The History Book Club discussion

Martin wrote: "Bentley - not sure about the cattle in the swamp metaphor. My estimation is that it's probably a slight to cattle all around the world."

(smile)

Peter wrote: "Martin wrote


I get the impression that LBJ was the wrong guy to be president during Vietnam. Darmman's book points to Johnson's inflexibility (p.26) in processing information in stark contrast to..."

Yes it is too bad that they did not use each other more when Kennedy had the chance. Kennedy could filter out the noise and ask the right questions and dispense with extremes on either side in terms of advice and input. You only have to listen to the tapes at the Kennedy library to assess that.

McNamara also was quite tempered during the Cuban crisis tapes and was quite cerebral - the arms forces folks were of course quite hawkish and goodness knows the world is lucky they were not listened to.

However, LBJ seemed to be the kind of person who latched onto something like a dog on a bone - good for getting legislature through and execution but not for decisions which require thoughtful analysis like the decisions regarding Southeast Asia.

I wondered why McNamara who was a bright guy really felt the way he did - of course he realized post Vietnam that he was wrong and it is to his credit he admitted that though he was scorned for that admission. Hard to tell why McNamara changed - maybe it was being at the Pentagon that changed or influenced him in that direction. But LBJ relied on him absolutely.

Bryan wrote: "Bentley, I was born after JFK, but my parents remember JFK well and the assassination.

I thought it was interesting how Darman talks about how the news was constant after the assassination.

He ..."

I cannot. It would be difficult to fathom and I hope that I do not have to fathom it either. It must have been an horrendous time period. The news cycle then was factual and there were so many iconic figures and true journalists reporting the news at that time. It probably would be bedlam now.

This is a really compelling read! Many thanks to Bentley and Random House for arranging the free copies. I have enjoyed all the posts. It is obvious that we are off to another great discussion at the History Book Club.

I am especially interested in the way that Darman links his narrative to the present in the prologue. His thesis is that there was a political consensus between the parties before the “thousand days” period of this book (1963-1966), which broke down over ever more extreme and conflicting ideologies. These myths have had a very corrosive effect up to and including the present time.

(p. xx) By the end of the thousand days, the consensus was forever fractured and the tradition of realism and humility in mainstream politics was gone.

In its place was a new kind of politics in which voters chose between two fantasies of the American future, two myths in which the federal government could only be America’s salvation or America’s ruin.

Darman may be stretching the significance of this short time frame, but I have confidence that his book will help me better understand the complete dysfunction between the political parties in our present day and the myths that helped cause it. I am very interested in this.

I was surprised by the pairing of Johnson and Reagan because they seem such opposite personalities in so many ways and because their actual presidencies were quite far apart. Johnson was the consummate workaholic wheeler dealer, who knew every detail of the legislative process and how to manipulate it. Reagan, on the other hand seems to have had such a fuzzy ideology and hands off approach.

So far, Darman has convinced me of the shared ambition and very strong need each man felt to be the hero of his own story.

There has already been some fascinating and thoughtful dialogue to this book. And I want to thank Bentley for the McNamara article. It helps understand the time period and how views change over time.

I was very young when JFK was assassinated and had just arrived in this country from Germany within the month so I never really understood what was going on but I remember how upset my parents were. I started school with not word of English and due to all that was going on learned English in less than a month. There were no teachers that could speak to me in German so I was committed to learn the language fast. I remember LBJ and the slogan "LBJ for the USA."
This book will help me remember and fill in the gaps during this time period. I find it quite interesting already.

I too was surprised by the pairing of Reagan and Johnson as Ann was above. And I am anxious to see what Darman has to say about both of them.

Helga,
What a stressful time for you and your family to arrive in the United States! Your parents must have wondered what kind of place they had brought their family to.

I am old enough that I remember the assassination and the TV coverage. I went to Catholic schools and for a long time JFK was considered almost a Catholic saint - quite ironic in view of what was later revealed about his hyper-sexual behavior.

Yes, it was stressful. I agree with you about JFK too. He was almost considered a saint but the revelations about his life certainly weren't saintly.

