What do you think?
Rate this book
JFK and LBJ: The Last Two Great Presidents
A firsthand observer weighs the achievements—and failures—of two fabled American presidents
As a young White House correspondent during the Kennedy and Johnson years in Washington, D.C., Godfrey Hodgson had a ringside seat covering the last two great presidents of the United States, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, two men who could not have been more different. Kennedy’s wit and dashing style, his renown as a national war hero, and his Ivy League Boston Brahmin background stood in sharp contrast to Lyndon Johnson’s rural, humble origins in Texas, his blunt, forceful (but effective) political style, his lackluster career in the navy, and his grassroots populist instincts. Hodgson, a sharp-eyed witness throughout the tenure of these two great men, now offers us a new perspective enriched by his reflections since that time a half-century ago. He offers us a fresh, dispassionate contrast of these two great men by stripping away the myths to assess their achievements, ultimately asking whether Johnson has been misjudged. He suggests that LBJ be given his due by history, arguing that he was as great a president as, perhaps even greater than, JFK.
The seed that grew into this book was the author’s early perception that JFK’s performance in office was largely overrated while LBJ’s was consistently underrated. Hodgson asks key If Kennedy had lived, would he have matched Johnson’s ambitious Great Society achievements? Would he have avoided Johnson’s disastrous commitment in Vietnam? Would Nixon have been elected his successor, and if not, how would American politics and parties look today? Hodgson combines lively anecdotes with sober analyses to arrive at new conclusions about the U.S. presidency and two of the most charismatic figures ever to govern from the Oval Office.
As a young White House correspondent during the Kennedy and Johnson years in Washington, D.C., Godfrey Hodgson had a ringside seat covering the last two great presidents of the United States, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, two men who could not have been more different. Kennedy’s wit and dashing style, his renown as a national war hero, and his Ivy League Boston Brahmin background stood in sharp contrast to Lyndon Johnson’s rural, humble origins in Texas, his blunt, forceful (but effective) political style, his lackluster career in the navy, and his grassroots populist instincts. Hodgson, a sharp-eyed witness throughout the tenure of these two great men, now offers us a new perspective enriched by his reflections since that time a half-century ago. He offers us a fresh, dispassionate contrast of these two great men by stripping away the myths to assess their achievements, ultimately asking whether Johnson has been misjudged. He suggests that LBJ be given his due by history, arguing that he was as great a president as, perhaps even greater than, JFK.
The seed that grew into this book was the author’s early perception that JFK’s performance in office was largely overrated while LBJ’s was consistently underrated. Hodgson asks key If Kennedy had lived, would he have matched Johnson’s ambitious Great Society achievements? Would he have avoided Johnson’s disastrous commitment in Vietnam? Would Nixon have been elected his successor, and if not, how would American politics and parties look today? Hodgson combines lively anecdotes with sober analyses to arrive at new conclusions about the U.S. presidency and two of the most charismatic figures ever to govern from the Oval Office.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published May 26, 2015
7 people are currently reading
70 people want to read
About the author
Godfrey Hodgson
49 books3 followersGodfrey Hodgson was a White House correspondent for a London newspaper with a desk in the Washington Post newsroom during the Kennedy and Johnson years. He has worked as a reporter for print and television throughout the United States and has written sixteen books, most dealing with people and issues in American politics. He taught at Oxford University and lives in Oxfordshire, U.K.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
January 17, 2016
Although one might take issue with the title and conclusion that JFK and LBJ were the last "two great presidents", there is little to criticize in the quality of the writing and use of sources.
One of the main themes of the book is the rehabilitation of LBJ's image. As Hodgson shows, sometimes to the point of distraction, Johnson was hardly a country bumpkin and he was not a traditional Southerner or part of the more conservative Texas political stock. He was from west Texas and shaped by more of a Midwestern or even Western mindset. He had the misfortune of following a more media friendly JFK, who was very conscious of using his charisma to disarm critics and cultivate the Camelot myth. Johnson was by far the more effective of the two in manipulating the legislative process to achieve his goals and pass a host of bills that would have an enduring legacy, although falling short in his vision to attain the goals of the War on Poverty and The Great Society.
To be fair, JFK was inching in the direction of more progress on Civil Rights and other areas that bear a more liberal stamp. However he was hamstrung by Southerners who controlled committees and legislation. It certainly can be argued, as Hodgson does, he might have achieved more on that front had he been re-elected, a likely prospect. An assassin's bullet in Dallas consigns such speculation to the realm of counter-factual history. His most striking triumphs would come in the realm of foreign policy, notably the Cuban Missile Crisis, where he went against the advice of his advisers and averted a potential nuclear catastrophe. Whatever his accomplishments or failures, JFK would help modernize the presidency with his media savvy and use of polls, and serve as an inspiration for millions with his vision.
Ultimately, both men would be bedeviled by Vietnam and it would be the albatross that would sink LBJ and stain his historical reputation until relatively recently. Hodgson devotes a significant portion of his account to the topic of " What would JFK have done?" He makes the case that Kennedy would have continued to be ensnared in the conflict, but again, that is a counter-factual proposition that can be argued but not resolved.
Regardless of one's stance on that or perceptions of the presidents, the closing chapter is powerful and beautifully written and well worth the effort of reading the book as Hodgson develops his arguments and provides a smashing conclusion.
One of the main themes of the book is the rehabilitation of LBJ's image. As Hodgson shows, sometimes to the point of distraction, Johnson was hardly a country bumpkin and he was not a traditional Southerner or part of the more conservative Texas political stock. He was from west Texas and shaped by more of a Midwestern or even Western mindset. He had the misfortune of following a more media friendly JFK, who was very conscious of using his charisma to disarm critics and cultivate the Camelot myth. Johnson was by far the more effective of the two in manipulating the legislative process to achieve his goals and pass a host of bills that would have an enduring legacy, although falling short in his vision to attain the goals of the War on Poverty and The Great Society.
To be fair, JFK was inching in the direction of more progress on Civil Rights and other areas that bear a more liberal stamp. However he was hamstrung by Southerners who controlled committees and legislation. It certainly can be argued, as Hodgson does, he might have achieved more on that front had he been re-elected, a likely prospect. An assassin's bullet in Dallas consigns such speculation to the realm of counter-factual history. His most striking triumphs would come in the realm of foreign policy, notably the Cuban Missile Crisis, where he went against the advice of his advisers and averted a potential nuclear catastrophe. Whatever his accomplishments or failures, JFK would help modernize the presidency with his media savvy and use of polls, and serve as an inspiration for millions with his vision.
Ultimately, both men would be bedeviled by Vietnam and it would be the albatross that would sink LBJ and stain his historical reputation until relatively recently. Hodgson devotes a significant portion of his account to the topic of " What would JFK have done?" He makes the case that Kennedy would have continued to be ensnared in the conflict, but again, that is a counter-factual proposition that can be argued but not resolved.
Regardless of one's stance on that or perceptions of the presidents, the closing chapter is powerful and beautifully written and well worth the effort of reading the book as Hodgson develops his arguments and provides a smashing conclusion.
December 7, 2015
The main part of the book was very good - the part that dealt with the two fundamental question posed by the author: (1) Had he lived, would JFK have achieved the domestic legislative successes in a second term that LBJ achieved? (2) Would JFK have avoided getting the US involved in the Vietnam quagmire that ultimately doomed LBJ? Good information, thoughtful analysis, from a British correspondent covering the US political scene during those years.
Hodgson opened with a good introduction, covering his main themes in summary form. Then he spent a chapter describing his own background covering Washington politics (too long); some biographical information on Kenedy and Johnson, focusing primarily on the differences in wealth and outlook on life; the "Camelot" mythology (tangential to his main theme); and some background on the tension/hostility between the Kennedy and Johnson camps. Then he got into the meat of the book: the Kennedy years, including the Bay of Pigs fiasco, negotiations with Soviet Premier Kruschev, the handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and his initial position on poverty and civil rights and how he was moved on the issue by events; and the Johnson years, including his legislative triumphs (Medicare, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, federal aid for education, immigration reform, and the War on Poverty) and his military escalation in Vietnam. He concludes with an assessment of what might have happened had Kennedy lived.
