[appeal2]

I don't mean to say that he came to love the man, but rather that his accomplishment towards "social justice" somehow made up for the man's evils. I just saw Caro on TV talking about the book and he was just so proud of Johnson's civil rights accomplishments that they were somehow the result of some compassionate core of the man. But the fact is civil rights was all part of Johnson's grand scheme to become president.

[Torie]

Actually, Caro in his book has no illusions about the 1957 Civil Rights Bill, and readily admits that its symbolic usefulness was secured due to Johnson's ambitions, and not from any principled moral imperative on his part. Perhaps Caro was referring to the 1965 Civil Rights Act, which was the real deal, and per subsequent court interpretations, became something of a monster despite the fundamental good that it achieved, and the moral imperative which demanded it.

[u-89]

I just saw Caro on TV talking about the book and he was just so proud of Johnson's civil rights accomplishments that they were somehow the result of some compassionate core of the man.

Caro is unashamedly liberal. That being said it is human nature to project our hopes and good will on to others that we like or support. If we like a particular leader than his actions reflect upon us as we support him. It is basic instinct, self preservation, to then put the best appearance forward of those to whom we attach. This can be seen in extreme cases like Clinton defenders with their bunker mentality support of the man through overwhelming evidence of his malfeasance. So with Caro he sees good in the results of Johnson's career. He is able to see the real character of the man yet tries to redeem him. Not surprising. Still Caro is a good writer and a researcher of intense ambition. He is worth the time it takes to read him.