Reminiscing on his time as a schoolteacher at a predominantly Mexican-American school in Cotulla, Texas, President Lyndon Johnson admitted that he “never thought in [his] fondest dreams that [he] might have the chance to help the sons and daughters of [his] students and to help people like them all over this country.” After becoming president, Johnson acknowledged “that now [he did] have that chance, and…[he meant] to use it.” Best summarized by historian Robert Dallek, Johnson’s belief in an activist government firmly established his reputation as a “liberal nationalist, an advocate of Federal programs that had a redefining influence on American life.” An ambitious New Dealer and a stalwart supporter of President Franklin Roosevelt, Johnson conceived of the federal government as a positive force that could reinvigorate the South’s reputation on the national stage, raise the quality of life for impoverished Americans, and protect the rights of historically marginalized American citizens, including African Americans, Native Americans, Latin Americans, and poor whites.
Regardless of his commitment to improving the lives of everyday people, however, Johnson’s administration and legacy are inextricably linked to and rightfully tainted by his decision to escalate American involvement in the Vietnam War. Johnson’s ill-advised choice needlessly prolonged the conflict, destroyed his approval rating, undermined his domestic programs, and, according to some estimates, resulted in upwards of 55,000 American deaths and at least 882,000 Vietnamese deaths. Haunted by the specter of Vietnam, Johnson’s historical reputation continues to suffer. As revealed in a 2017 Gallup Poll, 65% percent of Americans consider Johnson’s presidential performance average or below average. Furthermore, a 2016 poll that asked Americans to select the best Democratic president from a list ranked Lyndon Johnson as last, with only 2% of the vote.
According to biographer Doris Kearns Goodwin, who ghostwrote Johnson’s 1971 memoir, Johnson even recognized the uncomfortable concessions he made to continue the fight in Vietnam: “I knew from the start that…if I left the woman I really loved—the Great Society—in order to get involved with that bitch of a war on the other side of the world, then I would lose everything at home. All my programs. All my hopes to feed the hungry and shelter the homeless.” Why, then, did Johnson trade his social reforms for what proved to be a deeply unpopular and seemingly unwinnable war? How did Johnson’s unwavering commitment to anticommunism and global interventionism comport with his espoused views as a liberal nationalist and social reformer? Put simply, how and why did Johnson consider American military involvement in an ideological war in Southeast Asia a worthwhile cause that would benefit American interests and, more importantly, the lives of the American people?