Skip to main content

Caro on Johnson



The Federal Lawyer this month ran my review of the fourth volume in Robert Caro's ongoing biography of Lyndon Johnson, the 36th president of the United States.

I discuss aspects of the volume not discussed much in the other reviews I've seen, including Johnson's dealings with Bobby Baker and (through Bobby Baker) with insurance salesman Don Reynolds.

Here is a quote from the book (I don't quote it, though I allude to it, in my review):

Reynolds told Williams that in 1957, having been advised that a 'political connection' would be helpful in building up his insurance business, he contacted Bobby Baker, a fellow South Carolinian, and they entered into an agreement under which he would make payments to Baker 'because,' as Reynolds was to put it, 'of his social contacts and his wide knowledge of people [whom he] could present to me.' Baker had shortly thereafter introduced him to Walter Jenkins. Johnson, that same year, had mentioned to Baker that he was having difficulty obtaining life insurance because of his heart attack, and Baker, as he would recall, 'told Senator Johnson about my partnership with Don Reynolds, and we agreed to seek the policy through him.'

From the point of view of the Reynolds of the world, this is just being realistic. Even "pragmatic" in a rather debased use of that fine coin.

'Everybody else uses political contacts, I have to use political contacts,' is how one might fairly paraphrase the thought.

It didn't end well for Reynolds, since the oh-so-useful contacts turned into bloodsuckers over time, which is why he was happy to rat out Baker, Jenkins, and Johnson himself to Senator Williams. For the curious, here is a link to the whole review. Actually, it's a link to a pdf that includes the whole books section for this month, so you'll have to go to p. 9 of the pdf to find this review in particular. After which you may find that other reviews in the section, including the one on abolitionism are very much worth your attention too.

But what I mean to say here in particular is that pragmatism in the proper philosophic sense does not mean that one is condemned forever to the day-to-day rat race, prohibited from ever poking one's mousey nose above the barriers in order to try to see the maze as a whole.  Indeed, James' famous expression, "the bitch goddess success" should itself hint that James wasn't one of that goddess' lovers.

Pragmatism is itself precisely about poking one's nose above the maze that the bitch goddess creates. This is that meta-right I've been talking about, the right that aims to reconcile the other rights, the loyalty to loyalty itself.

Caro portrays Johnson's devotion to the bitch goddess, and the lengths to which he went to serve her, and he excels in this portrayal.

Comments

  1. I was a teenager during the Johnson presidency. I was amazed at how the press was kind to him. His ruthless Texas corrupt side, on which Caro has shone much light, was brushed aside as "effective" and a source of humor. But the national press corps was likewise very kind to JFK and is ruttish side. 50 years ago, journalists and their ilk were seldom religious. They were as ideological then as they are now. They politely disdained Eisenhower as a philistine. They deemed Bill Buckley and Barry Goldwater completely beyond the pale. The same was true of any true leftist, altho' the aging Norman Thomas was treated kindly. They laughed at Harold Stassen. But they loved mainstream Democrats, including Senator Fulbright from Arkansas. These people thought Adlai Stevenson was the cat's meow. These people were flummoxed by the election of Reagan in 1980, the emergence of a powerful GOP in Congress in 1995, after 64 years in the wilderness, and the rise of the Tea Party. Journalists don't know the Real America in which I came of age, a world with its share of authoritarian fascists, worshippers of force, and de facto anarcho-capitalists. These people are deeply angry because they feel that the ideological consensus underlying TV and print journalism kept their viewpoints out of the public domain, at least before Fox News was clearly a business success. But all this brings to my mind Hostadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers