The History Book Club discussion
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES
>
1. NO ORDINARY TIME ~ PREFACE and CHAPTER 1 (9 – 39) (10/18/09 - 10/25/09) ~ No spoilers, please
Goodwin has done it again and roped me right into the characters and the timeline. We have just completed watching Winds of War and War and Remembrance (as well as Young Indiana Jones including documentaries that lead you right up to WWII) and even just these few first pages are a great compliment to understanding the era and personalities.
Mod
Before I start a book, I always read the front and back flap, as I'm sure everyone else does as well. On the back flap of this book is a picture of our author, Doris Kearns Goodwin, with her research assistant Linda Vandegrift. When was the last time you read a book where the author was willing to share that space equally with their research assistant? Linda must have been an enormous help.
Mod
Joe,The back of my copy doesn't show that picture. Is it online somewhere where others can see it? Good to know the author values her assistants. No one could write a book like this alone.
I just finished Chapter 1. Well done. I often have some confusion, for books like this that often have to digress into backstory, between which events are real-time and which background. However, Goodwin does a great job clearly delineating which is which. She jumps into the story, but still clearly gives the background to understand it.
There are a lot of people introduced in this chapter. Some, like Harry Hopkins and Missy and Tommy, I knew about before. But I've been marking the others so I can go back and remember who was the AP reporter and who was the Secretary of War, etc. My copy of the book also has a map of the 2nd floor of the White House. It really helps to picture where things are in relation to each other, and who is in which room.
One of the things I found interesting was Roosevelt's dislike of firing people. I can certainly identify with avoiding the bad news and disappointing people. But I was surprised to read that Roosevelt also wanted to have conflict in his administration. I guess he felt the conflict would adequately test ideas and proposals. It seems, however, that wanting conflict and avoiding disappointing people by firing them seems contradictory. Not what I would have expected. But it worked for him, I guess.
Mod
Elizabeth S wrote: "The back of my copy doesn't show that picture. Is it online somewhere where others can see it? Good to know the author values her assistants. No one could write a book like this alone."Elizabeth,
I just uploaded that picture to Amazon's Customer Image Gallery for this book.
About FDR's conflicting personality... I had previously read a very good one volume biography about Roosevelt by Jean Edward Smith called FDR which did a very good job describing his management style. He not only was extremely loyal to his inner circle, but he quite often kept them in the dark about many things. FDR was a master at manipulating personal as well as social situations. I particularly liked how Goodwin described that press conference in the Oval office... how he was able to fondle the press in such a way that the day's story got told just the way he wanted it to be.
Thanks for the picture! That's nice to see the woman who wrote it, and her biggest helper. I think "political animal" is a good way to describe Roosevelt. In this chapter, Goodwin also begins a case that Roosevelt couldn't have done all he did without Eleanor. I've often heard people speculate as to whether or not FDR would have been elected after the advent of television, when people could see his paralysis. However, would Eleanor have been his traveling eyes and ears without that paralysis? So, would FDR have been effective if he could have done all the traveling himself, and thus spent less time overseeing the big picture from the White House? Something to think about as we read.
Mod
Hey Joe...I added you on Amazon. Look for Bentley's invite...btw,,your birthdate is one day ahead of mine (we can wish each other happy birthday next year - lol)...the real Bentley's is in October.
Doris's assistant looked a little frazzled. In fact, Doris looked au naturale too.
Mod
I think "political animal" is a good way to describe Roosevelt. In this chapter, Goodwin also begins ..."
Excellent points...he needed Eleanor more than he gave her credit for...I think he should have been more loyal too...but I think what he did pointed to a bigger ego like most presidents seem to have (being cryptic here).
It is interesting to me to read with the intend ot sharing my impression with such a lofty group as we seem to be assembling - It begins to see how things are that Eleanor would have felt that domocracy had to be renewed at home is something that would not have occured to me. I would guess that in 1940 after the rise of musscilini and The way FDR seemed to need intimate friends is very interesting ö to the point of living in his residence ö maybe spurred by his welath & disability having promoted non immeiate family members living in before the presidnecy - i.e. That he did not easilz fire people is interesting ö compassion for the feelings & maybe lives of others but not getting rid of Woodring the war secretary was a failure of management ö just as seemingly choosing Marshall (one of my heros - I think ö I should know more about him) was a sign of management success but that did not necessitate hurting anyones feelings.The power of Sara - FDRs That FDR could seemingly get so much from Eleanors reports to him and be able to ask such seemingly importatn questions makes me realize what a string mind he must have had.
The tips of the drive, intellect and ambition that both FDR & eleaqnor must have had are so visible.
