What do you think?
Rate this book
The Making of the President #2
The Making of the President 1964
Documents the 1964 Presidential campaign which resulted in the election of Lyndon B. Johnson over Republican conservative Barry M. Goldwater.
Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1965
53 people are currently reading
592 people want to read
About the author
Theodore H. White
36 books74 followersTheodore Harold White was an American political journalist, historian, and novelist, best known for his accounts of the 1960, 1964, 1968, and 1972 presidential elections.
White became one of Time magazine's first foreign correspondents, serving in East Asia and later as a European correspondent. He is best known for his accounts of two presidential elections, The Making of the President, 1960 (1961, Pulitzer Prize) and The Making of the President, 1964 (1965), and for associating the short-lived presidency of John F. Kennedy with the legend of Camelot. His intimate style of journalism, centring on the personalities of his subjects, strongly influenced the course of political journalism and campaign coverage.
White became one of Time magazine's first foreign correspondents, serving in East Asia and later as a European correspondent. He is best known for his accounts of two presidential elections, The Making of the President, 1960 (1961, Pulitzer Prize) and The Making of the President, 1964 (1965), and for associating the short-lived presidency of John F. Kennedy with the legend of Camelot. His intimate style of journalism, centring on the personalities of his subjects, strongly influenced the course of political journalism and campaign coverage.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
May 10, 2014
In thinking about this book preparatory to reviewing it, I decided I should raise my rating from two stars to three. Even though I disagreed profoundly with many of White's views, I still found the book vastly interesting and informative, and it was the single influence that created my lifelong interest in politics. Two stars is too miserly a rating to reflect that --especially considering that I went on to read the 1968 and 1972 sequels (which have much in common with this one)! My relationship with the book is an ambivalent one, though. That's one factor that makes this review challenging to write (though I've long wanted to write it). Another complicating factor is that the lens I view the book through now differs from my lens as a 14-year-old kid in 1966, both because of my history and the country's history in the nearly 50 years since, and of knowledge I have now that I didn't then. I'll attempt the review and see how well I succeed. :-) Probably it's best to start from the angle of "reader response" criticism.
In 1964, I was a 12-year-old child. To the extent that I identified myself politically back then, it was as "liberal" rather than "conservative" (on the strength of a poorly understood article in Saturday Evening Post I'd read a few years previously, and because of the way they framed the discussion); but while I was much more aware of the election that year than I'd been of the one in 1960, I didn't have a real preference between the candidates and didn't see the outcome as important to me one way or the other. (My mother was largely apolitical and didn't vote; and while the membership of our church --which I didn't attend very often-- and my parochial school teachers were rabidly pro-Goldwater, I wasn't impressed by their arguments. Nor was I particularly impressed by the Democrats.)
By the time I'd grown two years older, though, I had a dawning social and political consciousness, and a growing realization that society was something significant that I was part of, and needed to understand and have serious opinions about, because it had an impact on my life and everyone else's. The paperback edition of this book fell into my hands around that time (I forget how) and was inevitably read, like any other book I got hold of back then. It fell like seed on newly plowed ground; but the effect wasn't what White intended. A deep-dyed liberal Democrat himself, he envisioned his Making of the President series (starting with the epochal 1960 account, which ironically I've never read) as triumphalist history, the account of America's quadrennial progress towards Utopia under the wise guidance of the Party, which was self-evidently on the side of Progress and Enlightenment and destined for inevitable triumph by the ratchet of History, which had now forever left bad old conservativism in the dusty past. This was quite a general attitude of the American Left in those days; I remember reading a newspaper op-ed around the same time that stated, as a fact that everybody knew, that the GOP could never again (barring an unlikely depression or war caused by Democratic bungling) win a presidential election. (The outcome of the 1968 and 1972 elections were obviously a great blow to these people, as it clearly was to White.) By the time I'd finished the book, however, I had firmly self-identified as conservative. This was partly a reaction to White's smug, patronizing, condescending, self-righteous tone in discussing anybody with a different vision than his, but also a visceral reaction to the way he delineated the two basic opposing camps; I recognized his brand of liberalism as essentially a glorification of a Leviathan state raised to absolute power, which I frankly found as chilling and menacing as he found it lip-smackingly bracing. This was before the days of Star Trek: The Next Generation, but his social vision would have suggested the Borg to me if I'd heard of them ("You will be assimilated; resistance is futile...."). I didn't uniformly identify with everything Goldwater stood for, either; but I was inclined to make common cause with anybody else who didn't want to be assimilated, and who was prepared to resist.
As factual history, the book has strengths and weaknesses. White was a journalist (mainly for Time magazine during his early career, though he was an independent journalist when he wrote his books) who aspired to be a historian, and was knowledgeable about history. His is a journalistic history, eschewing footnotes or bibliography; he personally covered much of the narrative he records, so that a lot of it could be described as a primary source. It has a lot of detail, but falls short of being a complete picture, because of the limited one-person perspective; it also doesn't have the benefit of much reflection over time. There is some deliberate whitewashing; Lyndon Johnson's singularly unlovely personality, for example, is sanitized as much as possible. (As we now know, White, like the entire rest of the Washington press corps, was well aware of Johnson's incessant infidelities to his wife, but on Johnson's instructions swept these under the rug. :-( ) He missed the historical significance of some of what he was covering: for instance, the involvement of the grassroots of the GOP in 1964 was a historically unprecedented development that would change the face of subsequent U.S. presidential elections (it even spread to the Democratic Party in 1972), reducing the hitherto virtually absolute control of the process by traditional power brokers; but White simply saw this as an illegitimate fluke by the Great Unwashed who were improperly invading the preserves of their betters. (Eek, these people are paying attention to the delegate selection procedures, and choosing to take a purposive part in that process! Horrors! :-( ) Although he was fundamentally right on the civil rights and desegregation issues of that day, his view of the black community tends to come across at times as paternalistic. Where he makes policy pronouncements, they're very often off-beam; and even when they're not, they're sometimes poorly argued.
