Johnson, Motive and Manipulation

I love the way this class makes one confront situations that are so difficult to resolve. Johnson's manipulation of the Senate in order to pass the civil rights legislation is yet another moral quandary with many facets (the book cites eight) to consider. I want to offer one of my own thoughts, though, which is outside the guidelines provided in the text. This thought has chiefly to do with motive.

One of the things that most infuriates me about historians is their propensity to ascribe motive. In my humble and relatively uneducated opinion, this tendency perpetuates unfortunate, often cynical stereotypes that "educated" people (like us) carry with us for the rest of their (our) lives. For instance, due to our readings of history we are left with the idea that no politician--even great bulwarks of principle like Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Thomas Jefferson--has ever acted entirely out of moral inspiration. Instead, we are taught that Jefferson slept with slaves and schemed behind closed doors; that Lincoln only signed the Emancipation Proclamation as a strategic military maneuver; and that Martin Luther King, Jr. was authoritarian and had domestic problems of his own. The dominant beliefs of our society, whether driven by history or not, demand that the very meaning of being "human" is imperfection, and it seems many historians have made it their personal aim to bring heroes down to "human" level by attributing speculated motives as the only possible motives, and the most cynical ones at that.

It is this very thing that makes it so tiresomely difficult to read historical workings of congress or any other political body. Characters like Lyndon B. Johnson are portrayed as clever puppeteers and tricksters, always spinning intricacies and with nary an interest that doesn't involve vote-mongering of one sort or another. And this is a shame, because for me motive is one of the most crucial elements in a discussion of ethics. In deciding whether or not Johnson's manipulation of other officials was ethical, his inspiration for doing so is fundamental. Was he trying to pass any old legislation with the label "civil rights" because he knew doing so would boost his political sway? Or did he sincerely believe that his civil rights bill, along with the amendment for trial by jury for governmental persons inhibiting the right to vote, would bring more justice to oppressed blacks in the South?

I can honestly say, I don't know. And, generally speaking, I think it is sketchy practice to try and pin a certain motive on people about which I know little and whom I did not know personally at all, unless a definitive series of actions betrays an obvious tendency (as with Bush/Cheney) or the person him or herself confides their motive openly. Even then, I only hazard educated guesses and try to bear in mind that they are exactly that--guesses. In the Johnson case, it makes a big difference to me whether he was sincerely fighting for rights or just garnering public support. From my vantage point, it seems like a trial by jury was a poor way to insure justice in the South, and it seems like someone with as much access to information as LBJ would know as much, but then I wasn't there, nor am I now. I think the amendment was a bad move, ill-advised and in the end highly ineffective. But does that make LBJ's actions unethical? Not in and of itself. And I do not consider myself educated or sage enough to say, based on our readings and my superficial knowledge of LBJ in general, whether his actions were morally right or wrong.