Aside from the few parts mentioned above that I thought were tangential, it was a very good book.
Hodgson opened with a good introduction, covering his main themes in summary form. Then he spent a chapter describing his own background covering Washington politics (too long); some biographical information on Kenedy and Johnson, focusing primarily on the differences in wealth and outlook on life; the "Camelot" mythology (tangential to his main theme); and some background on the tension/hostility between the Kennedy and Johnson camps. Then he got into the meat of the book: the Kennedy years, including the Bay of Pigs fiasco, negotiations with Soviet Premier Kruschev, the handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and his initial position on poverty and civil rights and how he was moved on the issue by events; and the Johnson years, including his legislative triumphs (Medicare, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, federal aid for education, immigration reform, and the War on Poverty) and his military escalation in Vietnam. He concludes with an assessment of what might have happened had Kennedy lived.
Aside from the few parts mentioned above that I thought were tangential, it was a very good book.
December 23, 2017
I’m of an era whose leadership has ripped out all the important bits of Kennedy’s and Johnson’s accomplishments because suddenly combating racism is less important than the right of a shopkeeper to discriminate. From this standpoint I surely miss both Kennedy and Johnson whom Hodgson and I both agree were the last two great presidents and we also both agree are best viewed together.
But Hodgson’s book is unfocused, and his asides ramble off into meaningless spinning. For instance, I personally don’t give a damn over Kennedy’s extramarital affairs or his health save in how he carried on. I’m solely interested in quality of output. Furthermore, I’m uninterested in Kennedy’s resemblance to the British Whig tradition.
Hodgson is interested in both. As I said I don’t care about the former, and the latter is for another book.
In addition his own personal narrative crept in too much for what this study promised.
Steadier hands could improve on the topic, but this book is too far gone.
But Hodgson’s book is unfocused, and his asides ramble off into meaningless spinning. For instance, I personally don’t give a damn over Kennedy’s extramarital affairs or his health save in how he carried on. I’m solely interested in quality of output. Furthermore, I’m uninterested in Kennedy’s resemblance to the British Whig tradition.
Hodgson is interested in both. As I said I don’t care about the former, and the latter is for another book.
In addition his own personal narrative crept in too much for what this study promised.
Steadier hands could improve on the topic, but this book is too far gone.
June 30, 2015
This book is written by a news correspondent from England. He covered America during the Kennedy/ Johnson years. He contrasts the presidencies and achievements of both men. He discusses the strengths and weaknesses of both men and what they accomplished or didn't accomplish. His last chapter on whether Kennedy would have gotten us out of Vietnam or followed the path of Johnson is very good. He also relates how the years 1963-1968 led to the rise of the consecutive strain in American politics. It was interesting to see how a person from another country viewed these years.
October 22, 2018
Mr. Hodgson makes this title very misleading because while he calls JFK and LBJ the last two great presidents, he does not have a lot of nice things to say about Kennedy. There is a lot of revisionist history on the Kennedy to show that maybe he wasn't all that great, but Mr. Hodgson presents his data based on hearsay ad the historical sources without being able to get to know Kennedy. He mentions that he only met Kennedy once and that was an awkward encounter with him, so it is strange that he would harbor all these negative emotions about him. As for his opinion over LBJ, most of it comes from the fact that he was a correspondent to the White House to cover the Johnson Administration and seemed to believe that Johnson should have won the nomination in 1960. I like the personal accounts from people who have lived during the two administrations, but the title is misleading because of the one sided view of the author.
June 15, 2019
Interesting and for the most part a detailed retrospective on the period 1960-68 written by British journalist Godfrey Hodgson on the presidencies of JFK and LBJ.
The authors opinions on JFK's thousand days in the White House I felt were somewhat biased. I do not consider that Hodgson's analysis took sufficient account of Kennedy's very slim electoral victory in 1960, that forced much of his agenda to be focused on a second term. He also lambasted the 'Camelot' image, something that arose after his assassination through White's interview with Jackie Kennedy.
