Compare and Contrast Essay on John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson as President Leaders

Introduction

Leadership is a complicated discourse since it enhances more than just becoming an individual whose action is in line with the interest of the community. Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson are marked and recognized because of their transformational way of leadership. A leadership that is practiced to date and most applied in the Western developed nations since it involves the creation of a leader and not an inherited trait. Like other thirty-presidents before J.F Kennedy, the U.S presidency was based on trust, vision, and the need to cater for the people needs; thus, the leaders were involved in effective decision making, motivation and inspiration, excellent communication skills, and above all the vision to steer the country from all its shortcomings (Renka, 1985). Surprisingly J. F. Kennedy and L. B. Johnson used the same transformational leadership style to drive the nation, but unfortunately, President Johnson was sworn into leadership a day after the assignation of J. F. Kennedy; thus raising a debate on the leadership mechanism the two had (Renka, 1985). Due to the various discussions on the two presidents, this paper will compare and contrast their presidential leadership, and finally conclude on who is a better leader between the two.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

J. F. Kennedy (1961-63) and L. B. Johnson (1963-68) were members of the Democratic Party movement. Both of the esteemed presidents handled issues concerning the adjacent Congresses that were responsible for the transformation adjustments during the 1970s reform reign (Renka, 1985). Moreover, their era promoted activism of the democratic politics that was unique than that of the 1960s; thus, during both administrations the White House approach of legislative lobbying was unchanged. Next, J. F Kennedy was the first president to impose a White House lobbying that embraced close connections to the president and promote legislative liaison tasks. Nonetheless, under the leadership of Lawrence F. Obrien the Congress Relations Office constructed policies which became directive after 1961 and continued to be adhered to under the reign of Lyndon Johnson (Renka, 1985).

Also, only some sound internal reforms were considered under the leadership of the two presidents. First, the two-thirds voting and presence invoked 'rule twenty-two' that was against the Senator's delaying tactics was not changed despite the continuous disagreements from the reform advocates (Renka, 1985). Next, House policy amendments were conducted by voting using non-recorded procedures, to prevent exposure on the list of names to avoid significant actions. Nonetheless, in case of any contextual changes in the 1960s, the activities were not termed as incremental; it as due to social changes the nation went through. Also, Civil rights, Vietnam, riots, assassinations, the rise of rock music and ideal lifestyles enhanced reactive institutions (Renka, 1985). Moreover, Kenney leadership established the rise of civil right and Vietnam rose at a fast rate before the authority of the Congress and due to initiation of the presidents to authorize and prosecute the war.

Also, J. F. Kennedy and L. B. Johnson tackled social reforms; thus, Kennedy and Johnson were responsible for imposing and enacting New Frontier Policy and the Great Society Program to embrace and support new deals (Renka, 1985). Unfortunately, Johnson's policy faced lots of critics since it never met the Congress expectations; thus, leading to lots of resistance. The approach of Johnson's administration embraced full-scale effectiveness and popularity since it involved the direct funding of the education system and the underprivileged. Additionally, the policy became the pioneer to the rise of Medicare and Medicaid and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Renka, 1985). On the other hand, J. F. Kennedy's law too faced critics and resistance while in Congress for debate and enactment. Kennedy's hope of enhancing the House rules committee, impose the Tax-cut policy and pose the inflation as a contingency plan did not work since these policies were overshadowed by the medical and education laws that were stalled by the Congress (Renka, 1985).

Due to the rise of civil rights, both presidents face violent actions after their congress actions. First, Kennedy went out of his jurisdiction and used federal force to make sure the security of black college students after he took office. Moreover, the esteemed president was against the bombing of the Birmingham church. On the other hand, Johnson too had his shortcomings when he faced black reaction and uprise (Renka, 1985). Next, his leadership was threatened by various movements from prominent leaders such as Black Panthers as well as Malcolm X agreement and campaign due to the issues of equality. After the assassination of Malcolm X, Jonson faced severe violence from the community. In other words, even with their political structures facing many issues, the two presidents faced criticism due to the practice of oppression, inequality, and racial discrimination by society (Renka, 1985).

Conclusion

All in all, identifying who was a much better president between Kennedy and Johnson is next to impossible since the ruled using the same approach and faced almost similar techniques to govern the nation. The paper selects President J. F. Kennedy as an ideal leader than Johnson since he was the pioneer of transformation leadership and created a perfect path that was followed by Johnson. Also, he was more focused on raising the living standards of America by proposing the Tax-cut law. Lastly, it is because rather than take sides and support the white, he stood for equality; thus, making him use federal force to protect the back students and condemn the bombing of Birmingham church.

Reference

Renka, R. (1985). Comparing Presidents Kennedy and Johnson as Legislative Leaders. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 15(4): 806-825.