free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

Mfischhoff · Joined: 14 Sep 2009 Posts: 51

Please reflect on your reading and write 100-200 words minimum in response. Build on the ideas of your peers. Include a question in your post. Something to get your juices flowing: How did Johnson's policies differ from Kennedy's?

Free Forum

cfairless · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 7

In my opinion, Johnson's policies were far more underhand and dishonest than Kennedy's. He used covert CIA operations to achieve his political goals, in situations where I think Kennedy might have opted for diplomacy.

I was very impressed by how unbiased this reading was. There was one sentence in particular that popped out for me:

"This illegal, unacknowledged intervention brought down Jagan and ushered in a friendlier government."

This sentence, I believe, is evidence of how this reading was impartial. They say that the US did something illegal, but then say that it was perhaps a good thing. The reading didn't skim over the illegal or immoral things that the US has done, but it also recognized the positive actions of the US.

How do you think this reading compares to our other readings?

mmcgowan18 · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 27

I couldn't believe how different Kennedy and Johnson were from each other. Like we saw in the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy was very thoughtful and used every reasource avaible to understand a situation before he made a decision. But Johnson didn't seem to do that; his decisions were more unsteady and unpredictiable. I feel like he used to much power and as time went on he seemed to be getting worse. I couldn't believe some of the comments he made about the intellegence of Latin Americans.

This reading was the only place I have seen something negative about Kennedy. When Kennedy built the mililtary schools for Latin America. I don't think he intended for the latin americans to use their new knowledge the way they did, but it did turn into nine seperate military coups.

Do you think Latin America would have been better off if Kennedy hadn't been killed?

asilver · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 28

I think that Latin America would have been better off if Kennedy had not died. But Kennedy was also not so nice to governments he did not like, he tried to assassinate Castro for communist sympathies. But it seems that for Kennedy, foreign threats came in the form of communist governments, where as Johnson seemed much more concerned with making sure the governments bolstered the US economy. For instance when he asked the gov. to find communist tendencies in a government so he would have an excuse to overthrow them.

My question: What is the best policies for a Latin American country dealing with the Johnson admin.

azellweger · Joined: 19 Oct 2009 Posts: 20

I feel like half the time the only reason the US has so much influence in Latin America is because they have so much money. Whenever they disagree with a leader they supply money or weapons to conspirators and create a coup. Which isn't the right way to deal with it. Especially because they are only against them when it isn't convenient for them and their policies.

Alec's Question is: What is the best policies for a Latin American country dealing with the Johnson admin?
I guess the country always has to agree with the US. In the third Johnston crisis the dictator Trujillo had been an ambivalent ally to the US and they still had him shot. You can't pick and chose what you want to follow, because that'll just piss off the Johnson Administration.

soldsman · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 9

i was pretty surprised about how Johnson went about with his policies. Everything seemed sneaky and undermined. He used the CIA to help riots against people/governments he didn't like. It also seemed that when deciding what to do he always chose the "middle" plan. This seems kind of cowardly since he would choose some bad things but then give a country a little bit of what they wanted in return. Then in the reading it also said, "Johnson preferred overkill to worldly caution" p. 28. He really seemed like he was unsure about what approaches he would use.

my question is why do you think he always chose the "middle ground." Do you think this helped him in the end, or ended up hurting his reputation?

jpressman · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 7

Geez, Johnson was really tricky! He routinely used illegal tactics, such as inciting riots and rigging elections in Panama. He got away with all of it, too. And we thought those Latin Americans were sneaky, wow...

I think Johnson's problem was that he perceived all foreign policy issues as "military in nature" (25). In his three Latin American crises, from 1964-1965, violent acts occurred. In Panama, he caused a major riot where "21 Panamanians and 4 U.S troops died" (26). Then in Brazil, he basically funded a military coup against one of Vargas' successors, Goulart. And then in the Dominican Republic, he ordered troops to assist with a rebel fight in an act of "gunboat diplomacy" (2 Cool

. That tactic was the only way that was actually somewhat successful for Johnson. As we learned in the debate, you can't approach everything from a defense standpoint, like option 3 did, because it's rarely rational and is often too risky. Johnson preferred this kind of "overkill to worldly caution," and it definitely shows in his foreign policy decisions (2 Cool

.

My question: Why did the United States find it beneficial to provide assistance in ousting dictators such as Trujillio?

rbennett · Joined: 14 Oct 2009 Posts: 39

I definitely think Johnson worked very differently than Kennedy. He was more sneaky and manipulative, going back to the ideas of Eisenhower, such as removing leaders that were not cooperating with the U.S.

To answer Julia’s question, I think the U.S. benefited from helping to get rid of certain dictators because then they could help implement a dictator who better suited their ideals and motives. By helping to get rid of dictators, the U.S. then had a hand in choosing another one and could use this power to gain control of money and economics etc.

My question: In the reading it said that the Panamanians wanted to be a colony of the U.S. and not a partner of it. I am confused by this and am wondering if anyone can explain, and why do you think they wanted this?

esumner · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 9

Johnson worked very different then Kennedy. He was very secretive with his work, and was very dishonest. People in Latin America thought Kennedy was sneaky, I wonder what they thought of Johnson.