All in all though, this is an interesting book and the hypothetical observations of the 'what ifs' can entertain the students of these two statesmen as well as general history buffs.
The authors opinions on JFK's thousand days in the White House I felt were somewhat biased. I do not consider that Hodgson's analysis took sufficient account of Kennedy's very slim electoral victory in 1960, that forced much of his agenda to be focused on a second term. He also lambasted the 'Camelot' image, something that arose after his assassination through White's interview with Jackie Kennedy.
All in all though, this is an interesting book and the hypothetical observations of the 'what ifs' can entertain the students of these two statesmen as well as general history buffs.
July 1, 2024
as another said on here
"unfocused and his asides ramble off into meaningless spinning"
which i think explains most his lazy and
almost mildly interesting books
the book is useful for seeing what Hodgson, wants to ramble about
best part of the book is when he compares the breakfast of LBJ with his own
and the worst part of the book is when he finds his recipe for beef stroganoff is much better than the Kennedy Family
and how the plot of the second episode of The Hathaways explains Kennedy's strategy with the air support for the Bay of Pigs
March 28, 2022
This book gave a unique perspective regarding LBJ and JFK's presidencies.
January 15, 2023
A back and forth bio, thought I would learn more about them together. Maybe you will feel differently. Enjoy!
April 2, 2016
I received this as an ARC via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review. Really great read. Interesting thought about how the two were so opposite on foreign/domestic policy. Good rehabilitation of LBJ, I am glad to see that. Full review to come.
++++
My book blog: http://allthebookblognamesaretaken.bl...
www.facebook.com/AllTheBookBlogNamesA...
www.twitter.com/SarahsBookNook
I received this text as an ARC via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
While some might take issue with the title itself, I found this text to be everything I wanted it to be. This includes a better look at a much-maligned president who I feel deserves better than the treatment he has received, being in the unenviable position of assuming the presidency upon the assassination that shocked the nation.
Like so may others, I have bought into the Kennedy myth. I don't now how else to describe it but fascinating. This whole dynasty, this mystique created around this family of handsome sons and beautiful daughters - complete with scandals and cover-ups, what's not love? I say that last part a bit cheekily, because they are also a prime example of what happens when children have too much money and too little supervision. Even so, much of what I have read so far has focused more on the family and less on the politics. This is why a book like this that devotes pages to the "what ifs" had Kennedy not been assassinated was interesting. The issue of Civil Rights is addressed at length especially, and the point made that LBJ was by far the more progressive of the two in pushing through his plans to deal with that, as well as poverty, education, and the myriad of other issues that are overlooked and brushed to the side because of Vietnam.
I have to admit that until the last few years, I bought into the myth about LBJ as well, how terrible a follow-up he was, this kind of bumbling hick from Texas who was crude and rude and having affairs left and right. While some of the latter part is still true, I never really questioned the sources of the stories, until I began reading a little more about him and finding out just how much JFK and his staff did not get along with LBJ and his, and how poorly he really was treated as the vice-president of the most powerful nation on earth. Usually history is written by the victors, but when you are on the same side and battling the Kennedy mystique, I think we all know who was going to win. Among other topics covered, this book really does a fantastic job to rehabilitate LBJ and restore him to the level of respect he deserves. Until reading this, I had no idea how successful he really was in the domain of domestic policy and find it disheartening that all of that seems forgotten. I am not trying to diminish the devastation of Vietnam in any way, but I think it is worth recalling the policies enacted to benefit our country. In fact, you'd think it would be good company to be in when the book states at 57% that only FDR could claim a "comparable record of legislative success". LBJ's reforms impacted so many aspects of our country - health care, economy, education, poverty, environment, immigration. it is unfortunate that his image even needs rehabilitation. It was additionally disheartening to read things like, "By August, 1967, LBJ's rating had fallen below 40%, and his unpopularity was so acute that he had to virtually give up travelling around the country because his personal safety could not be guaranteed" (57%).
