如何評價林登?約翰遜這個人？可否說他是美國史上最會玩弄權術的總統之一？

01-05

僅以此題獻給帶給我支持知呼上朋友。聲明：我僅僅提供所有觀點，但是怎麼樣的評論還得取決於讀者自己的理解。所有重點人物事件我用英文直接表示比較節約時間並且歡迎大家google英文文獻。

首先表示：LBJ絕對不是美國歷史上最會玩權術的總統

那我們就來講講關於約翰遜的故事。

首先題目裡面的說法是：如何評價林登?約翰遜這個人？可否說他是美國史上最會玩弄權術的總統之一？

題目第二個問題應該出於紙牌屋對比underwood和約翰遜。我覺得這是不正確的，至少對虛擬和真實的人物都不了解。

約翰遜他是出身中產階級，underwood是一個徹底的平民總統，這為兩個人個性鋪上一層不同的外衣。

簡單來說，我覺得underwood類似於杜魯門，一個保住自身權勢為主的政客，善於妥協偽裝。

在美國歷史上，我們可以發現，平民總統在上任前會被賦予極高的期望，但是能在美國歷史上留名的也就林肯一人。林肯情況特殊，在一個崩潰分離的美國，往往時勢造英雄的時間。

但是在無重大歷史危機影響美國內部和平情況下，平民總統會選擇自保。因為他們和豪門望族不同的是他們一旦得罪政客下台，是永遠無翻身之路的。

在我另一回答如何評價杜魯門中間有詳細分析。

那麼回到正題，lbj是什麼樣的人呢？

積極獲取權利的目的只是為了自己的理想得到更加徹底的實現。

他的權術不是為了自身連任而是為了塑造一個不受pac和congress影響的強勢總統，來實現自己的夢想。

所以這裡權術我覺得更加應該稱為政治手腕tactics而不是Machiavellianism

update：

先貼幾張電影《白宮管家》中LBJ的出鏡的截圖：

————————————分割線————————————————————————————

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

轉一個 Quora上看到的對於LBJ的評價：

Who was the most ruthless U.S. politician that ever lived?

Answer to U.S. Politics: Who was the most ruthless U.S. politician who ever lived?

（手機回答，只能粗暴的複製了。。對原作者 Dan Holiday 說聲抱歉！）

Francis Under. . . errrrr, I mean, Lyndon B. Johnson.

There are other honorable mentions: FDR, Nixon, Woodrow Wilson, Jefferson, Clinton, Kennedy. Oddly enough the list of ruthless is topped by Democrats. I wonder if that"s a thing. But none were quite as ruthless as this guy:

LBJ. I would venture a guess that he was -- what people frequently label -- a megalomaniacal psychopath. Or pretty close. There"s a thing about rumors from people inside the White House: You don"t trust any one of them, but the total sumof them do serve as a barometer of the person holding the office. This means, without a doubt LBJ is the measuring stick for manipulative, heartless dick-head.

Apparently he had a giant penis which -- really not that interesting of a footnote -- except that he nicknamed it "Jumbo"; told people that nickname and then saw fit to back that fact up. Enough people attested both to the fact that they"d seen it (uncomfortably; in meetings that were otherwise supposed to be serious and professional) on too many occasions and that it was, indeed,deserving of the name given to it.
He made people talk to him while he was shitting -- either in person or on the phone. He took pride in this kind of humiliation of people.
He was probably the most philandering of US presidents that we know of. He fucked more women in the White House than probably any President or combination of presidents like Clinton and JFK.
He treated his wife, his pets, his family, his "friends" and his staff like shit. Not "badly"; not "poorly", but like complete shit. He was abusive on a massive scale. Everyone around him was a peon, there to serve him and be discarded or publicly humiliated and he did that with aplomb.

