Recommended Listen: Yann Tiersen - La Boulange.

Just about everything this guy has ever done is

absolutely insane. He is seriously incredible. La Boulange is my favourite of his songs but this man is
truly a serial hit producer. Although he emphasises that he is not a composer, his music has a
classical focus, with elements of rock, pop and folk intertwined. Tiersen is truly an album artist, with
almost all of his albums worthy of listening in pretty much any environment and with none really
standing out above any other. He is by far my favourite classical artist and I simply cannot stress how
brilliant his music really is.

THIS IS A STORY about how perception sometimes does not meet reality in politics. It discusses
how a combination of youth, brilliant image and otherness led one President to be seen as a civil
rights hero, whilst the escalation of a foreign war led the other President to be seen as little more
than a warmonger. These Presidents were John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson.

I recently watched the fantastic Ava DuVernay film, Selma - an epic dramatization of the events
leading up to and including the historic march of Civil Rights Activists, led by Dr Martin Luther King,
from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. The film focuses on how MLK turned his attention to voting
rights for African Americans after blacks were discovering that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was not
enough to prevent a number of white voting registrars from blocking black people from entering
registry offices. Throughout the movie, the relationship between MLK and then President, Lyndon B.
Johnson is seen to be fractious, with LBJ seemingly only interested in bringing about black voting
rights once more important projects were completed. DuVernay consistently depicts LBJ as a man
who was disinterested in seeking full equality for blacks, seeing the 1964 CRA as sufficient for Kings
people.

This portrayal, backed up by the subsequent backlash from some former LBJ colleagues about his
depiction as resistant, rather than open, to MLKs voting rights requests, got me thinking despite
LBJ passing through all three landmark Civil and Voting Rights bills, securing full equality of blacks
and whites in the eyes of the law, he is rarely given the credit for being such a bastion of civil
equality. Instead, Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy are commonly acknowledged to be Great
presidents for their beliefs about domestic equality. And although assigning these Presidents this
moniker can be questionable given their actual personal beliefs and legislative records, they are still
seen as heroes to many an African-American. But more specifically, Kennedy himself seemingly
changed no laws or did any other significant act to secure equal rights for all Americans. Even
though Lincolns persona is exaggerated as being far greater than he actually deserves (Lincoln did
not see blacks as equal to whites, had to be persuaded by more liberal senators (e.g. Thaddeus
Stephens) that the war was worth fighting, and even considered sending all black slaves to Liberia in

order to rid America of colour), he did start a war which ultimately liberated black people from slavery
in the US. Kennedy however, did no such comparable act.
Yet if this is the case, why is Kennedy seen to be so great by African Americans? And even if
Kennedy was great, why is Johnson seen to be significantly less great than his direct predecessor,
Kennedy?
Well, the answer lies primarily in the issue of image. Kennedy managed to secure an almost
impeccable image with the public throughout his entire career, and as the son of one of the
wealthiest men in America, you would expect so too. He was suave, good looking and carried a
charisma with the media unlike any President before him, whilst his marriage to his wife Jackie was
something of a sensation amongst the public. He was also seen as an underdog by many blacks
his Catholic beliefs, Irish background and relative inexperience all contributed to a perception of his
otherness which blacks could easily relate to. His assassination and later perception amongst many
as a martyr for the Free World only heightened his legacy within the public sphere, leading to one of
those Where were you? moments. Johnson however, had no such galvanising personality. Having
been a teacher and local activist before entering politics, he didnt have the same charming
magnetism as his fellow Democrat. He was a Southern bruiser, somehow incredible at hatching a
deal in order to achieve his goals, but simply unable to captivate the public in the way Kennedy did.
In the end he garnered a huge amount of negative press from his escalation of the Vietnam war a
conflict which ended up being extremely costly and highly unpopular with the public (and also ended
up sticking as his most prominent legacy as president). And since he didnt get killed by a sovietsympathising psychopath, Johnson simply could not provide a legacy which could match Kennedys.