The book is incredibly well-researched, and written by a former British correspondent who covered the White House during this turbulent time. While its whole purpose is not to rehab the image of LBJ, I feel that is the most important thing it does. It's a well-written analysis of these two presidencies and all the baggage that comes with that, and I highly recommend it.
++++
My book blog: http://allthebookblognamesaretaken.bl...
www.facebook.com/AllTheBookBlogNamesA...
www.twitter.com/SarahsBookNook
I received this text as an ARC via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
While some might take issue with the title itself, I found this text to be everything I wanted it to be. This includes a better look at a much-maligned president who I feel deserves better than the treatment he has received, being in the unenviable position of assuming the presidency upon the assassination that shocked the nation.
Like so may others, I have bought into the Kennedy myth. I don't now how else to describe it but fascinating. This whole dynasty, this mystique created around this family of handsome sons and beautiful daughters - complete with scandals and cover-ups, what's not love? I say that last part a bit cheekily, because they are also a prime example of what happens when children have too much money and too little supervision. Even so, much of what I have read so far has focused more on the family and less on the politics. This is why a book like this that devotes pages to the "what ifs" had Kennedy not been assassinated was interesting. The issue of Civil Rights is addressed at length especially, and the point made that LBJ was by far the more progressive of the two in pushing through his plans to deal with that, as well as poverty, education, and the myriad of other issues that are overlooked and brushed to the side because of Vietnam.
I have to admit that until the last few years, I bought into the myth about LBJ as well, how terrible a follow-up he was, this kind of bumbling hick from Texas who was crude and rude and having affairs left and right. While some of the latter part is still true, I never really questioned the sources of the stories, until I began reading a little more about him and finding out just how much JFK and his staff did not get along with LBJ and his, and how poorly he really was treated as the vice-president of the most powerful nation on earth. Usually history is written by the victors, but when you are on the same side and battling the Kennedy mystique, I think we all know who was going to win. Among other topics covered, this book really does a fantastic job to rehabilitate LBJ and restore him to the level of respect he deserves. Until reading this, I had no idea how successful he really was in the domain of domestic policy and find it disheartening that all of that seems forgotten. I am not trying to diminish the devastation of Vietnam in any way, but I think it is worth recalling the policies enacted to benefit our country. In fact, you'd think it would be good company to be in when the book states at 57% that only FDR could claim a "comparable record of legislative success". LBJ's reforms impacted so many aspects of our country - health care, economy, education, poverty, environment, immigration. it is unfortunate that his image even needs rehabilitation. It was additionally disheartening to read things like, "By August, 1967, LBJ's rating had fallen below 40%, and his unpopularity was so acute that he had to virtually give up travelling around the country because his personal safety could not be guaranteed" (57%).
The book is incredibly well-researched, and written by a former British correspondent who covered the White House during this turbulent time. While its whole purpose is not to rehab the image of LBJ, I feel that is the most important thing it does. It's a well-written analysis of these two presidencies and all the baggage that comes with that, and I highly recommend it.
September 24, 2015
Thoroughly enjoyed this exploration of two influential presidents. One knew of through the media (JFK), the other I knew nothing of (LJB). As a foreigner now living in the States, the book offers insights to history and events that have shaped the present day America. What is sad of course is that some of the issues and struggles these two men were trying to solve 40-50 years ago are still with us today. This boos provides some insights as to why that is the case.
Recommended for anyone interested in learning more about past presidents beyond their media profile.
Recommended for anyone interested in learning more about past presidents beyond their media profile.
June 27, 2015
If you're a history buff, read this book. If you're into politics READ THIS BOOK. If you're a BOOMER…You MUST read this book. a phenomenal look at two administrations that helped define America….and written by a British journalist so it comes from a different perspective than the norm we are so often exposed to.
September 13, 2015
Nothing new here. The thesis, "What would JFK have done if he had lived", is, of course, unanswerable. Speculation, not history.
That said, not a bad place to start if you haven't read too much on either president.
That said, not a bad place to start if you haven't read too much on either president.
March 21, 2016
entertaining
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews