Should President Lyndon Johnson be on Mount Rushmore?

[DevotedDemocrat]

I'd argue he should. LBJ more than anything else finished what Lincoln had begun with the Emancipation Proclamation. While individual bigotry would not and will never die, Lyndon Johnson made America a truly equal society in law and in fact. He put an end to institutionalized business, buried Jim Crow, and routed the KKK from it's last vestiges of power. In a way, his policies on race and Civil Rights were part of the epilogue of the Civil War--A Southern President fought and ensured the rights of the African American, which the South had succeeded from the Union a hundred years previously to prevent.

Along with this, he banished bigotry from our immigration policies by doing away with the biased 1924 Immigration Act.

Beyond Civil Rights, he pushed through the Great Society. While it had it's failings (as did the Square Deal, New Deal and Fair Deal), it created some of the most lasting changes in American society, in the role of government in American life, and at it's best has enriched, prolonged and helped the lives of countless Americans, who today benefit from programs like Medicare, Head Start, Medicaid, and tons of other programs.

Vietnam may have been his waterloo, but he neither started nor ended that war. And while it was traumatic, it was not as bloody or tragic as the Civil War. America had not lost in Vietnam by January 20th 1969--and thus we cannot call it's loss his fault, IMO.

I believe that of any of the post TR presidents, only LBJ and FDR truly merit a place on Mount Rushmore.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

There's only space for one more head, and IMO it's reserved for FDR.

[Donerail]

LBJ was an HP, so no.

[dead0man]

HA! no

[Indy Texas]

No. What we really need is to sandblast the whole thing and replace it with four Ronald Reagan heads. We'll have Cowboy Ronald Reagan, Governor Ronald Reagan, President Ronald Reagan and Zombie Ronald Reagan. An empty space will be left for Ideal Ronald Reagan, a severely conservative Tea Party patriot who never actually existed in real life but is cited to justify every crazy thing the GOP comes up with these days.

[TDAS04]

There's only space for one more head, and IMO it's reserved for FDR.

[RogueBeaver]

HA! no

[Dr. Cynic]

There's only space for one more head, and IMO it's reserved for FDR.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Jesus H. Christ...

Vietnam may have been his waterloo, but he neither started nor ended that war.

SO WHAT?

It's not an excuse. He is responsible for escalation and every death, American and Vietnamese, that was a result of said escalation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"But XXX was worse" doesn't make it right.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The war was lost when public support was lost. Guess when that happened.

Seriously, I'm really far from casting LBJ as an outright HP. I appreciate what he had accomplished on the domestic front but, for the love of God, shut the fyck up.

[Old Man Svensson]

God no. No matter what he accomplished on the domestic front, it doesn't change the fact that he was a shameless warmonger and a shady, unnecessarily cruel man personally, who only changed his stance on civil rights once it would look good for him politically.

[Dr. Cynic]

God no. No matter what he accomplished on the domestic front, it doesn't change the fact that he was a shameless warmonger and a shady, unnecessarily cruel man personally, who only changed his stance on civil rights once it would look good for him politically.

I agree with this 1000%. His Presidency, domestically was a very good one. But, especially after watching the PBS documentary on Hubert Humphrey The Art of the Possible, as well as listening to recorded phone calls he made, Johnson's personal cruelty is shed in so much more dramatic light. His stance on civil rights, unlike his VP and in fact many others in his party was based entirely on expediency. On the phone, he still threw around the word "n" and the casual way in which he does it just underscores that he really didn't care about civil rights. His treatment of Humphrey as well as when he was a Senator, his treatment of his colleagues bordered on downright inhumanely cruel. He instructed staffers not to even speak to people if they got on his bad side and any disagreement was met with intolerance. He knew full well the war was unpopular and un-winnable and he ignored that, costing thousands of lives. He does not deserve such an honor.

[Maxwell]

Clearly not.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Clearly not.

God no. No matter what he accomplished on the domestic front, it doesn't change the fact that he was a shameless warmonger and a shady, unnecessarily cruel man personally, who only changed his stance on civil rights once it would look good for him politically.

Exactly.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

No.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

There's only space for one more head, and IMO it's reserved for FDR.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

God no. No matter what he accomplished on the domestic front, it doesn't change the fact that he was a shameless warmonger and a shady, unnecessarily cruel man personally, who only changed his stance on civil rights once it would look good for him politically.

On the phone, he still threw around the word "n" and the casual way in which he does it just underscores that he really didn't care about civil rights.

Indeed.  His "we'll keep those n***ers voting Democrat for a hundred years" comment is perhaps the most embarrassing thing a sitting president has ever said, let alone a "supporter" of civil rights.

[TNF]

Yes.

[Zioneer]

There's only space for one more head, and IMO it's reserved for FDR.

[Goldwater]

HA! no

[Old Man Svensson]

Yes.

Uh.

His Presidency, domestically was a very good one. But, especially after watching the PBS documentary on Hubert Humphrey The Art of the Possible, as well as listening to recorded phone calls he made, Johnson's personal cruelty is shed in so much more dramatic light. His stance on civil rights, unlike his VP and in fact many others in his party was based entirely on expediency. On the phone, he still threw around the word "n" and the casual way in which he does it just underscores that he really didn't care about civil rights. His treatment of Humphrey as well as when he was a Senator, his treatment of his colleagues bordered on downright inhumanely cruel. He instructed staffers not to even speak to people if they got on his bad side and any disagreement was met with intolerance. He knew full well the war was unpopular and un-winnable and he ignored that, costing thousands of lives. He does not deserve such an honor.

[Vosem]

FF foreign policy, obviously very successful domestic policy with lots of influential positives and negatives. He was a good President on balance, but probably not. FDR is the best candidate for 'extra head'; Truman and maybe Reagan would be not-joke choices as well.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While I don't quite agree in it being reserved, I can't see why anyone who thought either FDR or LBJ would be deserving of such an honor would think LBJ is more deserving than FDR.

There's only space for one more head, and IMO it's reserved for FDR.

[anvi]

No.  But I've also come to think that Jefferson shouldn't be up there either, so we could conceivably make more room...

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

There's only space for one more head, and IMO it's reserved for FDR.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There's only space for one more head, and IMO it's reserved for FDR.

Ahem.  Take me out of the quote stack please.  I quoted that to point out that I don't agree with the last place being reserved for FDR.