Kerry & LBJ: the phoenix connection

People have compared John F. Kerry to President JFK but it may be more fitting to compare him to Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon Banes Johnson. Johnson, like Clinton, aspired to be President from a very early age, and much of his career was calculated toward garnering political power. World War II was his springboard and while he played cushy, bureaucratic roles for much of the conflict (he was in many senses a coward) he became intensely concerned that the war would end before he had a chance to have some battlefield experience, something he knew would be required to be successful in post-War politics. So he essentially injected himself into the theater during a 13 minute observer mission and obtained what many feel was one of the least deserved Silver Stars in American history, almost certainly earned more by political manipulation, rather than battlefield merit—and questions about that merit came from others who served along with him. LBJ actually brought a movie camera along with him to the war. LBJ then, as is totally counter to the military ethic of humility about ones accomplishments, shamelessly used his “war hero” status for his campaigning, wearing his Silver Star on his lapel.

In congress and later the senate he was perhaps most notable for his lack of legislative initiative or accomplishments. He knew very well that a man who didn’t take strong stands on legislation thereby avoided the risk of having those positions held against him while campaigning. Few of his peers accomplished less than he in terms of legislation, and yet LBJ, an indefatigable politician, continued to rise to power, becoming majority leader in the Senate. He was also a tireless and innovative campaigner, and his path to the Senate was an amazing tale of corrupt and brilliant voter manipulation across the state of Texas, amazingly defeating one of the most revered men in Texas political history, former governor Coke Stevenson.

LBJ, a man who’s political career was launched with an abbreviated combat service and exaggerated honors, who then went on to be a totally ineffective legislator but brilliant politician, and then went on to establish the Great Society—a huge leap forward for socialism in America—only to then be utterly destroyed in the ashes of Vietnam.

But from those ashes rose another politician with an abbreviated military tour of duty and some questions about his honors, who went on to a long and politically successful but legislatively vapid career, and who has tried to use his “heroism” for political advantage.

Let me not exaggerate: Kerry’s months of service in Vietnam were much more honorable than LBJ’s 13 minutes in WWII. Whether or not there was manipulation involved with some of his medals is still being debated, but what does seem clear is that Kerry had longer term plans as he went into battle. His typewriter, his movie camera, his reports… all speak to a man who had political ambitions from an early age. But where service was the coin of the realm after WWII, Kerry seems to have calculated that opposition was the best path to political glory when he returned to a nation in deep conflict over the Vietnam cause. This calculation served him well for the following decades, but who knew that when it came time for him to run for president the nation would be in a new, different war setting.

LBJ was also the last president to come from the senate, where Kerry helped hone his "you bet we might have" style of political leadership. It is conventional wisdom that the reason so few presidents come from the senate is that this deliberative body is not the best training for executive leadership.

The salient point here is that Kerry strikes one as coming from the LBJ, Clinton and perhaps George H.W. Bush class of candidates for whom political power, not principle, is the prime motivator. Unlike the likes of Reagan and perhaps Carter, their actions seem to be determined more from calculation than conviction. While we tend to focus on the left/right axis, I believe that the calculation/conviction axis is an important one to pay attention to because it will define how that individual will govern. In my view, conviction is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for success. Carter’s humanitarianism, for example, may have been praiseworthy because it was deeply felt, but it resulted in an unsuccessful presidency. Reagan’s convictions, on the other hand, helped produce one of the most successful presidencies in American history. Clinton served over the sanguinity of the 1990s, but left with few, if any, signature accomplishments and a legacy of inattention to foreign policy that we are still paying for. For me, George W. Bush is a hybrid—far too often driven by political calculation but with some threads of real Reagan-esque conviction.

The parallels to Johnson should not call into question Kerry’s service, but they do speak to his character and what type of president would be.