On the positive side, though, he does clearly try here to be fair in his coverage of persons and events; the book isn't a deliberate attempt at partisan distortion and disinformation (which a lot of more contemporary journalism is). He refused to demonize Goldwater, and he does attempt to seriously grapple with some of what he saw as the deeper underlying issues facing the country, in a way that transcends strictly partisan line-drawing and sound bites (particularly at the end of the book, in his essentially "where do we go from here?" reflections). Of course, all of this is filtered through the lens of his own presuppositions, and isn't usually especially prescient (except for his recognition of technological unemployment as a coming problem); but even when you disagree with him, he can be intellectually stimulating for your own thoughts. His assessment of the political strategic and tactical factors behind Johnson's victory and Goldwater's defeat are also, IMO, pretty sound for the most part. Politics clearly fascinated him, and he covers it with an enthusiasm that communicates that fascination to the reader. And his prose is always lively and interesting; sometimes it may be pompous, but it's never dull.
More than any other book I've read, I have to credit this one with giving me the consciousness that the central question of political life is the basic one: what kind of human society do you want to create (or preserve)? To be sure, I initially saw politics as the primary engine of cultural and social change (and that made me very politically active in my late teens, and at times after that). Now, I'd see the relationship as flowing more the other way; changing culture and society from the bottom up changes the face of politics. But the two are still intimately related, and the political sphere matters intensely in terms of what kind of life we and others are able to lead. That's an insight that was ultimately well worth acquiring!
In 1964, I was a 12-year-old child. To the extent that I identified myself politically back then, it was as "liberal" rather than "conservative" (on the strength of a poorly understood article in Saturday Evening Post I'd read a few years previously, and because of the way they framed the discussion); but while I was much more aware of the election that year than I'd been of the one in 1960, I didn't have a real preference between the candidates and didn't see the outcome as important to me one way or the other. (My mother was largely apolitical and didn't vote; and while the membership of our church --which I didn't attend very often-- and my parochial school teachers were rabidly pro-Goldwater, I wasn't impressed by their arguments. Nor was I particularly impressed by the Democrats.)
By the time I'd grown two years older, though, I had a dawning social and political consciousness, and a growing realization that society was something significant that I was part of, and needed to understand and have serious opinions about, because it had an impact on my life and everyone else's. The paperback edition of this book fell into my hands around that time (I forget how) and was inevitably read, like any other book I got hold of back then. It fell like seed on newly plowed ground; but the effect wasn't what White intended. A deep-dyed liberal Democrat himself, he envisioned his Making of the President series (starting with the epochal 1960 account, which ironically I've never read) as triumphalist history, the account of America's quadrennial progress towards Utopia under the wise guidance of the Party, which was self-evidently on the side of Progress and Enlightenment and destined for inevitable triumph by the ratchet of History, which had now forever left bad old conservativism in the dusty past. This was quite a general attitude of the American Left in those days; I remember reading a newspaper op-ed around the same time that stated, as a fact that everybody knew, that the GOP could never again (barring an unlikely depression or war caused by Democratic bungling) win a presidential election. (The outcome of the 1968 and 1972 elections were obviously a great blow to these people, as it clearly was to White.) By the time I'd finished the book, however, I had firmly self-identified as conservative. This was partly a reaction to White's smug, patronizing, condescending, self-righteous tone in discussing anybody with a different vision than his, but also a visceral reaction to the way he delineated the two basic opposing camps; I recognized his brand of liberalism as essentially a glorification of a Leviathan state raised to absolute power, which I frankly found as chilling and menacing as he found it lip-smackingly bracing. This was before the days of Star Trek: The Next Generation, but his social vision would have suggested the Borg to me if I'd heard of them ("You will be assimilated; resistance is futile...."). I didn't uniformly identify with everything Goldwater stood for, either; but I was inclined to make common cause with anybody else who didn't want to be assimilated, and who was prepared to resist.
As factual history, the book has strengths and weaknesses. White was a journalist (mainly for Time magazine during his early career, though he was an independent journalist when he wrote his books) who aspired to be a historian, and was knowledgeable about history. His is a journalistic history, eschewing footnotes or bibliography; he personally covered much of the narrative he records, so that a lot of it could be described as a primary source. It has a lot of detail, but falls short of being a complete picture, because of the limited one-person perspective; it also doesn't have the benefit of much reflection over time. There is some deliberate whitewashing; Lyndon Johnson's singularly unlovely personality, for example, is sanitized as much as possible. (As we now know, White, like the entire rest of the Washington press corps, was well aware of Johnson's incessant infidelities to his wife, but on Johnson's instructions swept these under the rug. :-( ) He missed the historical significance of some of what he was covering: for instance, the involvement of the grassroots of the GOP in 1964 was a historically unprecedented development that would change the face of subsequent U.S. presidential elections (it even spread to the Democratic Party in 1972), reducing the hitherto virtually absolute control of the process by traditional power brokers; but White simply saw this as an illegitimate fluke by the Great Unwashed who were improperly invading the preserves of their betters. (Eek, these people are paying attention to the delegate selection procedures, and choosing to take a purposive part in that process! Horrors! :-( ) Although he was fundamentally right on the civil rights and desegregation issues of that day, his view of the black community tends to come across at times as paternalistic. Where he makes policy pronouncements, they're very often off-beam; and even when they're not, they're sometimes poorly argued.
