Concentration into the nature of Lyndon Baines Johnson is an interest that has only recently begun to gain legitimacy. Throughout my entire academic career, I’ve noticed a remarkable trend occur whenever this era became the focus. Lyndon Johnson, for all his contributions and accomplishments as president, generally earns only a mere synopsis of participation in tandem to whatever cultural or political occurrence is currently under examination. General historical overview can only cover so much, yet even academic courses underlined with niche purposes very rarely delegate any considerable time to Johnson’s character. Often times, his legacy will begin and end in relation to discussion over John F. Kennedy. Most well known literary contributions covering LBJ will be contextualized upon JFK’s administration. Although this experience may be critical in understanding Johnson’s overall disposition, there is far more material out there worthy of conversation.

This impression lends itself to a greater predicament regarding significant political figures. Every individual entrusted with the powers of commander-in-chief has a tendency to become emotionally isolated from those they preside above. Although their humanity remains as it was before any acquisition of power, the average citizen will likely have trouble sympathizing with their president. They are inclined to perceive their leaders as rigid, immobile machines incapable of operating to perfection. Even by modern standards, the notion is permitted to continue amidst mainstream thought.

Upon that deduction, the tangible nature of presidents as a whole steadily garnered my attention. It dawned on me rather quick that political leaders, especially those delegated with an immense amount of responsibility, are all subjected to an enormous level of stress. They behave in accordance to their looming obligations just as any other individual would be predisposed to do. Overall, the status of their human condition mirrors that of any other living, breathing person. Their sympathetic value and desire for consideration is an entirely genuine endeavor that should not be neglected. With that in mind, the scope by which one can examine a particular president’s administration multiplies. Their political influence and efficiency can now be scrutinized adjacent to any noteworthy, personal attributes. While this realm of research may have been implemented sporadically before, it is not yet the standard for research within this field.

General historical overview inevitably brought me back the era of Lyndon B. Johnson. Given my altered perspective on research, I became overwhelmingly attracted to the tragic story LBJ created during his term in office. His political prowess in conjunction with an extensively resolute persona governed a nation that simply couldn’t handle all he had to offer. While on the precipice of an unprecedented cultural revolution, many systematic dynamics failed to unfold steadily. The people misinterpreted, ignored, or opposed beneficial legislation in favor of sensationalizing more notorious issues. Whether LBJ was a victim of circumstance or a product of his own aspirations, the idea is open to deliberation. I attribute his ambiguous legacy to an overwhelming concentration on political competence in lieu of modestly deducing his innate objectives. 

The essence behind my paper’s overarching intent is to offer an intelligent defense on Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidency. From what the title suggests, I believe fervently that Johnson’s distinct persona mechanized a capacity for excellence as commander-in-chief. His political philosophy functioning symbiotically to an insatiable determination arguably made him the most ideal candidate for such a position. Most legislative agendas LBJ aimed to push through congress can attest to this propensity for greatness. He was, in a sense, a man rightfully ordained to ultimately preside as president for the United States.

In spite of that, most contemporary assessments over LBJ’ legacy regard him as a failure. Their dissent frequently rebukes Johnson’s shortcomings, particularly his affairs with Vietnam, and seeks to diminish the role for any social good his administration mobilized. While it’s not unfounded for critics to challenge the areas in which Johnson seemingly faltered, they do provoke an area defined by chaotic tangibility. The problematic conditions situated upon solely LBJ represent a dilemma in which other entities are responsible for shaping. Truman and Eisenhower had as much influence in escalating Vietnam as LBJ did, and yet the burden for humiliation rests predominately upon the former party. To varying degrees of visibility, this form of peripheral hindrance surged progressively.

I believe firmly that Johnson’s term in office suffered heavily from an unexpected discourse in historical confluence. Additionally, it is from the acknowledgement of this conception that stems a comparison between LBJ and a typical, Greek tragedy. In more ways than one, the analogy holds a concrete basis. The shape of his experiences unfolded to such a tragic extent, one cannot help but to express some sympathy for Johnson’s plight. Romanticizing the tragedy and defeat of Johnson’s narrative sets to emphasize the significance behind his primary intentions. With that in mind, any attempt in quantifying the president’s term as a whole can be carried on with practical expectations. My attempt to formulate a defense of LBJ rests upon what he personally sought to accomplish and whether or not he satisfied the responsibilities as president. A results-oriented approach has shown to be flawed and misleading in the grand scheme of things. As a result, I am inclined to focus on displaying Johnson’s innermost thoughts throughout so that a proper evaluation can be made.    

The greatest fundamental principle that must be established is a clear understanding of what ultimately defines a US president. Their expectations and mandatory responsibilities must be distinctly ascertained in a way that invokes a reasonable analysis into those who have accepted such duties. The purpose of this standard is to generate a solid foundation for future analysis to move, not to oversimplify several years of experiences into a misleading letter grade or numeric decimal. Following that, personal expectations from the president himself must also be outlined early on. To adequately judge satisfaction of personal goals, I must attempt to disregard the significance of what ultimately occurred. The implications for each and every dilemma must be clearly distinguished so that attempts to dissolve the problem can be scrutinized.

My expectations for resources are conceivable given the nature of my assignment. There will certainly be an abundance of secondary resources used as the paper’s focus shifts throughout. To my benefit, I anticipate that a considerable portion of information will stem from the use of primary sources. Johnson peaked during an era where the technology was sophisticated enough and the people could utilize it competently. Therefore, the realm of potential information available to me in the form of interviews, transcripts, or personal reflections should easily satisfy my agenda.

Legacy, as a potential benefit, limits itself to affect only those directly related. Even so, what purpose does clarifying an individual’s historical impression have if the results do not change? Other than rectifying an erroneous conflict for the individual in question, the public at large is susceptible to alteration from this person’s lasting impression. My attempt to clarify Lyndon Baines Johnson’s legacy underscores a greater endeavor to facilitate major, sociological reform. What I hope to achieve is reconciliation from the academic community on a proper examination into LBJ’s comprehensive influence. Once a standard has been established, the essential principles that motivated Lyndon Johnson to persist has the opportunity to trickle down into contemporary thought. General reflections from within the society will be inclined to praise the president for his efforts instead of admonishing where he fell short. Generally speaking, the nation will gradually begin to demand authority figures with attributes paralleled to LBJ.