[it should be noted at this point, that the four above bullet points demonstrate diminished empathy which is a critical component in psychopathy -- when combined with the next bullet point, really are damning of his character]
He was unprinciply-principled. That is: the man -- in true form of a psychopath -- adopted and outward mantra of principles but was otherwise a complete slimeball inside. Were communism the next big thing, he"d have switched if it got him more power. The thing is, as charismatic psychopaths often do, he was incredibly successful in pushing his agenda and -- in fact -- is known for being possibly the most successful legislator in US history in terms of his success rate, because . . . .
He kept a list of every dirty secret of his "friends" and enemies. And he used it and he completely destroyed people who got in his way. And not "destroyed" but obliterated their political careers -- allies and enemies alike. He was one of the most hated (but feared, respected and powerful) US Senators. A liberal(ish) Democrat from Texas was feared by local politicians in TX as much as DC. Nobody fucked with LBJ.
He was instantly smarmy and manipulative. He didn"t need a book of your secrets to get inside your head. The man was a slimeball and only another slimeball of considerable intelligence and manipulativeness with a cadre of swooning lieutenants (and one slimeball brother) saw him for what he was and thus kept him a safe distance from the Oval Office: Kennedy.
He had his tentacles in EVERYTHING. Where Kennedy was a bit of an upstart with a huge family and party machine behind him, pushing him to office, LBJ was a DC Beltway Politician who served long terms in the House and Senate. He was the Senate Majority Leader but before that he learned his manipulative ways as . . . the Senate Whip!!!! (not exactly Mr. Underwood"s job, but very close).
There was a term for how LBJ engaged people. It was called "The Johnson Treatment" or "The Treatment" and it could contain anything from cajoling to outright brow-beating. It was something people respected and feared rightly.
Historians (as I mentioned) arguably consider him THE most effective Senate Majority Leader EVER (as in, US History). From Wikipedia: "Historians Caro and Dallek consider Lyndon Johnson the most effective Senate majority leader in history. He was unusually proficient at gathering information. One biographer suggests he was "the greatest intelligence gatherer Washington has ever known", discovering exactly where every Senator stood, his philosophy and prejudices, his strengths and weaknesses, and what it took to break him. Robert Baker claimed that Johnson would occasionally send senators on NATO trips in order to avoid their dissenting votes."
Everybody knew long before he ran for High Office, that he had his eye on it. He"d intelligently avoided talking about it until becoming a candidate, but no one ever doubted.
He is the ONLY senior US politician who is not-too-incredibly suspected of having a sitting US president assassinated. THIS, largely due to the fact that (a) the Executive Branch functionaries are known to have hated the Kennedies and (b) Johnson"s tentacles were in every agency and department long before Kennedy ever came to Congress. While I dismiss this rumor, the fact that it has legs tells of the true power and connections of LBJ vs Kennedy.

讓我想到了明時嘉靖年間徐階、高拱、張居正之間互相的傾軋和合作，雖然有些手段頗為陰險狡詐，但從國家，從大局的角度來看，最終目的都是為了實現自己的政治抱負，重振社稷江山；手段雖然下流，但目的卻不卑鄙。

林登約翰遜即使可能確實如有些人所說，很會玩弄權術，也有很大的嫌疑被人懷疑牽涉了肯尼迪總統被刺案，但不能否認的是，在其第二個任期，作為以超高民意支持率當選總統的林登約翰遜，推行了一系列至今仍在影響美國社會的法案和計劃（Great Society 偉大社會計劃），實現了自己的政治抱負，儘管約翰遜的外交政策遭受失敗（越戰困境），但是因為他的國內政策成績斐然，我認為從大歷史的角度來看，仍應對林登約翰遜總統持一個正面和積極的評價。

《硬球：政治是這樣玩的》一書，裡面提到不少林登·約翰遜的事例。作者有數十年生活在政壇高層的幕前幕後，經歷，目睹了許多政治人物的沉浮成敗，是一個真正了解政治，懂得政治的人，這書可謂集政治手法、潛規則之大成。同時作為暢銷書，對不少人來說，林登·約翰遜在其中的形象是從中而來。

要詳細了解，還是要看書。這裡摘兩個例子：

一個晚上沖四次澡、早上刷五次牙的青年

在1931年大蕭條的那些日子，道奇飯店就已成了一個供人住宿的旅店，裡面住著幾名聯邦參議員，並且至少有一位最高法院法官。當然，也還有一些不及這些人那麼顯赫的房客。在門廳底下的兩層地下室，有一長排卧房，那些卧房只有一個公用的洗澡間。每到晚上，這個陰冷、潮濕的地下世界就會生機盎然，因為那裡面縈繞飛揚著兩眼閃光、意氣風發的年輕人的夢想，他們是一批為美國國會工作的幸運的年輕人。
在這群地下房客中，有一位22歲的青年，他體格魁梧而笨拙，長了兩隻大象一樣的耳朵。他剛成為德克薩斯州民主黨眾議員理查德?克萊博格的秘書，兩周之前他還是休斯頓一所中學的教書匠。這位青年在道奇飯店度過第一夜的時候，就有一些奇怪的舉動—一這些舉動，直到臨終之前的幾個月，他才告訴了他的好友兼傳記作者多里斯?基恩斯。那天晚上，林登?約翰遜一共沖了四次澡。他四次披著浴巾，沿著大廳走到公用浴室，四次打開水龍頭，塗上肥皂。第二天凌晨，他又早早起床，五次跑去刷牙，中間間隔只有五分鐘。

這位德克薩斯州的青年人，有他自己的目的。飯店裡還有75個和他一樣的國會秘書。他要以最快的速度認識他們，認識得越多越好。
他的這一招數成功了。在華盛頓還不過三個月，這位新來乍到的人就成了「小國會」的議長，那是一個由眾議院全體助手組成的組織。
......
拉塞爾參議員是個單身漢，早餐、晚餐都是在國會山餐廳吃的，「我可以肯定，他總是有一個夥伴，一個參議員，工作像他一樣勤奮，工作時間也和他一樣長。那就是我，林登?約翰遜，」約翰遜臨終前回憶道。「在星期天，參議院和眾議院都空空蕩蕩，悄無人聲，外面街道上也人跡稀少。這樣的一天對政治家來說非常難熬，尤其像拉塞爾這樣的單身漢。我理解他的感受，因為我自己也是一個鐘頭一個鐘頭數著直到星期一的。我了解這一點，所以，我一定會請他一起吃頓早飯、中飯，或者只是一起看看周日的報紙。他是我的導師，我希望能照顧好他。」
這種友誼已經超出了功利的範圍。約翰遜漸漸對他的庇護人從心底產生了深深的尊敬之情。若干年後，約翰遜還會說，這位喬治亞州的參議員本來是應該當選總統的。

「我是在跟誰說話？」

拉塞爾·貝克以前是《紐約時報》的記者，他就曾親眼目睹過這樣的場面。1961年的一天，受報社指派報道參議院活動的貝克正站在大廳里，這時約翰遜一把抓住他的手臂，把他拉進了辦公室。「你來，我一直在找你。我想告訴你，你是唯一最了解這裡的情況的記者，如果不是我，肯尼迪是不可能在這裡通過『十誡』立法的……」
　　約翰遜一邊做著他的長篇大論，一邊在一張紙條胡亂寫著什麼，並且叫來秘書，把紙條給了他。秘書出去了一會兒，又回來把紙條交給約翰遜。在大約一個半小時的時間裡，約翰遜對貝克的工作、他的記者才華進行了一番出乎意料的讚揚，貝克聽了感到非常驚奇。
　　後來，貝克從在他之後進入約翰遜辦公室的一個人那裡了解到，這位副總統在交給秘書的那張紙條上字跡潦草地寫著這麼一行字：「我是在跟誰說話？」

無所事事比艱苦工作更容易叫人筋疲力盡。約翰遜小跑～

LBJ被認為是在其任期內協調國會最成功的總統之一，在他任期內通過了《民權法案》和其他與Great Society 相關的法案。他在這方面的成功來源於以下幾個因素：他推動的立法順應了當時的時代潮流，兩黨的議員也需要順應這個潮流；他在年輕時就進入了國會，長期的國會服務經歷積累了大量的人脈；他對議員還是有手段的，有時利誘，有時恐嚇。LBJ不是象Underwood那樣為了權力什麼可以做的政客，他在越戰陷入泥潭時主動放棄了競選連任。

有一部關於LBJ的電影，叫all the way，拍的不錯，題主可以看看估計能有一個不一樣的理解

是，也確實跟下木同志很像，大家都曾在國會呼風喚雨，不過林登比下木更牛！這點可以參見硬球。

另外，看劉行健答案的英文部分，我覺的紙牌屋裡的議長也有點林登的影子。