On the positive side, though, he does clearly try here to be fair in his coverage of persons and events; the book isn't a deliberate attempt at partisan distortion and disinformation (which a lot of more contemporary journalism is). He refused to demonize Goldwater, and he does attempt to seriously grapple with some of what he saw as the deeper underlying issues facing the country, in a way that transcends strictly partisan line-drawing and sound bites (particularly at the end of the book, in his essentially "where do we go from here?" reflections). Of course, all of this is filtered through the lens of his own presuppositions, and isn't usually especially prescient (except for his recognition of technological unemployment as a coming problem); but even when you disagree with him, he can be intellectually stimulating for your own thoughts. His assessment of the political strategic and tactical factors behind Johnson's victory and Goldwater's defeat are also, IMO, pretty sound for the most part. Politics clearly fascinated him, and he covers it with an enthusiasm that communicates that fascination to the reader. And his prose is always lively and interesting; sometimes it may be pompous, but it's never dull.
More than any other book I've read, I have to credit this one with giving me the consciousness that the central question of political life is the basic one: what kind of human society do you want to create (or preserve)? To be sure, I initially saw politics as the primary engine of cultural and social change (and that made me very politically active in my late teens, and at times after that). Now, I'd see the relationship as flowing more the other way; changing culture and society from the bottom up changes the face of politics. But the two are still intimately related, and the political sphere matters intensely in terms of what kind of life we and others are able to lead. That's an insight that was ultimately well worth acquiring!
February 26, 2020
BARRY GOLDWATER’S CONVENTION: COUP AT THE COW PALACE
SAN FRANCISCO is a magic city. Whereas the new cities of the West face out on a cubist future from a rootless past, San Francisco magically marries both new and old as only Washington and Boston do elsewhere in the country. New bridges and newer freeways plow the approaches of the city; the sterile curtain walls of the new architecture rise on the slopes of the hills; but the city remains the same. The cable cars still clank up the old hills; in Chinatown there are Chinese who still speak Chinese; the restaurants still serve food cooked by people who care about cooking; and through the Golden Gate steam the deep-prowed vessels, trailing the scent of the Orient, to tie up at the Embarcadero.
There are some examples of exceptional writing found in the book. The pacing was also excellent. Even so, the read feels dated. It is the first book I’ve read that has in-depth coverage of Barry Goldwater who was the Republican nominee running against LBJ.
Similar in approach to White’s coverage of the 1960 campaign that garnered him awards but the 1964 story is not quite as fascinating. JFK’s ascendancy and his brother’s feud with LBJ sideshows were more interesting than Barry Goldwater. Of course I would probably feel different if Goldwater has won the race.
4 stars.
SAN FRANCISCO is a magic city. Whereas the new cities of the West face out on a cubist future from a rootless past, San Francisco magically marries both new and old as only Washington and Boston do elsewhere in the country. New bridges and newer freeways plow the approaches of the city; the sterile curtain walls of the new architecture rise on the slopes of the hills; but the city remains the same. The cable cars still clank up the old hills; in Chinatown there are Chinese who still speak Chinese; the restaurants still serve food cooked by people who care about cooking; and through the Golden Gate steam the deep-prowed vessels, trailing the scent of the Orient, to tie up at the Embarcadero.
There are some examples of exceptional writing found in the book. The pacing was also excellent. Even so, the read feels dated. It is the first book I’ve read that has in-depth coverage of Barry Goldwater who was the Republican nominee running against LBJ.
Similar in approach to White’s coverage of the 1960 campaign that garnered him awards but the 1964 story is not quite as fascinating. JFK’s ascendancy and his brother’s feud with LBJ sideshows were more interesting than Barry Goldwater. Of course I would probably feel different if Goldwater has won the race.
4 stars.
July 29, 2017
Fascinating. Why did Goldwater lose but Trump win? Sad!
Bits:
Kennedy “made elegance a quality Americans expected of the President”.
Problem for the press: “How could one be fair to Goldwater – by quoting what he said or by explaining what he thought? To quote him directly was manifestly unfair, but if he insisted on speaking thus in public, how could one resist quoting him?”
Eisenhower was such a faffer in retirement. “Nelson Rockefeller, battling as valiantly for the Pennsylvania Governor as he had for himself, telephoned the former President to plead for support. The former President said he could not come out publicly, he had to preserve his influence. Acidly, Rockefeller inquired: For what?”
“Scarnton painted Goldwater … as a warmonger (‘Please, I implore you … send to the White House a man who thinks deeply, who is not impulsive.’”
“Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall catch hell from both sides.”
“'What we were looking for was something that would put the nation and the rank and file of the Party on the alert to the fact that our leading candidate was impetuous, irresponsible and slightly stupid.'”
Goldwater banners: “Better brinksmanship than chickenship” and “AU+H2O = 1964”.
“The best quick reaction I remember is that of another reporter who, halfway through Goldwater’s (acceptance) speech, slowly became aware of the politics of no compromise, then turned and remarked, 'My God, he’s going to run as Barry Goldwater.'”
“By mid-October the Goldwater headquarters had, in spirit, collapsed. … A final effort had been made to strain some optimism out of the polling results with a question worded, roughly, ‘Did the respondent himself know anyone else who might vote for Goldwater but was concealing the fact?’ Respondents replied , to the degree of 45%, that there might be secret Goldwater sympathizers in their neighborhood.”
LBJ “obeyed Napoleon’s maxim: Never interfere with the enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself.”
“It was as if a heavy mattress had been thrown over Goldwater at the beginning of the summer and he lay buried under it, trying to wriggle his way out. All the Democrats needed to do was torest heavy on the mattress, sprawl wide, bear down – and he was smothered.”
Bits:
Kennedy “made elegance a quality Americans expected of the President”.
Problem for the press: “How could one be fair to Goldwater – by quoting what he said or by explaining what he thought? To quote him directly was manifestly unfair, but if he insisted on speaking thus in public, how could one resist quoting him?”
Eisenhower was such a faffer in retirement. “Nelson Rockefeller, battling as valiantly for the Pennsylvania Governor as he had for himself, telephoned the former President to plead for support. The former President said he could not come out publicly, he had to preserve his influence. Acidly, Rockefeller inquired: For what?”
“Scarnton painted Goldwater … as a warmonger (‘Please, I implore you … send to the White House a man who thinks deeply, who is not impulsive.’”
“Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall catch hell from both sides.”
“'What we were looking for was something that would put the nation and the rank and file of the Party on the alert to the fact that our leading candidate was impetuous, irresponsible and slightly stupid.'”
Goldwater banners: “Better brinksmanship than chickenship” and “AU+H2O = 1964”.
“The best quick reaction I remember is that of another reporter who, halfway through Goldwater’s (acceptance) speech, slowly became aware of the politics of no compromise, then turned and remarked, 'My God, he’s going to run as Barry Goldwater.'”
“By mid-October the Goldwater headquarters had, in spirit, collapsed. … A final effort had been made to strain some optimism out of the polling results with a question worded, roughly, ‘Did the respondent himself know anyone else who might vote for Goldwater but was concealing the fact?’ Respondents replied , to the degree of 45%, that there might be secret Goldwater sympathizers in their neighborhood.”
LBJ “obeyed Napoleon’s maxim: Never interfere with the enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself.”
“It was as if a heavy mattress had been thrown over Goldwater at the beginning of the summer and he lay buried under it, trying to wriggle his way out. All the Democrats needed to do was torest heavy on the mattress, sprawl wide, bear down – and he was smothered.”
January 22, 2015
I recall reading White's second Making of the President book on the patio of our Michigan neighbors, the Malmstadts. Evangelical Christians, they spent part of the year in Hawaii where the father was rector of a fundamentalist college, leaving their mainland home unoccupied. Escaping my own family, I'd spend whole days there with my dog, Jimmy Olsen, reading in a comfortable deck chair, looking up occasionally to gaze at the lake through the trees.
The 1964 campaign was ostensibly between the warmonger, Barry Goldwater, whose campaign in my hometown of Park Ridge was being run, in part, by Hilary Clinton, head of the Teen Age Republicans, and the ostensible peace candidate, Lyndon Johnson. We were all, therefore, strong Johnson supporters. I had a huge "LBJ for the USA" lapel pin purchased outside Wrigley Field on one of those fortunately rare occasions when Dad took me to a game.
I was, along with the American people, bamboozled. Johnson had no intention of leaving Southeast Asia. All along he had planned on winning.
Making...64 is not as good a book as Making...60. Part of the reason is that the election simply wasn't as exciting. Although the Republicans had a time of it as the Right seized the convention, Johnson, as the incumbent, was inevitable. The book is still interesting for political junkies, however.
In the early eighties I made my first social visit to San Francisco, having only been the airport previously. Enroute to town from SFX I espied the Cow Palace in the distance and recalled White reporting that a fan dancer, Sally Rand, had entertained the Democratic conventioneers there in '64. How times have changed!
The 1964 campaign was ostensibly between the warmonger, Barry Goldwater, whose campaign in my hometown of Park Ridge was being run, in part, by Hilary Clinton, head of the Teen Age Republicans, and the ostensible peace candidate, Lyndon Johnson. We were all, therefore, strong Johnson supporters. I had a huge "LBJ for the USA" lapel pin purchased outside Wrigley Field on one of those fortunately rare occasions when Dad took me to a game.
I was, along with the American people, bamboozled. Johnson had no intention of leaving Southeast Asia. All along he had planned on winning.
Making...64 is not as good a book as Making...60. Part of the reason is that the election simply wasn't as exciting. Although the Republicans had a time of it as the Right seized the convention, Johnson, as the incumbent, was inevitable. The book is still interesting for political junkies, however.
In the early eighties I made my first social visit to San Francisco, having only been the airport previously. Enroute to town from SFX I espied the Cow Palace in the distance and recalled White reporting that a fan dancer, Sally Rand, had entertained the Democratic conventioneers there in '64. How times have changed!
February 27, 2019
Truly an interesting read about an interesting time. T. H. White has an eye to describe places and people during that seminal year of political showdowns. The book does a great job at describing the mood of the nation on issues of that time such as social security, race relations, nuclear warfare and communism.
I found the following quote highly reveling as journalism in the 60's was very different from the coverage we are used to get in 2019:
''After several drinks, (Johnson's aid) Jenkins left the party and walked two blocks to the Washington YMCA, so notorious gathering place of homosexuals that the police had long since staked it out with peepholes for surveillance. Here, 35 minutes later, Walter Jenkins was arrested. Taken to the police station, he was booked with an old Army veteran on charge of disorderly conduct. (...)
The story reached the Chicago Tribune and the Cincinnati Enquirer (both supporters of Goldwater), which chose not to publish it. The Washington Star learned of the event some time on Tuesday. On Wednesday, a week after the happening, the matter was known to all too many people but not to the Democratic leadership and the Star's assistant managing editor, with heavy heart, called the White House early in the morning, as he must, to check whether or not it was true. (...)
