Quantcast
Aug
03

Leadership Lessons From Another Johnson

I’m sitting here on a hot, steamy evening in Chennai, realizing it will be a while before I can go to sleep. It’s my first night here in India, and my clock is all out of whack, having arrived at 3:00 this morning after an eighteen hour flight.  But it is okay. Part of my summer reading includes Robert Caro’s The Passage of Power, and having just finished it on the plane, it’s a good opportunity to reflect.  Caro’s book recounts one of the most compelling periods in presidential history—the transition from Kennedy to Johnson. Those of us who were alive during this moment remember that fateful day, Nov 22, 1963.  We can remember exactly where we were. I was in math class at Emerald Junior High. Our teacher, an older and gracious woman, stepped out of the class for a moment, and stepped back in to announce President John F. Kennedy had just been shot.  I was 13.

Caro recounts the passage of power when, in an instant, in a gunshot, the world of Washington turned upside down. I’ve tried to distill a number of leadership lessons from these 26 chapters.  Here they are—

 

1-LEADERSHIP INVOLVES POLITICS

I often thought, as a young, naïve seminarian, that my leadership would be above politics. Until I became a pastor. And then I realized that so much of leadership involves reading the situation, mapping out your resistors, knowing how to persuade, knowing when to press and knowing when to back off, and learning how to rightfully use power. Lyndon Johnson was the ultimate political animal. And as a result, he mastered how to influence and persuade and manipulate. He could follow someone’s mind around, and get where it was going before the other person knew where it was going.

He knew what to watch. In a leadership course on the subject of politics, he might say

  • watch their hands and their eyes. No matter what a man says, read his eyes. “The most important thing a man has to tell you is what he is not telling you; the most important thing he has to say is what he is trying not to say.” So don’t let a conversation end until you learn what he isn’t saying, until you ‘get it out of him’.
  • map your resistors on both sides of the aisle
  • pay attention and know where power resides. Johnson was a master at learning those who held “pieces of power”, and understood how to bring them to his side.
  • realize that it is relationships, not issues, which matter most to people. Johnson knew who to invite to dinner, send a card to, or who to personally call. He understood the power of showing deference to age or affection to babies.

.

2-TIMING IS EVERYTHING

To be an effective leader, you have to know what time it is. Johnson knew that Kennedy’s death gave him a window of opportunity to push through bills that would have otherwise been stillborn. Discerning the season, he masterfully overcame resistance to civil rights and social reforms, launching his vision of a ‘great society’. The adoration and affection for a martyred young President needed to be seized. And when your timing is right, you can control momentum.   He would say, “A measure must be sent to the Hill at exactly the right moment.”  He had a gift for sensing in an instant, in the “cut and thrust and parry of debate”, when seizing and launching maneuvers will turn the tide. How often some of our great initiatives fail because we missed the moment, or saw the momentum shift because we were not paying attention to the mood of the congregation? Timing is everything.  Momentum is not a mysterious mistress. It is a controllable fact of life. So catch the wave at its crest.

.

3-IF YOU ARE GOING TO LEAD—THAN BE DECISIVE

Part of what set Johnson apart was his strength of will. He had learned painfully that fear and doubt and hesitancy can immobilize and paralyze. He circled about the prize of the presidency in 1960, and it cost him a potentially successful bid. He recognized if he were to lead, if he were to master governance, he would have to become a decision maker. This requires that one overcome his fears. It demands both courage and a tenacious will. In comparing Johnson to Kennedy, Reston wrote: “President Kennedy’s eloquence was designed to make men think; President Johnson’s hammer blows are designed to make men act.” When Johnson decided to act, few things got in his way, be it in the Senate or in the White House.

The succession of power from Kennedy to Johnson was successful, in large part, due to Johnson’s determination to decide and act. In the moment Kennedy was gone, Johnson took charge. He had to if he was to lead. From having no influence, he suddenly was thrust to the pinnacle of power, and he knew what to do. His decisiveness enabled the nation to stay steady. His immediate decision to appoint the Warren Commission quieted suspicions that could have otherwise escalated into an international crisis. He acted upon Kennedy’s death and turned it into a martyr’s cause, enabling him to go after the programs he wanted to accomplish.

.

4-FIRST IMPRESSIONS MATTER

When Johnson was suddenly thrust on stage as the world’s most powerful man, he had to meet the world’s leaders. And this was dangerous ground. First impressions can influence the policy of nations. Khrushchev’s first impression of Kennedy as young and naïve helped lead to the Cuban Missile crisis. But Johnson could read men. He knew how to use his southern charm and hospitality, as well as a certain earthiness to disarm first time meetings. You only get one shot at first impressions, and part of the reason he kept America steady was that leaders realized that in Kennedy’s loss, it did not mean the US could be taken advantage of.  First impressions revealed someone in command.

.

5-CHARACTER IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD AND GREAT

I am struck by Johnson’s commanding presence. He could fill a room with his large size and wave of arms. He knew where to look for power and how to use it. He had a genius for taking nothing jobs, nothing organizations, and making them into something big. He had a canny ability to see the bigger picture. At times, especially during his time as Vice-President, when his power was “castrated”, he exhibited great discipline and strength. He had great compassion for the poor, and used his position to go after social justice. In some crucial moments, especially immediately after Kennedy’s assassination, he was self possessed, humble, and calm. He made so many great decisions that led to a better living for many. He steadied the nation during a moment that things could have gotten badly out of hand.