Ann wrote: "This is a really compelling read! Many thanks to Bentley and Random House for arranging the free copies. I have enjoyed all the posts. It is obvious that we are off to another great discussion at..."

Ann, some great comments and there do seem to be some similarities in the men's view of themselves and their ambitions.

Helga wrote: "There has already been some fascinating and thoughtful dialogue to this book. And I want to thank Bentley for the McNamara article. It helps understand the time period and how views change over tim..."

You are welcome Helga. Remarkable that this kind of immersion taught you English so fast.

As a former high school ESL teacher I can say that this kind of immersion works well for very young kids, but the process is a whole lot harder once the kids reach puberty.

That is what I thought Ann - you did very well Helga in acclimating yourself.

The Prologue is such a nice capsule of the time period. Quite a bit to think about in such a short amount of pages.

It seems that we still have the same problems that just don't seem to have a solution, racial tension, poverty, war, ... It would be nice to have a hero be able to just solve them, but it is up to the populace to work them out I am afraid -- never any easy solutions.

It does help when we can admire somebody and have a leader than inspires us. It would be nice to be inspired again.

But progress many times requires sacrifice.

Ulla wrote: "Vince wrote: "Ulla wrote: "Hello everyone, and thank you for the really interesting observations and comments so far. Seems like it will be a great discussion!

My name is Ulla and I am a social an..."

Hi Ulla

Thanks for your response and input.

What is socialism? Is it Denmark and Sweden and nationalized health care in western Europe? Is it Russia's KGB and the DDRs Staci?

It is hard for me to not make a difference between Western European democratic governments and totalitarian Communist states and the view so some capitalists (Americans) that any distribution of wealth by government to those who haven't earned the wealth is SOCIALISM -
The divide following the Obama election is maybe due to racism that has not died in our country. I am so unhappy about this evolution here in America. It can be discussed in many ways and the communications and editorial views so easily distributed today was technologically not possible for example when LBJ became president and just really beginning during the Reagan years.

Bentley wrote: "The Prologue begins with a quote:

"There is but one way to get the cattle out of the swamp. And that is for the man on the horse to take the lead."
-- Lyndon Johnson

Discussion Question:

What d..."

I was in school when JFK was shot. I remember how quiet the entire school got and then the grief we were all feeling. We were glued to the TV for the weekend, no one came over to play, no one called. We were a lost nation for those few days. So I think the "cattle in the swamp" is probably an accurate depiction.

France, that is interesting - There seems to be universal consensus that Lyndon was correct in his assessment. Lost seems to be the feeling that is conveyed.

Sorry it's taken me a couple of days to post....had a business training trip I just got back from.

My name is Justin, I'm a 39 year old police sergeant here in a fairly large city in Ohio.

I minored in political science and have been avid reader of history (Civil War, WWII, Current Event and Presidential History).

I'm very well read in Regan but not so much in LBJ. As a conservative I'm a big fan of Reagan. However, I do look forward to reading more then I've ever read on LBJ. I've read and actually did a college paper on the Cuban Missile Crisis under JFK. (As a conservative, I actually think JFK did a good job during this crisis).

I really enjoyed the Prologue and Chapter 1. As others have stated, I too was surprised in the 3 year age difference between the two. Their Presidencies seem to be in the minds of most to be a generation apart...at least.

In the prologue, and I won't give to much commentary on this point pending the rest of the book, but I'm interested to see if anymore is made of the correlation of the landslides and what we see going on in politics today...i.e., the elections of Obama by fairly easy margins (I wouldn't say landslides but comfortable wins) yet stompings in the midterms. Are the American people this finicky in politics or is it more? Such as voter turnout?

In chapter 1 (I haven't quite finished it all yet), my takeaway is LBJ's political prowess. I never realized how much power he wielded in Congress and Darman does a good job of bringing this out. But clearly LBJ had a plan and was ambitious enough to realize using his initials (and requiring it by his aides) LBJ would liken people to his hero, FDR. All in all a fascinating read so far and I look forward to further discussion with conservatives and liberals alike concerning both of these presidents.