For 24 full hours Republicans and Democrats alike held their breath to see how the nation would react. And perhaps the most amazing of all events of the campaign of 64' is that the nation faced the fact fully and shrugged its shoulders. (...) (As for) Barry Goldwater, the Republican candidate was in Denver when the news broke publicly. Here, if ever, was demonstration of his charge of ''moral decay'', sickness of soul, of bestiality in Babylon. Yet Goldwater painted as a killer by the Democrats could not bring himself to hurt an individual; urged by his young men to hammer the issue, to make the most of it as if a gift had been given him, he simply refused. He referred to the episode in the weeks following only rarely and conspicuous lack of relish.''
I recommend this book to anyone interested in the political history of the early 60's.
Great read!
I found the following quote highly reveling as journalism in the 60's was very different from the coverage we are used to get in 2019:
''After several drinks, (Johnson's aid) Jenkins left the party and walked two blocks to the Washington YMCA, so notorious gathering place of homosexuals that the police had long since staked it out with peepholes for surveillance. Here, 35 minutes later, Walter Jenkins was arrested. Taken to the police station, he was booked with an old Army veteran on charge of disorderly conduct. (...)
The story reached the Chicago Tribune and the Cincinnati Enquirer (both supporters of Goldwater), which chose not to publish it. The Washington Star learned of the event some time on Tuesday. On Wednesday, a week after the happening, the matter was known to all too many people but not to the Democratic leadership and the Star's assistant managing editor, with heavy heart, called the White House early in the morning, as he must, to check whether or not it was true. (...)
For 24 full hours Republicans and Democrats alike held their breath to see how the nation would react. And perhaps the most amazing of all events of the campaign of 64' is that the nation faced the fact fully and shrugged its shoulders. (...) (As for) Barry Goldwater, the Republican candidate was in Denver when the news broke publicly. Here, if ever, was demonstration of his charge of ''moral decay'', sickness of soul, of bestiality in Babylon. Yet Goldwater painted as a killer by the Democrats could not bring himself to hurt an individual; urged by his young men to hammer the issue, to make the most of it as if a gift had been given him, he simply refused. He referred to the episode in the weeks following only rarely and conspicuous lack of relish.''
I recommend this book to anyone interested in the political history of the early 60's.
Great read!
October 27, 2010
If you want to find the origins of today's Tea Party and how Republicans degenerated from middle-of-the-road pragmatism to right-wing extremism, look here, in Theodore White's story of Barry Goldwater's victory over his Republican opponent and landslide defeat by New Dealer Lyndon Johnson. This is as fine a work of journalism and sociology as you'll find, a contemporary history of a pivotal moment in American history -- wherein the participants are only partially aware of just how pivotal it would prove to be. JFK was newly assassinated, leaving his grieving brother on unsure footing with his successor -- and RFK's object of ridicule, Lyndon Johnson. The race riots were just a taste of the upheaval to come, which the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could only begin to mitigate. This was before Johnson went all in to fight the Vietnam War, dooming his presidency. In 4 years he went from the greatest electoral victory in American history to shameful withdrawal from presidential politics. In 1964 Johnson's Great Society was just getting underway, America was prosperous as never before -- faced with the real yet philosophical question of what to _do_ with all this material wealth. It's a poignant experience witnessing the actors in a real-life historical drama carrying on, still with hope and ambition, not knowing they're moments away from plunging into a tragic abyss from which the U.S. has yet to wholly emerge.
July 14, 2012
Reading all the Theodore White "making of the president" books this summer to try and find parallels with the present campaign. 1964 seems to be the closest so far: social welfare Democratic president running agains...Ron Paul. No, in this case, Barry Goldwater, who was more interventionist than Ron Paul is. Still, their views on the evil government are/were pretty similar. LBJ ran away with this one, (not many people noticing his huge negatives) and Goldwater's campaign staff ran a fairly professional, but futile, race. Only the "Goldwater Nation" that seemed to emerge from the murk of "middle America" frightened people the way the Tea Party does now; essentially they are the same people: nasty, bigoted, racist, militant, anti-media, pro-gun, pro-God and, well, dumb. Goldwater, (whom I always liked but usually disagreed with) comes out o.k., (he urged people not to boo the mention of the president and seemed generally surprised that his crowds were full of "nuts") but his voters leave a horrible impression on the reader. Anyone who thinks 2012 has brought out the worst in America needs only to read a little history.
January 9, 2012
White attempts to capture the inner workings of the 1964 election, yet he displays a tendency throughout the book to memorialize JFK. Also, at times, the book bogs down in minutae - such as when he gives several pages of housing statistics concerning black people in large cities, or when he talks about the % of votes that Johnson and Goldwater each got in certain regions of the country, compared with what Kennedy and Nixon got, respectively, in the 1960 election. There are some interesting parts of the book - such as when White describes the fight over the Republian nomination. But I found the majority of the book to be dry, and based solely on his opinions
April 29, 2018
This is the second of Theodore H. White’s contemporary accounts of Presidential election campaigns. The turmoil of1964 was reflected in the campaign of that year.
The narrative begins with the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the ascension of Lyndon B. Johnson. It then focuses on the Republican contest between Goldwater and Lodge, Romney, Rockefeller, and Scranton that lead to the party’s November disaster. With Johnson’s nomination all but assured, attention was directed toward the race for the Republican nomination with its series of challengers to front runner Barry Goldwater. For the Democrats, the only suspense was the choice of the vice-presidential candidate that LBJ played up to the hilt before settling on Sen. Hubert Humphrey
The 1964 campaign did not arise out of a vacuum, but from a society in the midst of “The Negro Revolution”, urban riots and the continuation of the Kennedy program. The candidates presented “A Choice, Not An Echo” as Senator Goldwater asked “What kind of country do you want to have?” and President Johnson promised a “Great Society”. The agreement between the Johnson and Goldwater not to bring up the race issue that was so much on the citizens’ minds tells something about an era when political discourse was, well, civil.
The advantage and disadvantage of a contemporary history is that it presents events as they appeared at their time without the filter of later developments. That is what I like about books like this. They help the reader understand the vision of the times and appreciate the subsequent course of history. Writing in 1965 White told us:
“the elections of 1964 had left the Republican Party in desperate condition…the Republican Party had indeed chopped itself in two-yet in all the months since then to the day of this writing, no one can tell whether the two halves can sew themselves together or whether enough vitality remains, in one or the other half, to find a direction in which they can invite the American people to move.
The Republicans suffer, first, from a general condition-a continuing failure to capture the imagination of the American people…outstanding Republican personalities-Lindsays or Javitses, Romneys or Chafees, Evanses or Murphys…nor have the Republican governors, men (note no women) aware of what is happening, been able in the months since the election to offer an alternative Republican vision which can lead their Party back to the mainstream”.
Of course, White had no way of knowing that the Republicans would win four of the next five presidential elections and that the party would not be brought back by his listed “outstanding Republican personalities” but by Richard Nixon. Other than Lyndon Johnson, the greatest winner of the 1964 was a man unmentioned in this tome, Ronald Reagan, whose speech in support of Goldwater propelled him into the national political spotlight.
White’s writing style engages and holds the reader’s interest. It aids the reader to understand the politics of this fascinating and transitional year in the history of mid-twentieth century America.
The narrative begins with the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the ascension of Lyndon B. Johnson. It then focuses on the Republican contest between Goldwater and Lodge, Romney, Rockefeller, and Scranton that lead to the party’s November disaster. With Johnson’s nomination all but assured, attention was directed toward the race for the Republican nomination with its series of challengers to front runner Barry Goldwater. For the Democrats, the only suspense was the choice of the vice-presidential candidate that LBJ played up to the hilt before settling on Sen. Hubert Humphrey
The 1964 campaign did not arise out of a vacuum, but from a society in the midst of “The Negro Revolution”, urban riots and the continuation of the Kennedy program. The candidates presented “A Choice, Not An Echo” as Senator Goldwater asked “What kind of country do you want to have?” and President Johnson promised a “Great Society”. The agreement between the Johnson and Goldwater not to bring up the race issue that was so much on the citizens’ minds tells something about an era when political discourse was, well, civil.
The advantage and disadvantage of a contemporary history is that it presents events as they appeared at their time without the filter of later developments. That is what I like about books like this. They help the reader understand the vision of the times and appreciate the subsequent course of history. Writing in 1965 White told us:
“the elections of 1964 had left the Republican Party in desperate condition…the Republican Party had indeed chopped itself in two-yet in all the months since then to the day of this writing, no one can tell whether the two halves can sew themselves together or whether enough vitality remains, in one or the other half, to find a direction in which they can invite the American people to move.
The Republicans suffer, first, from a general condition-a continuing failure to capture the imagination of the American people…outstanding Republican personalities-Lindsays or Javitses, Romneys or Chafees, Evanses or Murphys…nor have the Republican governors, men (note no women) aware of what is happening, been able in the months since the election to offer an alternative Republican vision which can lead their Party back to the mainstream”.
Of course, White had no way of knowing that the Republicans would win four of the next five presidential elections and that the party would not be brought back by his listed “outstanding Republican personalities” but by Richard Nixon. Other than Lyndon Johnson, the greatest winner of the 1964 was a man unmentioned in this tome, Ronald Reagan, whose speech in support of Goldwater propelled him into the national political spotlight.
White’s writing style engages and holds the reader’s interest. It aids the reader to understand the politics of this fascinating and transitional year in the history of mid-twentieth century America.
March 11, 2019
Re-read the second of White's four outstanding histories of Presidential elections from 1960 to 1972. This one drags a bit in spots-- in part, due to the lack of any real compelling election battle at any stage of proceedings. That said, the latter third was interesting in contemplating the future of Goldwaterish politics and the implications of the Civil Rights Act on the former Democratic stranglehold on the south. At times, White can feel ridiculously old-fashioned and at others, tremendously prescient. It's still worth reading, even if it's very dated at times.
September 23, 2025
There are parts of this book where you will be infuriated because of how the author views women, gay people, and Black people. And then there are parts that will infuriate you because you realize as much as we rightly blame Reagan, a huge part of the decline of the Republican Party starts earlier with Goldwater.
October 8, 2025
Rigtig god gennemgang af, hvordan LBJ vandt præsidentvalget over kandidaten Goldwater, der på mange måder kan relateres til den nuværende republikanske præsident, Donald Trump, ift. mediedækning, udtalelser og følgeskare.
June 12, 2019
Incredibly insightful. It helps explain our current political situation. Well worth reading.
January 21, 2020
I LIKE THIS BOOK A LOT.
August 24, 2023
Superb.
August 28, 2016
Hillary Rodham Clinton was a high-school Young Republican and "Goldwater Girl" in 1964 but swung to supporting Democrat Eugene McCarthy’s campaign in 1968 and George McGovern’s in 1972. "I wasn’t born a Democrat," she writes on page one of her autobiography Living HistoryLiving History, but was a "rock-ribbed, up-by-your-bootstraps, conservative Republican and proud of it" (page 11). Her 9th-grade history teacher was also a very conservative Republican who encouraged her to read Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater’s 1960 book, Conscience of a Conservative, which inspired Clinton to write a term paper on the American conservative movement. "I was also an active Young Republican and, later, a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit and straw cowboy hat emblazoned with the slogan 'AuH20.' … I liked Senator Goldwater because he was a rugged individualist who swam against the political tide."
I think this association with Clinton and similar contexts had given me the perception that "Goldwater Republican" meant someone more progressive or at least centrist compared to a typical Republican. However, as the excellent and detailed reportage clarifies, here, ultra-conservative Goldwater differs from today's libertarians (both big-L and little-L) in that he was an advocate for strong national defense and even a hawkish interventionist and pro-tactical nukes, etc.. This is the guy, remember, who suggested we should “lob a nuke into the men's room at the Kremlin." This alarmed many and reinforced LBJ's determination to defeat him - the Trump of his day it seems - and eventually out-hawk him with The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and run the unforgettable "Daisy" ad. I wish the book went into more detail on the Johnson machine that led to that ad and the organized operatives detailed to hound and disrupt the Goldwater campaign.
This book does go into detail on how LBJ was not the shoo-in some may think in retrospect and his ship almost got caught up on the rocky shoals of the sudden scandal around Walter Jenkins, longtime top aide to Johnson. Jenkins' career ended after a sex scandal was reported weeks before the 1964 presidential election, when Jenkins was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct with another man in a public restroom in Washington, D.C.'s YMCA ("so notorious a gathering place of homosexuals that the District police had long since staked it out with peepholes for surveillance"). LBJ was largely saved by sudden events that pushed voters away from supposed Goldwater warmongering and toward the stability hoped from continuity of government:
* On October 14, 1964, the Presidium and the Central Committee accepted Khrushchev's "voluntary" request to retire from his offices for reasons of "advanced age and ill health." Brezhnev was now on the scene and there was a new Soviet government for the U.S. to be concerned about
* "596", the People's Republic of China's first nuclear weapons test, detonated on October 16, 1964, at the Lop Nur test site.
* Labour won the 1964 UK general election with a narrow majority of four seats, and Harold Wilson became Prime Minister, the youngest person to hold that office since Lord Rosebery 70 years earlier. The election was held on 15 October 1964, just over five years after the previous election, and 13 years after the Conservative Party had retaken power.
While the term "October surprise" did not come into usage until the 1972 election and the Kissinger-Nixon secret talks over Vietnam, there was certainly fortuitous October surprises for LBJ that pushed Jenkins' story off the headlines.
I think this association with Clinton and similar contexts had given me the perception that "Goldwater Republican" meant someone more progressive or at least centrist compared to a typical Republican. However, as the excellent and detailed reportage clarifies, here, ultra-conservative Goldwater differs from today's libertarians (both big-L and little-L) in that he was an advocate for strong national defense and even a hawkish interventionist and pro-tactical nukes, etc.. This is the guy, remember, who suggested we should “lob a nuke into the men's room at the Kremlin." This alarmed many and reinforced LBJ's determination to defeat him - the Trump of his day it seems - and eventually out-hawk him with The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and run the unforgettable "Daisy" ad. I wish the book went into more detail on the Johnson machine that led to that ad and the organized operatives detailed to hound and disrupt the Goldwater campaign.
This book does go into detail on how LBJ was not the shoo-in some may think in retrospect and his ship almost got caught up on the rocky shoals of the sudden scandal around Walter Jenkins, longtime top aide to Johnson. Jenkins' career ended after a sex scandal was reported weeks before the 1964 presidential election, when Jenkins was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct with another man in a public restroom in Washington, D.C.'s YMCA ("so notorious a gathering place of homosexuals that the District police had long since staked it out with peepholes for surveillance"). LBJ was largely saved by sudden events that pushed voters away from supposed Goldwater warmongering and toward the stability hoped from continuity of government:
* On October 14, 1964, the Presidium and the Central Committee accepted Khrushchev's "voluntary" request to retire from his offices for reasons of "advanced age and ill health." Brezhnev was now on the scene and there was a new Soviet government for the U.S. to be concerned about
* "596", the People's Republic of China's first nuclear weapons test, detonated on October 16, 1964, at the Lop Nur test site.
* Labour won the 1964 UK general election with a narrow majority of four seats, and Harold Wilson became Prime Minister, the youngest person to hold that office since Lord Rosebery 70 years earlier. The election was held on 15 October 1964, just over five years after the previous election, and 13 years after the Conservative Party had retaken power.
While the term "October surprise" did not come into usage until the 1972 election and the Kissinger-Nixon secret talks over Vietnam, there was certainly fortuitous October surprises for LBJ that pushed Jenkins' story off the headlines.
May 25, 2014
Excellent book, but not quite as good as the "1960" equivalent. As with that book, it's based on his experience as a journalist following the election campaigns. The author looks at the candidates for the 1964 presidential election through the selection processes and the election itself. He compares their characters, approaches, staff, strategies, etc.
Even more than the previous book, it was the sections on the candidate selection processes that were most interesting. In this case it's the floating of Goldwater as a candidate to represent the burgeoning conservative movement.
I think the author is slightly conflicted with regard to the media. On the one hand he continues to praise his reporter colleagues as being honourable and decent professionals. On the other, he starts to note how the media twist the realities of the candidates and clearly sees this as an unfortunate development. But why doesn't he attribute this development to his media colleagues?
I also think the author is less sure-footed when he starts to opine on the issues, rather than reporting on the campaigns. The last chapter in particular, whilst interesting, is not up to the standard of the earlier sections of the book.
Thoroughly recommended for anyone wanting a better understanding of the underlying themes and currents that determined the US political system around that time, and which continue to play a big role today.
Even more than the previous book, it was the sections on the candidate selection processes that were most interesting. In this case it's the floating of Goldwater as a candidate to represent the burgeoning conservative movement.
I think the author is slightly conflicted with regard to the media. On the one hand he continues to praise his reporter colleagues as being honourable and decent professionals. On the other, he starts to note how the media twist the realities of the candidates and clearly sees this as an unfortunate development. But why doesn't he attribute this development to his media colleagues?
I also think the author is less sure-footed when he starts to opine on the issues, rather than reporting on the campaigns. The last chapter in particular, whilst interesting, is not up to the standard of the earlier sections of the book.
Thoroughly recommended for anyone wanting a better understanding of the underlying themes and currents that determined the US political system around that time, and which continue to play a big role today.
August 16, 2016
Its hard to choose between Theodore Whites' books about the presidential campaigns of 1960, 1968 and 1972, and of course the 1960 volume earned him the Pulitzer prize. But there's something here about Barry Goldwater's campaign in 1964 -- thoroughly orchestrated through a "Conservative Lives Matter" movement during 1963 -- that rings current with this years' elections. The similarities between Trump and Goldwater campaigns, and certainly the 1964 convention in San Francisco, is remarkable. The difference was that Barry's speeches on the ideology of "Freedom" and classic conservatism continued to be -- boring. Trump's diatribes have been characterized as hateful, insane -- but entertaining. But the 1964 election was important, because it broke the back on the Democrat's hold over the Southern states, and began the rapid shift of the GOP over to the southern strategy, still in play today. Most important, though, was White's profound ability to capture in words the settings and mood of the events which he covered. Only David Halberstam accomplished this as well. Excellent narrative history, and timely.
July 21, 2007
A well-written story about America in 1964, when the civil rights struggle was the domestic issue of the day and the Vietnam War had not become the polarizing event that it became. The book begins by telling the readers what we already knew -- that Lyndon Johnson's victory had been a sure thing ever since that dark day in Dallas in November 1963 when John F. Kennedy was murdered and Johnson became president. Nevertheless, the book is well written and worth reading. Theodore White was one of the best political writers of his time, and one of the best historians as well. But he wrote his best when the outcome of the story was in doubt right up to the end. The stories of the landslides of 1964 and 1972 were more interesting as snapshots of America at a particular time. The cliffhanger elections of 1960 and 1968 made for more dramatic stories.
April 26, 2016
I would have given this book five stars, but the writing comes across as very dated and the author's adoration of JFK was a little over-the-top. However, this is a really important book when looked at in the context of our current electoral climate. In many ways what's happening to the Republican Party today is what happened in 1964 when Barry Goldwater split away from the more mainstream candidates like Rockefeller and Romney. Goldwater comes across as a hybrid of Trump and Cruz - less of the bluster than Trump, but some of the same xenophobic ideals and hawkishness. He plays the insider/outsider in a way similar to Cruz, but with less animosity.
A further interesting aspect of the book was the very early hints of the use of technology and data in a general election. LBJ definitely had the edge here, but it's fascinating to see the roots of what it's grown into today.
A further interesting aspect of the book was the very early hints of the use of technology and data in a general election. LBJ definitely had the edge here, but it's fascinating to see the roots of what it's grown into today.
July 3, 2014
This book is living evidence that nonfiction is literature. White is able to put well the 1964 elections in such great prose. He adds information about establishments and backgrounds which help the reader better comprehend the subjects.
White proves to be a fine journalist who could get his point across without beating around the bush. However, this book might be a drag to those who are not very interested in American politics. Its 425 pages are filled with information that some might consider irrelevant, so if you're not interested or don't have the patience, then this book is not for you.
White proves to be a fine journalist who could get his point across without beating around the bush. However, this book might be a drag to those who are not very interested in American politics. Its 425 pages are filled with information that some might consider irrelevant, so if you're not interested or don't have the patience, then this book is not for you.
August 10, 2016
A few observations. It is striking how many of the issues identified by White continue to be not only pertinent today but even more striking is how pressing they are in our times. White ends his narrative on such a hopeful note and it is haunting to think about the fact that the consensus which LBJ tapped into would disintegrate in a few years and that 1968 would be one of the most divisive elections in American history. So why is this book only a 4? It's because for all of White's perceptiveness and wisdom in writing about American society his treatment of race, especially in the international context, is incredibly inept.
June 26, 2008
Following John F Kennedy's assassination in Nov '63, Lyndon Johnson attempts to win a term on his own against arch-conservative Barry Goldwater. Goldwater's campaign is a disaster but provides a forum for future president Ronald Reagan. Mitt Romney's father, George Romney is also a '64 candidate.
February 8, 2020
This was a great book and such a interesting look at an election that should have never materialised. With the death of JFK, suddenly Johnson was President and had to face into an election. Theodore Whites books are essential reading for anyone Interested in American politics in the 60s and 70s.
March 26, 2009
Most often insightful and thorough, at times too verbose, this is a must read for anyone watching the present presidential contest closely.
August 2, 2009
Good account, but not as exciting to read as his book on the 1960 election after the Kennedy assassination.
February 18, 2011
A bit less inspiring than the 1960 story.
August 10, 2012
The Making of the President 1964 by Theodore H. White is amazingly detailed, interesting, and knowledgeable. One of the best political books I have read so far.
April 16, 2014
White is an excellent historian who reinvented modern political reporting. This specific book shows great insight into a pivotal campaign in our nations history. Highly recommend.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews