(2 of 2)
Admittedly, some intellectuals who reject Johnson's foreign policy would also deplore his capitalism. For example, Political Scientist James Mellen of New Jersey's Drew University admitted at a teach-in last week that he is "a professed Marxist," and would like to see the Communists win in Viet Nam. Few Lyndonphobes of any political persuasion publicly fault him on such fatuous grounds as Novelist Norman Mailer, who carps: "He has the worst literary style of any political leader I've ever read." An inordinate number, nonetheless, condemn L.B.J. for esthetic reasons: they are put off by his manner. Countless Americans, particularly in the Northeast, wince at Johnson's folksiness, his cornball cliches, his occasional mawkishness, his graceless reaction to criticism.
Death on Principle. "There is a myth among intellectuals that Johnson believes too much in compromise," says U.C.L.A. Political Science Chairman Richard Longaker. "Actually, he has compromised less than his predecessor, and achieved much more. He gets results that are broad and purposeful." Adds a leading California Democrat: "If you look at the intellectuals' heroes, they are all people who died for principles. They would rather lose on a principle than win on a consensus."
Some intellectuals doubt that hostility to the President runs as deep as all the commotion created by the petition signers, the teach-ins and the ad hoc committees on Viet Nam would seem to indicate. University of Chicago Historian Richard C. Wade, who estimates that 80% of all U.S. college faculty members support Johnson's domestic and foreign policies alike, probably comes close to the mark in describing the prevalent intellectual attitude toward Johnson as one of "respect without enthusiasm." Which, to anyone but L.B.J., would be encomium enough.