Bentley wrote: "That is what I thought Ann - you did very well Helga in acclimating yourself."

Thanks Bentley. I was put into school and had to learn quickly or would have been detained a year. I wanted to understand everyone and read everything so I never spoke German again. It was sink or swim for me as the children around me would make fun of me. It is more difficult to learn a language when older.

Justin wrote: "Sorry it's taken me a couple of days to post....had a business training trip I just got back from.

My name is Justin, I'm a 39 year old police sergeant here in a fairly large city in Ohio.

I mi..."

Welcome Justin - there seem to be quite a few stats on Mid Term Elections and we do have a thread on that which might give you some of the information you are asking about or some recommendations of books to read on the subject matter:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Sometimes the candidate from the other party in the presidential elections is not one that is going to give the incumbent a run for his money. That might have occurred in the last two elections. I decided to go back and dig up the election results going back from the present day back to Kennedy. Not as many landslides as you might think but some were more skewed than others. And you can see where the political party which lost in some instances did not have a viable candidate at the time. And sometimes the candidate that was not viable was viable in a previous election but I guess the people just changed their mind about them.

These are the election results in 2012: - Barack Obama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_S...

These are the election results in 2008: - Barack Obama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_S...

These are the election results in 2004: - George W. Bush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_S...

These are the election results in 2000: - George W. Bush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_S...

These are the election results in 1996: - Bill Clinton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_S...

These are the election results in 1992: - Bill Clinton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_S...

These are the election results in 1988: - George H.W. Bush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_S...

These are the election results in 1984: (this was a landslide) - Ronald Reagan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_S...

These are the election results in 1980: (this was a landslide) - Ronald Reagan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_S...

These are the election results in 1976: - Jimmy Carter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_S...

These are the election results in 1972: (this was a landslide) - Nixon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_S...

These are the election results in 1968: - Nixon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_S...

These are the election results in 1964: (this was a landslide) - LBJ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_S...

These are the election results in 1960: (this was a squeaker) - Kennedy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_S...

Helga wrote: "Bentley wrote: "That is what I thought Ann - you did very well Helga in acclimating yourself."

Thanks Bentley. I was put into school and had to learn quickly or would have been detained a year. I ..."

Yes of course it was and you are courageous and quite brilliant to have pulled it off. Must have been tough.

Thanks Bentley for those links...very interesting information.

Glad you liked it and I thought in retrospect that other folks would like it too since it tracks the presidency election results from Kennedy.

Hello all. I'm looking forward to reading and discussing this book. I enjoy learning about history from a wide variety of eras and around the world. Since I recently moved to the Cincinnati area, I've spent some time learning about some of the national figures who are from, or spent a significant amount of time here - William Howard Taft, Neil Armstrong, Roy Rogers (A singing cowboy from southern Ohio? Yup), and others.

One of the things that struck me in the prologue and first chapter of this book, and has been mentioned by others already, is Johnson's insecurity. I've read biographies of people who have become powerful leaders, and I've been surprised by how many of them were masking such insecurity. Nikita Khrushchev is a good example of that, based on a biography of him that I read recently. I think that in both his case and Johnson's, world events would have played out very differently if they had a bit higher self esteem.

by William Taubman (no photo)

Dave and others interested in Nikita Khruschev and his insecurities - may be interested in reading the CIA personality sketch of the man. This is on display at the JFK museum along with the sketch of Castro. It can be accessed via a pdf that Slate posted.

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slat...

Bentley wrote: "The country needed to be protected and Kennedy's papers could certainly have been taken care of at the same time. Lyndon had a lot of warts - there was no doubt about it and he was arrogant but I have to agree with you that he endured a lot during this period of time and he was not treated well and it could have affected the country adversely. It is remarkable the things that the country did not know was going on - isn't it?"

I'm sure that it was never about the papers. I think that Bundy knew that the sentiment was so poisoned that this was an excuse to try to give him and perhaps others who were not so anti-LBJ time to smooth over the others. As far as adversely affecting the nation, you are correct...it could have been much worse (although with all the war protests and four high-profile assassinations between Nov 1963 and Jun 1968, it is hard to imagine a darker era to have existed).

It is just a shame that someone like Bobby Kennedy, who should have known better and appreciated the need for continuity of government and a unifying force at this time of national grief, would choose to be so partisan. As the AG, he of all people should have smoothed Johnson's transition. I am anxious to see how much Bobby did to undermine LBJ in the rest of the book...I have a feeling that he played a major role in the paralysis of the Administration leading up to Johnson's decision not to seek a second term in '68. Of course, this conveniently allowed Bobby to be the Democrat front-runner that year, so it was a win-win for him.

Yes all of the above Al.

This was the visual of the electoral map when LBJ won after the Kennedy Assassination:

LANDSLIDE - LBJ



1964 Election results by county. Lyndon B. Johnson (Blue) Barry M. Goldwater (Red) Unpledged electors (Green)

Martin wrote: "And you'll notice that one of our political parties recognizes that the federal government is the entity with the resources to deliver solutions to a large and complex nation. "

Martin, I think that is where things fail in this country. Having lived in the Midwest, Northeast, Upper South, and Mountain West over the course of my 41 years, I can tell you that the mindset varies greatly from region to region. What is considered a necessity in New York may be anathema in North Carolina. That is the reason the founders preferred the limited federal government to provide for the truly essential functions that needed to be centralized, those being defense against foreign attack, diplomacy with foreign nations, and a national treasury to fund the minimal government. They recognized that Massachusetts and New York were very different from Virginia and South Carolina, in terms of industry, social norms, etc. The problem with our government arose when persons such as FDR and LBJ wanted to make one-size fits all programs, and fund them by taxing one segment of the population to give to another (the whole Social Security scheme is a prime example).

There is a reason that all rights not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the individual states, but now we have completely lost sight of that. I would welcome a reversion to the original four federal departments (State, War, Treasury, and Justice), with a possible inclusion for Commerce and Energy. None of the other departments have oversight of issues of national concern, and should, IMO, be abolished.

All, I am going to add a speech that Ronald Reagan made when he was just an actor and this was a televised endorsement of Barry Goldwater during the 1964 campaign when he ran against LBJ. Reagan was not even governor at this point but this speech certainly paved the way.

I am placing the speech on the main page in the video section. When you have a chance take a look. Very worthwhile watching and you see Reagan being quite impressive in his delivery and content.

Discussion Question:

Let me know what your impressions are after you complete watching it and what are your initial impressions of Ronald Reagan who is just coming on the political scene?

Note to all: Let us try to stay on course and on point with the book/discussion and if sidebars develop - you can take them to any spoiler thread including the Book as a Whole thread. Everybody is doing pretty well so far but Al in message 128 I think you were heading towards a sidebar but you are OK. Everybody is doing great.

Bentley wrote: "This was the visual of the electoral map when LBJ won after the Kennedy Assassination:

LANDSLIDE - LBJ

1964 Election results by county. Lyndon B. Johnson (Blue) Barry M. Goldwater (Red) Unpl..."
Goldwater never had a chance. LBJ had Kennedy's assassination to help him along. It gave him momentum and the drive to keep the people on his side. It was 11 months from the assassination to election time. It was the same for Bush (43) who had 9/11 as his momentum to push him to a win. Though with Bush (43) it was far from a landslide.

Though Goldwater's Presidential bid did do a great deal for the GOP and Conservative movement. A good book to read on it is:

by Rick Perlstein

I could not agree with you more Christopher but that electoral map lit up blue is something that folks do not see that much anymore or lit up red either.

Yes, you are correct about Goldwater but he really became much more libertarian at the end of it.

Interesting article on why conservatives and libertarians are at odds:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/r...

Bentley wrote: "I could not agree with you more Christopher but that electoral map lit up blue is something that folks do not see that much anymore or lit up red either.

Yes, you are correct about Goldwater but..."

I would not say that the 2012 election the majority of the map was red. Obama won where it counted in the cities and suburbs around the cities.

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/e...

The above link shows you the 2012 election map broken down by county. The majority of the country by county voted for the GOP. Whereas Obama won the most populated urban areas other then those states known to vote Democratic. Also at the bottom of the page is a little map that scrolls through from the 1960 Presidential Election to 2012 very interesting to watch.

Yes he did turn more libertarian at the end though libertarian are conservative also though just not in certain areas.

Yes and No on Goldwater.

The country in 2012 moving towards purple is interesting too. In discussing the 1964 map the point was that it was a landslide and the map was predominantly blue.

And I do agree that Obama won in the more urban areas big time.

Cartogram:



And 2008:

There is another short video worth watching which sets the stage for the discussion of this book which is done in Darman's own words.

For those folks just starting out. A good view with some excellent footage. It is on the main page and here is the link:

https://www.goodreads.com/videos/7586...

Regarding Barry Goldwater:

Discussion Questions:

Why did Barry Goldwater have such a poor showing in the 1964 election?

Was it Barry Goldwater or his views that cost him the election? It was an embarrassing loss.

What was it about his views that made him so unpopular? Was the reason for his huge defeat due to the assassination of a beloved President? Were the American people just trying to show support for the difficult job that LBJ had inherited?

It is extraordinary that Johnson was able to achieve 61% of the American electorate vote. Do you think that this winning percentage is possible in this day and age with the polarization in this country?

What did folks think when reading the LBJ quote - "For the first time in all my life, I truly felt loved by the American people." Did the vote show love and admiration?

And then even after the stellar showing, LBJ still became dissatisfied because Goldwater did not bother to even call LBJ and concede - a bungle of the highest order - he absolutely had ignored the most important custom in American democracy. What did that say about Goldwater's personality and character? Was Barry Goldwater a sore loser?

Yet Goldwater was "the first ideological candidate for whom ideas, not voting blocs, were of primary importance. He argued that principle, not power, should rest at the core of the presidency". That should have shown some admirable qualities in this candidate - so why was he portraying himself as a poor loser who did not exhibit much class in terms of how he played the game - a game he knew well.

There is quite a bit to talk about here so just dive right in.

Barry Goldwater's loss was a humiliation but he did not make good political decisions, even in the run-up to his nomination. The Republicans were badly divided....conservative and moderately liberal....and Goldwater made no attempt to bring the two factions together with some type of common ground. He was even too conservative for the conservatives. When Rockefeller shot himself in the foot in the primaries and Goldwater was nominated, he further angered the moderate and liberal Republicans in his acceptance speech when he stated (and I paraphrase)"....extremism in defense of liberty is no vice but moderation in response of justice is no virtue". Most of the support he had in his own party fell away and without the party behind him, he didn't stand much of a chance.
Johnson's "Great Society" based on social policies and addressing racial civil rights made Goldwater look like a dangerous extremist. I think we also have to remember that many people vote for the personality of the man and not the issues. Johnson had the advantage here as a "good ol' boy" as well as the man who had to pull the country together after JFK was assassinated while Goldwater appeared up-tight and somewhat supercilious. Not a good image to present as a presidential candidate.

Don't forget the advertisement linking Goldwater with the bomb. It was devastating and spoke to the fear that his extremism would lead to annihilation. The alternative was a society of peace and wealth.

Fear mongering over communism had played itself out.

And, after WW II, the US was left with a huge percentage of the world's wealth. The country was busy making babies to fill suburban bedrooms, mowing lawns, and earning promotions.

Bentley asked

Why did Barry Goldwater have such a poor showing in the 1964 election?

I do know that Goldwater had a slogan:


In your heart, you know he's right.


But the Democrats countered with


In your guts, you know he's nuts


The 1964 election is the last one that I have no memories of whatsoever. By 1968 I was much more politically aware.

Justin wrote: " yet stompings in the midterms. Are the American people this finicky in politics or is it more? Such as voter turnout?..."

Mid-terms are hard on a sitting president and most of the time, their party is on the short-end. I think it is usually voters don't give a president much time to see results, and it gives the opposition a couple of years to develop strategy.

Reagan's 1964 speech was the best thing to happen to Goldwater's campaign. You have a confident and articulate guy. It is bad for Goldwater that it happened too late.

I agree with people that said that Reagan should have been the candidate. He might not have been ready since he was an unknown, but I don't think he could have done any worse than Goldwater.

Al wrote: "Bentley wrote: "The country needed to be protected and Kennedy's papers could certainly have been taken care of at the same time. Lyndon had a lot of warts - there was no doubt about it and he was ..."

Al and Bentley good points all around. I have the impression (perhaps from reading perhaps I just heard it) that Kennedy was not in favor of a large scale involvement in Vietnam. A couple of questions I have: If Kennedy were not killed would Vietnam have been escalated at the same rates or at all? If the Kennedy administration had helped LBJ more during the transition is it possible Vietnam would have remained an adviser/special ops involvement? Could it be that LBJ decided (consciously or sub-conceiously) during or after the transition period that with the lack of support from previous administration personnel he would just do his own thing regardless of previous policy?

I had forgotten that LBJ won the presidential election by such a large margin. I was thinking that the title of the book reference his run for Governor of Texas that he won by less than 70 votes. All most everyone in Texas that that the election was crooked.

Also, I was interested in how the author referenced their stories and how they had to change the story they were telling the people. I'll be interested to see how the author develops that theme.

Michael, it is difficult to pin down exactly what JFK would do in Vietnam. However, an argument could be made that he did not want to commit large scale numbers of troops--it was South Vietnam's fight.

Once the 1964 election was done, I think LBJ felt he had the freedom to act in Vietnam. Also, conditions in South Vietnam in 1965 were worse than what JFK faced. LBJ was a Cold War warrior and believed in the domino theory, so he needed to send troops, and he was confident that the military could handle it. If he did not send troops, his whole administration, he felt, would be attacked through Congress and the media. He sensed failure if he did not act.

I think there is a relevant difference between "midterms" and "six year midterms." A strong turnout for an exciting candidate can create coattails for his party (like, say, a Democratic Senator being elected in North Carolina or Alaska in 2008.) Six years later, the Senator has to stand on her own, without the turnout advantage of a Presidential year.

1966 may have been LBJ's first midterm, but it was a "six year midterm" from the perspective of his party, and should probably be compared to other six-year midterms.

This ad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBn... by lyndon Johnson had a big impact in the election. I think most of us who were alive at that time remember that ad running on tv. It was unique and meaningful to people afraid of a nuclear attack by the Russians.

We use to practice hiding under our desk so we would be safe if a bomb was dropped.

Too many subscribed to the containment model that was deployed in Europe in what is still generally regarded as a success. In Asia, containment was not so successful, as evidenced by the "police" action in Korea, and the failed intervention in Vietnam.

The story behind the threat posed by communism also proved dead wrong. Southeast Asia, much less the world, did not go to hell because the Vietnamese chose a form of government of which we did not approve.

But, the story was useful in moving the public's perception. And, it still is. As Robert Coover demonstrates in The Public Burning, and Ronald Reagan parroted there's little in this world that gets the American public's pulse rate racing like the threat, real or imagined, of communism or its cousin socialism.

by Robert Coover

Bentley wrote: "There is another short video worth watching which sets the stage for the discussion of this book which is done in Darman's own words.

For those folks just starting out. A good view with some exce..."

Just watched the video...very compelling. Makes me want to rush through and read the whole book tonight...but I'll restrain myself!

Martin wrote: "Too many subscribed to the containment model that was deployed in Europe in what is still generally regarded as a success. In Asia, containment was not so successful, as evidenced by the "police" a..."

True, Martin. Containment was accompanied by the domino theory, which ignored the fact that that Southeast Asia was a rather complex society with its own unique history.

Bryan wrote: "Michael, it is difficult to pin down exactly what JFK would do in Vietnam. However, an argument could be made that he did not want to commit large scale numbers of troops--it was South Vietnam's f..."

Thanks Bryan, I do recognize that my questions are highly speculative and even over simplified. There may be room for some interesting debate, however. I kind of like dealing with "what if" scenarios.

We do know, however, that Kennedy was the only voice in opposition to sending 8,000 troops to Vietnam in a cabinet meeting early in his administration.