But like so many presidents, Johnson was flawed—with flaws so deep that greatness seems to have eluded his legacy. He bought elections; he manipulated and coerced people. He used shouting, swearing, pounding on desktops—even pity–as tactics to get his way. As one put it, “The man will twist your arm off at the shoulder and beat your head in with it.”  He once boasted that he was a fox that could see the jugular in any man.

Johnson also held on to resentment. He allowed the hate between him and Bobby Kennedy to get the best of him at times. One can understand. He was the butt of cruel humor in the Kennedy White House.  Most of the Kennedy men despised Johnson. He was comically humbled; called ‘Cornpone’. He was, in their minds, a satyr to Hyperion. And with a certain bitterness, Johnson would never forget, using power to insult and humiliate and hurt.

He ruthlessly grabbed for power, and the more he got, the more intoxicated he became with it; the more cavalier he became in its use. His ego pushed out anything he did not want to hear. Some of his decisions cost the lives of a number of my peers during the Vietnam War. As Caro concludes, the tragedy of Johnson was that the forces he held in check, had conquered himself, he wasn’t able to hold very long.

We might say it this way, that if Johnson had sought to truly follow after Christ and pursue the transformation possible—learned the language of God’s new world, bringing God’s wisdom to birth in his life—his presidency would have had the marks of historical greatness. And this is true of all presidents.

About John Johnson

John is the lead pastor at Village Church in Portland, OR and Associate Professor of Pastoral Theology at Western Seminary. He also has a strong commitment to building the church worldwide, partnering and teaching ministries in Lebanon and India.

Comments

  1. Matt Lowe says:

    I appreciate the manner in which you have encapsulated this book for your audience; whether implicitly or explicitly, you raise many ideas that are worthy of further reflection — not least of which is the extent to which leadership models (in)appropriate to the U.S. Presidency can and should be transferred to ministerial contexts. Please believe that I want to respond with grace and tact in what follows.

    I recognize that it can be difficult to produce a frequent blog, even when authorship is shared between several contributors. But I would encourage you to take a moment or two more to proofread before you post. This applies to small issues, such as the use of “than” instead of “then” in one of your subtitles and the occasional misuse of punctuation elsewhere, but it’s also applicable to more embarrassing missteps, such as the off-color connotation of your main title!

    Again, I appreciate your contribution, and I hope it leads to some fruitful discussion about the character and characteristics of political leadership.

  2. Ron Swaren says:

    Johnson was influenced by Republicans to escalate the military actions in SE Asia: first Laos, then Vietnam, and then Nixon got into Cambodia, too. However, I think conservative Baptist Sen. Mark Hatfield had a clearer view on this matter, since he had served in SE Asia, including Vietnam during World War 2.

    Of course without the Vietnam War a lot of guys wouldn’t have opted for II-D and IV-D deferments to get out of the military draft. And once they had invested in that education the momentum was established. And you know who you are, too :)

    So then, shouldn’t LBJ get part of the credit for a religious revival in the US?

    • john johnson says:

      Creative–but I am not sure I can go that far. What I remember was a powerful moving of the Spirit on university campuses in the 70′s that had nothing to do with LBJ–I think

      • Ron Swaren says:

        No phenomenon of popular activity has only one original cause. I’m saying it is one of other factors. Sure, maturing generations become more conservative; and there were the apocalyptic fears, stoked by nuclear weapons and the big news story of the struggle of Israel against opponents. However, I professionally counseled some guys at the PSU Agora House at the time, who knew they could avoid the draft with a II-D or IV-D. Of course there were a lot of other potential deferments, and student deferments were very popular, leading in many ways to the Yuppie Era of the 1980′s. Then I noticed listening to evangelical preachers that many of them, recounting their life at that time, had had a sudden epiphany—such as when they were graduating college, or for some other reason that they could be exposed to military service. In fact one of them I heard had said he dreamed of being a helicopter pilot but then opted for the ministry. VietNam would have been a perfect place to be a helicopter pilot :)

        The Viet Nam War made many, many young men alter their lifelong plans, trust me, because I was there to help them do it, too. So I am saying it was likely one more thread forming a cord of “religious reawakening” as one book phrased it at the time (by US News and World Report). I don’t think the hand dealt at the table these days is going to be quite as much the winner as that one was.

        You should watch Randall Balmers “The Evangelical Subculture” I have put the link on here a number of times. There is a five minute summary on YouTube:

  3. Ron Swaren says:

    Thank you so much for putting this post on here, Rev. Johnson. I guess policy can not always follow logic and succeed! So now I have some more ammunition to use against same-sex marriage proponents: “You think logic is on your side? Just like LBJ thought it was logical to try to stop communism in SE Asia. And GWB thought it was logical to ‘bring democracy to the Middle East.’ See what happens when you’re too logical?”
    Thanks :)

Speak Your Mind

*