divisions that came out of it (Brown-Collier, 1998, p. 264). For example, many
predominantly white, middle-class Americans “resented programs aimed to
benefit the poor in general and nonwhites in particular” (Miller, 1999, p. 133).
Even though American society saw drastic economic improvements during
Johnson’s presidency, the prevailing gaps never quite closed. Additionally, new
divides between the people who supported and rejected his legislation arose.
While right-wing politicians used the fear of big government to gain new voters,
civil rights activists felt it to be impossible to commend Johnson for the progress
he made. His Vietnam policies and the underwhelming performance of the new
programs made it difficult to create a great, united society, when large parts of
it were still suffering from poverty or discrimination. It did not give Americans
confidence in their president, instead dividing them on the question of who
should try to fix their problems.
One of Johnson’s most controversial policies, though, was the expansion
of the involvement in the Vietnam War, a conflict which was passed down to him
by his predecessor John F. Kennedy (Logevall, 2004, p. 102). Mark Lytle has even
gone so far as to call Vietnam “truly Lyndon Johnson’s war” (Lytle, 2006, p. 176).
Several other presidents had already expanded the commitment to South
Vietnam, but it was Johnson who ‘Americanised’ the war by sending in ground
troops (Logevall, 2004, pp. 100–101). He himself saw this as his duty: “Since
1945 every American President has offered support to the people of South Viet-
Nam. […] And I intend to keep that promise” (qtd. in Bloom & Breines, 2011,
p. 177). He framed it as not a decision he made, but one that he was compelled
to make because of America’s prior commitment to South Vietnam. Therefore,
he perceived the responsibility for it to be lying squarely with the presidents who
made these promises.
10
Made with FlippingBook HTML5