At this point, you may be shouting But what about policy?! at your luxury iPad and Kindle screens.
Even if JFK is perceived as having had a better legacy, what about in reality? What were his policies
like compared to LBJ? Well, both had grand visions of what their America would look like, with JFKs
New Frontier standing against LBJs Great Society. But in terms of policy, LBJ blows JFK out of the
water. Im sorry, but this is no bias. During his 3 years as president, JFK was seen as soft on the
USSR and was responsible for the disastrous Bay of Pigs failure. His policies involved ensuring
NASA launched a man into space before the end of the decade (/before the Soviets), prohibiting all
nuclear test detonations (except underground) and establishing the Peace Corps to help certain
underdeveloped countries with education, farming and construction.

LBJ however oversaw the expansion of the war in Vietnam whether or not it was seen as a good
thing, this policy was certainly not seen as soft on the USSR. Domestically, he vastly increased
funding to schools and established national endowments for the Humanities and Art. He regulated
interstate firearms transfers and introduced protection for property renters against landlords. He
required that all facilities funded by the government be accessible to those with disabilities, set up the
Public Broadcasting Service and the National Public Radio, and introduced anti age-discrimination
laws for employees. He created the Medicare and Medicaid systems, which millions of Americans
still rely on for access to healthcare today, started a food stamp program for low-income households,
created the Office of Economic Opportunity and began the War on Poverty. The list seriously does
go on. It seems that even if LBJs Great Society wasnt achieved during his presidency, he certainly
did a heck of a lot to bring America on its way.
But it is domestic civil rights policy which is most pertinent in this topic. While JFK is seen as
synonymous with the Civil Rights Movement, LBJ simply is not. In reality, I think JFK is unfairly given
this prestigious perception. Yes, it is true that he was the first President to publicly consider equal
rights for blacks, and yes he did write a book about how the US was A Nation of Immigrants, thereby
publicly broadcasting his advocacy for a more open immigration policy. But ultimately, the truth is that
JFK did not sign any significant piece of equality legislation into law during his 3 year tenure. The
same cannot be said for LBJ however. He was responsible for signing into law the 1964 Civil Rights
Act, giving equal rights to all US citizens in the eyes of the law, the 1965 Voting Rights Act,
prohibiting racial discrimination in the voting system (and also considered to be the most effective
piece of civil rights legislation enacted in US history) and the Civil Rights Act of 1968, providing equal
housing opportunities to all races. And theres more. LBJ signed legislation which opened the doors
to the US for immigrants with appropriate skills from anywhere in the world (as opposed to the
previous policy which was intensely biased to European immigration only) and increased funding to
schools to set up programs for students with limited English-speaking ability. All this from a man born
and raised in the South.

You may now be going nuts at your screen, shouting But Kennedy began the change in Civil Rights
legislation, not Johnson. And here is where I will accept my previous bias, and concede this point to
you crazy fools the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the brainchild of JFK. It is true that JFK was the first
President to really acknowledge the need for change in attitudes to race in America. And it is also
true that JFK worked hard to gather public support for the 1964 Act when it began to stall in
congress. He was the man who sent in US marshals to protect the Freedom Riders in the South, and
to protect James Meredith the first black man to enter a white university in the US. It takes a lot for
a president to support such a paradigm shift in attitudes which affect the very basis of society and
President Kennedy was willing to put his neck on the line to effect this change.

But it was Johnson, not Kennedy, who made sure that his first address to Congress as President was
about ensuring a civil rights bill will be passed. It was Johnson, not Kennedy, who appointed
Americas first black Supreme Court Justice. And ultimately, it was Johnson, not Kennedy, who
actually signed these bills into law, finally securing the long-awaited equality for all US citizens. In
truth, Kennedys poor Civil Rights record is due to his own political infancy. I do not doubt for a
second that he had a similar want for equality in the US as Johnson did. But the reality is that JFK
did not possess the political clout to enact any of these blockbuster laws before he was unfortunately
assassinated. He was a mere one-term senator before becoming president, and had limited political
connections despite his Harvard education and his fathers influence. Johnson on the other hand
was destined for political supremacy. He had been the most powerful Majority Leader in US Senate
history, and was infamous for being able to turn the screws and make things happen his incredible
number of legislation passed is no coincidence, and is truly testament to the fact that LBJ was a man
who was just brilliant at getting his way. Ultimately, the reason why JFK had little Civil Rights
legislation to his name (or any other for that matter) was because of his immaturity in the job, whilst
Johnson on the hand, had a strong political conviction and was able to back it up with the legislation
to prove it.