Mod
As far as lofty Vince..are you saying that we have our head in the clouds and our feet in quicksand. We are glad to have you in our boat. (smile)
I thought that it was curious too that Eleanor somehow thought that democracy needed renewing...did the bad economic times start swaying folks in other directions? I am absolutely not sure what was skewing Eleanor's thinking....I hope that one of our other readers might be able to dig something up on your statement. Why would a Hitler or a Mussolini (both rather repugnant folks) with horrendous philosophies on government sway us in America?
As far as FDR seeming to surround himself with a clan of hangers on....I wondered why FDR did not want to be alone. Did he need constant approbation and constant admiration. I cannot imagine giving up my personal and familial privacy to a group of extended relations and an ad hoc group of friends. Of course, I think we all now understand the Missy relationships, etc. All of this must have been tremendously difficult for Eleanor.
To me, FDR was manipulative and had something up his sleeve all of the time and I doubt he let his guard down much around all of these people. I personally think he had problems with true intimacy and had a protective wall around him. You know sometimes those folks who constantly need people around actually can't stand themselves very much and cannot stand being alone.
I think FDR was actually one of our greatest presidents but like all men and women who seek power...they all have their demons and downside. When we examined Churchill as much as I absolutely love the guy...now that was a complex and powerful guy who also loved his trappings and his entourage. So the presidency isn't the only example that we have of how power transforms personalities.
Sara held the purse strings and it is because of her that FDR did not divorce Eleanor since she offered him that way out. Sara said no. I wonder what Eleanor received in return for that bargain; it had to be something. Her personal pride had taken a mighty fall; I often wondered if because of FDR's behavior that there was a transfer of power that Eleanor never had before. In terms of making her stay and play her role; there had to be a deal that had been struck. And I am willing to bet it was between the three of them versus just between FDR and Eleanor.
FDR really set up Eleanor in an informal combination chief of staff/roaming secretary of state/unofficial cabinet member role and trusted confidante.
Maybe their intimate "detachment" made it easier for Eleanor to tell him the truth and be her own person. That in and of itself may have served both of them. As far as Obama...I like him..but I think he needs to look a little deeper at things and not just skim the surface in so many different arenas. Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty and wade into the muck to see what is going on; Obama does not seem to do this. He seems to surround himself with an entourage when he travels but it appears to be members of his wife's family versus trusted advisors.
It is funny but you can have intellect and never accomplish a thing; you can have drive but not be intelligent enough to make the right decisions and then you can be ambitious enough but not use your opportunites well so you will fail....it really is a combination of drive, intellect and unbridled ambition which seems to get the job done. However, that combination also gives us the black marks that we so often find mixed into the terms of office for these presidents and other powerful leaders.
As far as Eleanor's goals of renewing democracy... I understood her goals as being rooted in supporting and improving woman's rights, improving the lives of the poor, and combating harsh working conditions... stuff like that. I found it very powerful stuff, her saying that she was fighting to improve the homeland so that there was reason to fight abroad.And about their marriage... is it too harsh to assume that FDR was seen by the world as one of high privilege who wielded enormous power... and one who, like his famous distant cousin, might become President someday? Maybe Eleanor saw this in him and didn't want to loose the opportunity to not only join him, but also carve a place in history for herself?
Mod
I agree wholeheartedly with paragraph one. Terrific explanation.
I think the high privilege part who wielded enormous power image is not too harsh. I do not know if folks thought he would ever be president especially after he took sick. I think Eleanor loved him for the rest of her life and didn't stop loving him even after she realized that she had been spurned. I think despite what remunerations she was promised....I think she would have been able to walk away...but it was her love that kept her close....just MHO.
PS: Maybe I am just an incorrigible romantic...but if that had happened to me
I do not think I could have been far enough away from the person. So there had to be a personal deep attachment.
Joe wrote: "As far as Eleanor's goals of renewing democracy... I understood her goals as being rooted in supporting and improving woman's rights, improving the lives of the poor, and combating harsh working co..."Basically, I think Eleanor wanted to renew democracy by extending it to the poor, the minorities, the women, rather than merely the white male landowners who originally were the only ones who could be democratic.
The partnership between FDR and almost anyone seems complex. I ask myself not just why Eleanor stayed with him, but also, why Missy? Maybe I'm the only one who thinks that working for someone you love, but could never marry, would be painful. And it doesn't sound like he ever expressed love for her as anything but a valued secretary. People are strange.
Although as mentioned above, I think FDR was a great president. He did what had to be done for this country at moments of great stress and trial. He pulled things and people together. Even though there were mistakes and errors, overall we got through the trials and were able to move ahead. Thanks, FDR.
Bentley wrote: "Vince...I see that you are hitting the wife's computer...for those who may have missed Vince's explanation before...it has a German keyboard which doesn't seem too English friendly.As far as loft..."
