it is unfair to judge his tenure as president as a failure due to the fact that it was cut short and we can not know what would have followed had he been able to carry on. Just as we do not judge any other president on the first two years of their time in office, I don't think that we can say definitively that he was a failed or even a successful president based off of such a short time in office as many presidents do not accomplish or fail in many of their endeavors in office during just their first two years.
ReplyDeleteAs far as president Lyndon Johnson is concerned, I think it is important to consider him being thrown into office at the spur of the moment following the assassination of president Kennedy just moments before taking office no less. The time period that he entered the office of the presidency was one of much chaos and I believe that he did as good of a job consoling the nation as about anyone in that position could do. While Johnson had issues dealing with the media and not as effective a communicator in the method of persuasion as Kennedy was, he used his brash south Texas temper to convince members of Congress on many issues which was instrumental to many of his successes. Johnson was also successful in his use of appealing to emotions to promote his agenda as an effort to “finish the work of Kennedy, as well as FDR” whom Johnson largely tried to emulate while in office. One of the major high points for Johnson was the passage of historic civil rights legislation which I think along with the major failure that was the Vietnam War will be what he is primarily remembered for. I would say that Johnson was someone who made some great accomplishments that he set out to do, but for a large part bit off more than he could chew thinking that he could handle escalation in Vietnam while expecting that he would still have the time and resources to better the nation here at home.
All in all, it is hard to say which of Kennedy and Johnson was “better” than the other, but while I do admire the accomplishments that Johnson achieved while in office, I find it hard to argue that any president choosing not to run again due to his unpopularity with the American people and poor handling of the Vietnam War was successful in the big picture. I believe that had Kennedy been able to continue on as president, he would have probably been more successful and we likely would not have had as big of a disaster in Vietnam as we did under Johnson
One major benefit of President Kennedy's leadership style was his charisma and charm. This is a quality he had that President Johnson never matched. President Kennedy was criticized however for seeming to be too concerned with what the public thought. Kennedy was successful in some respects, such as his phenomenal handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but was never able to fully accomplish what he wanted due to his assassination. Thus, despite being an American legend, his accomplishments were limited by his shortened time.
ReplyDeletePresident Johnson was characterized by his more direct and aggressive leadership style. He would be criticized heavily later on in his presidency for his involvement in the Vietnam War, but he still managed to get Civil Rights legislation passed. This is a major point of success for President Johnson, although the process of passing that legislation was started by JFK, so it is debatable whether that success should be entirely attributed to LBJ.
Deciding which president was better than the other is difficult. JFK may have had more charm than LBJ, helping him to become a legend, but LBJ had a more effective leadership style that allowed him to more effectively get things done than JFK was able to do. In a way, each president could have learned from the other. The strengths of one are the weaknesses of the other.
President Kennedy is considered by many as one of the greatest Presidents. His charm and charisma won of the nation and crowned his as one of the most poplar president's to take office. His handling of the Cuban missile crisis earned him respect from the American public along with those in Congress. Te one feature that Kennedy was criticized for was empathy, even though most Americans liked Kennedy for this very feature. He had trouble convincing Congress in passing legislation for civil rights and other significant legislation on his agenda. His term in office was cut short due to his assassination but if given the chance to carry out his full term, many believe he would have been an effective in passing his legislation in Congress.
ReplyDeleteLyndon B. Johnson on the other hand had a much different experience in entering office as well as his approach as president. LBJ was known for his bullying demeanor in Congress. He was vital in the passage of civil rights legislation the Kennedy left of in doing. Unfortunately, the Vietnam war and LBJ's personal mission to not be the first president to lose the war lost him popular support in the United States and divided the nation.
In my opinion, Kennedy can be considered the more successful president because of the high aspirations and ability to move the nation. His assassination left many Americans wondering how the nation would have differed if Kennedy was still in power, many of which believe for the better. They only thing LBJ could have changed is his approach to the Vietnam war to change his final years in office.
Although I agree with the authors that Kennedy and Johnson should be viewed more as two parts of a whole, I personally consider Lyndon B. Johnson to be the more successful president due to his success in the implementation of landmark Civil rights and Social reforms, under his so called “Great Society”, that impacted America for many years to come.
ReplyDeleteJohnson was a true workhorse that led with experience. He was very pragmatic and knew how to work congressional leaders and push his legislative agenda. His guidance during the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Social Security Amendments of 1965 (that led to Medicare and Medicaid) were instrumental in permanently altering the course of American political discussion. Johnson’s ability to work with Congress to garner the votes for such large forms of legislation likely stemmed from his former leadership as Speaker of the House. Although he was an “accidental president” he did a tremendous job while in office. Sadly, the Vietnam War tarnished his record in office and lost him a huge amount of public support.
John F. Kennedy embodied charismatic leadership. He would enact a sort of “politics of expectation” wherein he would use the bully pulpit function of the presidency to voice huge idealistic policy goals. While he was a more popular President, he lacked the legislative experience necessary to convince congressional leaders to take strong positions on issues such as civil rights and financial reform. In fact he himself would often switch viewpoints on controversial issues, this was true especially when it came to civil rights reform. Arguably his biggest achievement came in setting the groundwork for what were to become Johnson’s social successes.
Both Kennedy and Johnson had a large impact on the presidency during their term in office. Kennedy led the country with great charisma, which Johnson lacked but at times he seemed overly concerned with the way the public perceived him. Johnson's positives relied on his involvement with civil right legislations, but he was viewed upon negatively of his handling of the Vietnam war. Johnson's was put into a tough situation seeing that his presidency began as a result of Kennedy's death.
ReplyDeleteBetween Johnson and Kennedy, I find Johnson to have been more successful because of his repertoire of passing legislation, specifically civil rights legislation. Even tho Kennedy began the process civil right legislations, Johnson was able to get the job completed, and Kennedy was in office too short of a time.
If Kennedy would not have been assassinated then my answer on who was more successful would more than likely be different.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe presidencies of Kennedy and Johnson are vastly different because the two men were vastly different in their attitude. One was the likable guy, the other was the get things done guy.
ReplyDeleteKennedy was the 'Camelot' candidate, who the country wanted to look upon because he was graced with qualities that were seen by many as more that of a hero. He has charm, good looks, and a family lineage that was impressive. Even to this day people say the Kennedy's are the closest thing to American royalty. His leadership style was one where he wanted to be involved in everything.
Johnson, on the other hand was more manipulative and was known for his intimidation of Congress. Johnson was in contrast to Kennedy someone who wanted to get things done and didn't care how his image looked. Kennedy was more about people liking him and creating relationships.
I think that Johnson is the more successful president. While Kennedy will most likely always be seen as the more popular and successful president all that is in reality a myth. Kennedy had a lot of expectations when he was elected and when he died so early in his term, those expectations stayed with him and to many the expectations became things that he was actually responsible for, when in truth he wasn't. It was Johnson that was able to push through the expectations that was bestowed on Kennedy but the myth is too strong and therefore Johnson is seen as an unsuccessful president. Kennedy was a failure in the Bay of Pigs and Johnson was a failure in Vietnam but the charm that Kennedy had I think still shields a lot of criticism about him even to this day. What Kennedy could have done different was not try to invade Cuba, because I don't think anyone was really thinking it would work that's why Eisenhower never went through with it.
Kennedy and Johnson were each very successful during their tenures. Each president had a lasting impact on the presidency that can still be felt today.
ReplyDeleteKennedy was not in office long enough to have a lasting impact on his domestic policy. His presidency is known much more for his ability to handle foreign affairs effectively. As we know from Johnson and Nixon, not everyone is capable of handling foreign affairs smoothly. Kennedy was able to avoid a nuclear war with mutually assured destruction, establish protection for the United States at one of its closest enemies and come out looking the like the winner of the situation. Kennedy did face foreign policy problems with the Bay of Pigs, but was able to maneuver his way into good standing with Americans with his handling of the Cuban missile crisis. Kennedy also laid out the foundation for the Vietnam conflict without actually making it a huge conflict.
Johnson was able to fight for civil rights in America and attempted to establish his Great Society. Johnson cared for the American people and wanted to better America. The problem with Johnson was that he wasn't the most popular president which made it difficult for Johnson's greatest victory is almost one of the longest standing positive things to happen to America. He got civil rights legislation passed during a time when many did not think it was possible. He legally changed the most difficult barrier in America and it's impact has been longstanding.
Between the two presidents I would say that Kennedy was the better because of how he managed to avoid entering a nuclear war during the hottest time of the Cold War. Overall both has a tremendous impact on the presidency, but Kennedy narrowly edged out Johnson because of his wider scale impact.
John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson displayed vastly different styles, giving each a distinct set of strengths and weaknesses. Kennedy’s strength was his wild popularity. As the televised debates between Nixon and Kennedy showed, Kennedy was favored for his good looks, sociability, and relaxed attitude. He knew exactly how to get a crowd of people to love him while still coming across as a capable leader. For this reason, Kennedy’s worst mistakes, which had the capability of being disasters, were only setbacks. After the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy could have easily lost the majority of his supporters instead, he was able to keep the public’s trust and become even more popular. Kennedy being a straightforward man publicly admitted his mistake and the citizens appreciated him for it.
ReplyDeleteKennedy’s astounding ability to realize and accept his faults was a strength not found in Lyndon Johnson. When LBJ was faced with a situation similar to the Bay of Pigs, he could not realize his mistake and correct it. The Vietnam War was incredibly unpopular and draining, yet LBJ’s intransigence and pride held him back from ending the war.
Despite this, Johnson was able to make some of the most sweeping changes to the American way of life due to his ability to persuade people to his side. He tended to bully members of the Congress with his aggressive and passionate views, which for the purposes of the office of president was a good thing. It made him capable of passing things like food stamps, Medicare, and Medicaid.
LBJ’s experience with Congress and political maneuvering was is big strength, while Kennedy lacked some of these points. Kennedy was a young president and did not have the experience that LBJ so obviously possessed. I believe that LBJ was the more successful president in that his vision for the United States was successfully implemented, which is a shock the nation feels to this day.
As Lammers and Genovese outlined, JFK's public leadership revolved around his development of personal popularity, cautious use of policy appeals, and the use of the bully pulpit to promote individual actions. Although his failure with the Bay of Pigs, and various rumored affairs, JFK has managed to maintain a lasting legacy of hope for many Americans. LBJ used his power to manipulate the media and push aggressively to develop legislative proposals. JFK's assassination was a shock to the country-as was LBJ's decision to decline another term as president. Although most Americans had lost faith in LBJ by the time his term was concluding, he is still credited for major landmarks in civil rights. I think because of his passage of the Civil Rights Act, he paved the way for a more equal America and for this I would consider him more successful than JFK. Each president has their successes and failures but I think in the long-term, LBJ was able to complete the legislation to end discrimination. Lammers and Genovese state that as an administrative strategy, JFK would periodically take strong action. For JFK to have been considered more successful, I think he would have had to take more action more often.
ReplyDeleteWhen examining the presidencies of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, it quickly becomes apparent that their leadership styles were in stark opposition to one another. President Kennedy's charismatic personality cajoled the American public into record high approval ratings. As a fulfillment of the Kennedy legacy, John's presidency was marked with notions of "hope" and change. Despite his political successes in the issues of minimum wage and education, the pivotal concern for civil rights was only partly addressed before his assassination. President Johnson subsequently inherited the presidency at one of the most tumultuous times in American history. His rough exterior was often interpreted as negative form of political coercion, but it must be realized that this was truly one of the most difficult presidencies of the 20th century, with the exception of FDR. His aspirations for a "great society" were unwillingly placed on the back-burner in favor of the national war effort in Vietnam. Wright or Wrong, this dramatically unpopular war is often a solely attributed to the Johnson presidency.
ReplyDeleteLooking back, while President Kennedy was clearly one of the most popular presidents in American history, it is hard to characterize a presidency as successful after only 3 years. The Johnson presidency successfully pacified certain tensions with a near seamless transition following the assassination of JFK. While he may not have been the most popular president, Johnson successfully addressed the issue of Civil Rights while also dealing with the most unpopular wars in American history.
One thing that the American public fell in love with regarding Kennedy was his charm, youth, and charisma. Having that type of advantaged, the media saw him as someone they could trust and as someone they wanted leading the nation. One huge positive was his focus on civil rights. This was still a hard pressed issue in the early 60’s and his push to strengthen civil rights proved crucial. A negative would have been his failure in his foreign agenda. It is believed that he laid the groundwork for an expansion of war, which is not what America wanted.
ReplyDeleteOne bad leadership quality with Lyndon Johnson was his abuse of power. This was evident when he pushed legislation through Congress to give him power to do whatever he wanted in Vietnam. As far as good, he worked hard and he worked a lot. Johnson is seen as one of the hardest working presidents working many hours to get his agenda sold to the American people. It made him known as a legislative genius.
I see Lyndon Johnson as more effective. It is just too hard to evaluate everything for Kennedy because he did not serve a full-term in the presidency. And one cannot deny everything that Johnson did for the American people. He worked tirelessly in office. Many said a normal day for him was over 16 hours of working. So as far as being leader, one cannot refute Johnson because a leader puts his people’s needs first and works hard for them, which is exactly what Lyndon Johnson did.
The differences between Kennedy and Johnson are stark and boil down to their very different personalities. Kennedy was a charismatic people person who constantly took into consideration public opinion and even changed his positions slightly to conform to their ideals (ie Civil Rights.) Sometimes this was a strength and history certainly remembers him in a positive, even glorified, light. Unfortunately he didn't have a long time in office so we will never be able to fully know or understand his potential. I think Johnson was a more effective president even though he isn't remembered as a hero or a celebrity. He stepped into the presidency at an extremely difficult time in American history and, although he is sometimes faulted for it, his rough intense political persona helped him navigate the disaster that was the Vietnam War. He was able to put his personal ambitions for his "Great Society" on the back burner to deal with the tumultuous war.
ReplyDeleteI think both presidents could have learned form the other. Johnson could have listened to public opinion more and took their feeling into consideration and Kennedy could have been a more consistent leader. Both had two very interesting historical situations and two very different ways of handling them.
History writes the stories of Kennedy and Johnson very differently. Kennedy has been given the martyr title. He is viewed as a legendary president, who inspired a nation and changed our country for the better. Johnson will go down in history as the face of the Vietnam War and a legislative bully. Using my own knowledge and the readings from this course, I have come to the conclusion that Kennedy and Johnson were both successful in their own ways.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is important to distinguish the types of presidents they were. Kennedy was an aspirational president. Rather than muddling himself in policy and legislative groundwork, Kennedy used the bully pulpit of the presidency to gain popular support for the issues he cared about. Johnson was quite the opposite. Much more likely to read the Congressional Record than to give a rousing speech, Johnson relished legislative sausage-making. Although the content of his social policies are sharply debated to this day, he was successful in pushing through many of the policies that Kennedy is heralded for today.
Kennedy could have learned the pure attention to detail that characterized Johnson. Johnson could have learned the media skill and bully pulpit mastery that makes Kennedy a revered historical figure.
Lyndon Johnson's and John F. Kennedy's leadership styles mirror the FDR's activist style in the sense that they both aspired to lead proactively. Although it is difficult to fully measure JFK's performance as he died in office, he is attributed for effectively handling public relations to further his agenda. Lyndon Johnson's early success pertains to his ability to work with Congress while Kennedy was perceived as inexperienced and thus this affected his rate of enacted policymaking, though he relied on charismatic rhetoric to mobilize the public.
ReplyDeleteWithout a doubt, Johnson's presidency would seemingly be the less successful due to the Vietnam War as contributing factor of his unpopularity. Kennedy, however, remains as one of the most popular, but his success is difficult to gauge as he died before his term ended,
John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson both had positives and negatives during their time as president.
ReplyDeleteKennedy was a popular president with a ton of charisma. Kennedy was also able to use the media to his advantage, something other presidents often fail to do. Yet, his moment in history that stood out as a failure was his role in the Bay of Pigs. Kennedy failed to assert himself as a strong leader during the operation, and under no circumstances should the CIA be able to withhold information from the president.
Johnson on the other hand also had some positive and negative aspects about his presidency. Johnson was able to implement many domestic policies. Yet, he struggled with the Vietnam War, which was ultimately his downfall.
Which is why, I firmly believe Kennedy was the more successful president. Johnson's struggle with Vietnam War proved to be too much for him to handle, which is why he wasnt reelected.