You may now be screaming at your screens AGAIN (seriously guys, this is only a crappy article, it
aint gonna change anything) that JFK only had 3 years at the helm, compared to the 5 years which
LBJ was afforded, and therefore it is not fair for me to compare the two Presidents. However, this is
a holistic comparison of the legacies of both Presidents, and if that argument were to be classed as
valid, then all debates about the best President ever should exclude FDR, a suitably Great
President who experienced four terms in power rather than the usual two. That would be ridiculous.
It is clear that my issue is with the perception amongst many that Kennedys greatness is far superior
to that of Johnsons. Despite Kennedys sure positive impact on equality, his improving of wages for
workers and his generally liberal agenda, his New Frontier vision was nowhere near as impactful and
sweeping as Johnsons Great Society. It is abundantly clear to me, supported by all the
aforementioned evidence, that it was Johnson who was the more willing and certainly more capable
president of the two. And this is why I took a disliking to his depiction in Selma. His portrayal in the

film was no less of a complete fabrication of DuVernays mind in reality he fought for a long time for
equal civil and voting rights for blacks. He was not the resistant, domineering president which Selma
made him out to be, he was in fact the architect of the Selma march and personally instructed the
Attorney General on the composition of the Voting Rights Act; the piece of legislation he considered
his greatest achievement. If there ever was a president who was a hero of civil equality, it was
President Johnson.
But in the end, I was still happy that this film was released. MLK is disgracefully under-depicted in
Hollywood this is the first feature-length film with him as the central character. And it was brilliantly
executed, with both his victories and his fallacies courageously illustrated by DuVernay and
outstandingly depicted by David Oyelowo. It also gave some much-needed screen time to LBJ, who
is also rarely depicted in movies about his Civil Rights impact although it does vilify him somewhat
throughout the film.
As the marchers finally reached Montgomery and the closing scene of Selma began, Oyelowo gave
the performance of his lifetime by almost perfectly replicating MLK's oratory genius during his 'How
Long, Not Long speech'. As I turned my back on the screen and looked around the theatre in a poor
attempt to prevent my girlfriend from seeing the streams of tears now plummeting down my face, I
noticed something quite remarkable. With the exception of my girlfriend, a black guy in the row
behind me and myself, there was not a single person of colour in the entire theatre. Everyone
watching this movie was white. And given the whole Oscars furore surrounding the movie, I was
reminded of the self-funded George Lucas film, Red Tails, which took 20 years to be released
because producers felt they had no way to market an all-black-cast movie. Although Selma did not
have an all-black cast, the almost purely-white audience willing to watch a movie about African
Americans attempting to achieve equality in their own country, highlighted just how much the world
has truly changed over the past 50 years, and even over the past 20.
As Oyelowo finished the final words of his speech, the credits began to roll and the track 'Glory'
began to play. Yet no-one moved. A few seconds in, and pictures of the real march and riots filled the
screen. Everyone was rooted to the spot - not a single person even thought about moving until after
two minutes of truly devastating pictures of their struggle and the main credits began to roll.

Selma should have been nominated for more awards at the Oscars this year. I watched half of the
Best Picture Nominees, including the eventual winner, Birdman. None compared to Selma. Its
storyline was epic, its acting was immense and direction phenomenal (on the last point, I did strongly
scrutinise the direction of the film and 30 minutes in, decided it was poor. But as Selma progressed, I
understood her directing genius; DuVernay was incredible). It may be that I have a bias for this film
I have always had a soft spot for civil rights causes. But I dont care. Selma was gripping, illuminating
and brilliant in almost every way and really should have won more at this years Oscars.