Some of the president’s liberal critics think he should. They argue that Lyndon Johnson’s willingness to do whatever was necessary to get his program enacted deserves praise. Essentially, the ends justify the means:

Doris Kearns Goodwin, the LBJ scholar, wants Obama “to take charge, to draw lines, to pressure, to threaten, to cajole,” to basically herd the cats on the Hill. Peter Fenn, a Democratic strategist, has declared, “It’s time for a little LBJ,” with “some serious arm-twisting for good measure.” Dean Baker, who runs a liberal think tank, invokes LBJ and urges Obama to “get the list of every hardball nasty political ploy” that Johnson ever used.

The columnist I’m quoting, the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Dick Pohlman, doesn’t agree with the advice:

People seem to want Obama to act like LBJ, but Obama would be fried in the press if he tried anything like that. Pork is a symptom of the old Washington that Obama has vowed to change – which is fine, but let’s not forget that the tribal rituals of old Washington helped make Johnson the manipulative wheeler-dealer that he was.
With respect to health-care reform, perhaps the current congressional sausage-making would be more coherent, and perhaps the public would be more reassured, if Obama was drawing lines in the sand. Perhaps he’s being too passive and relying too much on his outside game. But even LBJ at his best would have a tough time corralling the conservative Democrats, the grassroots liberals, the doctors, the hospitals, the insurers, the lobbyists, the bloggers, the Tweeters, all the paraphernalia of contemporary politics.

Probably true. What’s telling about all this is how quickly the Left seems to have forgotten its convenient, campaign-era embrace of reform and a more thoughtful, open approach to government. When it comes right down to it, many just want to get what they want from the process: a larger, more powerful federal government capable of transforming huge swaths of our economy and society.