In response to Maggie's question, I think Latin America would have been better off if Kennedy wasn't assassinated. I feel Kennedy respected Latin America more than Johnson.

I really think the U.S. needs to get out of other countries businesses. I know we're just trying to 'help' but often out help turns in to chaos and the countries we try to help end up hating us.

To Rachel's question, I think the Panamanians wanted to be a colony of the U.S. because they thought they could get more support and have a better economy if they were part of the U.S. opposed to just a partner.

I can't come up with a question right now.

mlockery · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 7

First off, Julia: Word to everything you said in your post. That was awesome.

I was not a fan of President Johnson before I read this chapter. I thought he was sneaky and warlike, and had none of the charm that the calm, cool, collected JFK had. This chapter reinforced those feelings. In a nutshell, Johnson’s foreign policy regarding Latin America was to treat them like misbehaving children. Johnson based his opinion of all Latin Americans off of the immigrant Mexican schoolchildren he taught in Texas. This is obviously incorrect. I honestly think it is utterly disgusting that a President of the United States would be this callous and ignorant. It is no surprise to me that the insurgents in Latin America continued to bait him in such a way that would make him respond with violence in their country.

RRubbico · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 23

Johnson operated complete contrast to Kennedy. Kennedy seemed to be much more honest and fair about his decisions with the counties in Latin America. This reading starts off right away talking about the illegal activity of the Johnson. I understand that Johnson was making sure in every way possible that the US would not be involved in another cold war, but the extent that he went in order to stop communism and to police the countries in Latin America was uncalled for.

I also thought it was interesting that the US condoned this “policing” of Latin American countries even though they where well aware of the self perpetuating machine of corruption and disloyalty that they were creating in the governments of these countries. The US was so afraid of communism that they did not let any of the countries control their governments without us intervening. My question is: Do you actually think that Johnson’s solutions to communism would fix the so called problem, or do u think it would just pause it for the time being?

blee · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 9

Unlike Kennedy, who was praised after his death by Castro, Johnson used more straight forward strategy. During the Cuba Missile Crisis, Kennedy always seemed to be thinking than more of taking an action. However, Johnson, in the reading, is more brutal and action first person. When Johnson was in power, he used lots of CIA powers and army powers to support his own opnions. Johnson also had a cold heart and uncaring attitude for those who were not related to him. He said "damn tired of packing our flag and our embassy and our USIS every time somebody got a little emotional outburst..." From the context of this situation and his personality, he used the name U.S. to prove that he was more powerful than any other nations and he expressed the superiority. On the contrary, Kennedy always thought about how to maintain U.S.'s image to foreign countries to keep the on-going relationship.

My question is : Why did Johnson became open to immigrants?

jcho · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 22

It was interesting to see how two different leaders handled various situations. As it was mentioned before, it surprised me that this reading seemed unbiased. The negative side of the US was brought out along with the positive, and it seemed like a balanced reading. This gave me more room for understanding the situation. Kennedy differed a lot from Johnson. The decisions they made were quite the opposite. While Kennedy looked more on the side of diplomacy (which in turn brought the Bay of Pigs), Johnson took a more direct approach. This packet mentioned the negative sideof Johnson's policies, but I think we have to understand that the decisions he made were solutions that he thought would clear the problem. The decisions may not seem very just and right, but it was his image to clear the problem that led him to these policies.
Compared to other readings, I think this is more trustworthy. Showing an unbiased side helped a lot and differed from the other readings (where they usually put the positive spin for the US).

helens · Joined: 22 Nov 2009 Posts: 25

Wow I completely agree with Charlotte’s post. I was thinking the exact same thing about Johnson while reading this. In a way I felt this reading compared to the other reading just showed U.S looking to dominate someplace. I felt this definitely showed an “aggressive” [as Castro would like to say] U.S. When the U.S went to Dominican Republic, the sentence that stood out for me was “Nevertheless, Johnson preferred to overkill to worldly caution.” Also even before the Dominican Republic incident, you can tell that U.S was more focus on world domination when it stated on page 25, that in the 1960s that “U.S technicians abroad worked on police then in health and sanitation.”
For me this reading kind of made me think of Castro….I don’t know why. But I would really appreciate it if someone could explain the Foco theory in simple words. Please and thank you!

carterp · Joined: 22 Nov 2009 Posts: 6

I enjoyed this reading even if it was a little dry, but over all it seemed unbiased. As people have mentioned before there is a stark contrast between Kennedy policies and ideas for latin america and Johnson's. Johnson had no qualms about using illegal and military tactics in Latin America. His interventions and "assistance" in brazil, panama, and the dominican republic sent the countries into upheaval. Johnson seemed like a narrow minded jerk, with one goal in mind: to make sure that the U.S. economy remained strong.
But what I can't figure out is why did he think that this was the only way to do that? His tactics were so aggresive that he ruined our already horrible reputation in L.A. I can see that the reason that we supported dictators, they're easy to control. But when you help a country become a dictatorship the people generally don't like you. So as I said in one of my posts a couple weeks ago, why didnt we support democracy like we did in europe. Their are easier ways to get people to buy your stuff, we could simply sell the "american way of life" to them and then forgo all the killing and dirty tricks.

Free Forum