Anyway lofty means that most of the members of this group seem to be well educated and informed so when Imake comments I should be aware there are serious thoughtful folks looking at them and therefore pay attention that I am not being foolish and wasting folks time by not thinking thru what I say.
Bentley you, and some other members, seem to read and digest so much information but I get overwhelmed trying to keep track of my daily world (includes this memebership) - that being said I can see why folks like FDR & Obama cannot get so deep into everything - delegation to trusted folks is necessary & even if not the appearence gives either more negotiating room if they must retreat.
I agree with you about not being alone but that is a personal question - also many marriages were less than perfect in the days when folks avoided divorce more than today.
I think that Eleanor got a lot of independence and the ability to stay the mother of her five kids etc and then she built from there.
Mod
I agree with you that a lot of things need to be delegated. No question about it. And in fact you must surround yourself with trusted individuals. However, there are some times when you should go into the weeds and look around yourself; it keeps you closer to the issues and to the people. Remember when George Bush Senior finally went into a grocery store and was amazed by bar codes. I personally think that cost him a lot with Americans. He seemed so far removed. FDR did go into the weeds...and the person he sent was Eleanor.
True about divorce and marriages being different. I do agree with you but then again even if I were living then...I would still want to be far away from the individual and any of his and or her alliances. But that is me. And obviously not FDR and/or Eleanor.
It could be that Eleanor decided that maintaining a semblance of a family situation was better than the alternative. You could be right on that as well.
And Vince do not get overwhelmed in any way...you can read and post at your pace; we keep all of the threads open if anybody is still interested in even a previous book.
Bentley
About being there and imagining what one would do if you were in that person's shoes... And Bentley, I guess I'm not a romantic. lolI think that we are so far removed from the situation, being used to our own lives, that we would be a totally different person if we actually experienced the things that these people did. It was just over 60 years ago, but that was such a long time ago compared to what we are living today. Even that, if an FDR was actually part of our lives, and we had the opportunity to help change the world like these people did, I think we all would act quite similar to them... Look at, what was his name.... the guy who had months to life, participating in that cabinet meeting after Germany invaded France. He wanted to be there helping to make history.
That is an interesting comment, Joe, about people wanting "to be there helping make history." Sometimes I wonder if people have any idea how much history they are making. But in Chapter 1, at least, I think they knew.
Yes, Elizabeth, I'm stretching things a bit, but with the knowledge of hindsight, it's very difficult not to. But actually, it was mentioned a few times during FDR that people were hinting to FDR from early on that he was ascending to the Presidency using the same path as Theodore did. Especially after he was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy by Woodrow Wilson in 1913, just like Theodore. And he then became Governor of New York between 1929–1932, just like Theodore did. But again, I admit, I'm stretching things a bit. He was just a privileged, gifted man who, I believe, was destined to make a difference in this world even if he never became President. That's why I think people were willing to do just about anything they could to work for him, or be apart of his life. His name was Roosevelt... and he did have lots of money. That alone had allot of weight.But enough of this hindsight garble. Look at the situation this guy was put into. The largest world conflict in history is about to begin and he had almost no military to speak of... with the public totally against a build-up to help prepare. What stress he must have been in.
Well - what an interesting string of commentary...I think FDR wanted to be a part of the history, but also felt the weight of the era heavy upon him and saw no one around him with the complete grasp that he had. I think the people he chose to surround himself with gave him "pieces" of what he needed, but no one gave him the "whole" - I have someone very close to me who is incredibly enigmatic, a true leader, but I suspect he does not want to be alone - just as FDR - in fact, whichever one of us made that comment just gave me some new insight into this person in my life (amazing what one "line" can do) - When you have some "hard" or "bad" stuff in your past you look to avoid it and I can imagine it with FDR - polio, fear of fire, adultery, etc. Perhaps we would not want to spend to much introspective time either...
I believe Eleanor's position comes really from her experiences, while she certainly had a top-notch education, the need to be FDR's eyes and ears out and about in the country would have taken that education to new highs. I know just volunteering to make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for the soup kitchen in a town close to ours has changed my views and sentiments incredibly - imagine what she experienced - imagine what changes she was able to make - to help others - a different kind of power to be sure than that of her husband's - but probably just as addictive -
Another point - there was no TV, very few radio stations, certainly no cable, internet (GoodReads) or no video games to occupy their time and the world was exploding, it is not unreasonable to think the president would need so many people focused on so many different things around him - how else could he gather and garner everything he needed to lead the country?
But then it must be remembered - there are many out there in the world that are not necessarily looking to make history, but to make a difference.
I think it's funny that someone used the term "cryptic" when referring to the large egos of presidents. When I look at what the job entails, I have to think anyone who would consider themselves qualified would have to have a different self-image than the average person. Personally, I consider myself to have at least average abilities and intelligence, but if someone told me I was now ( or was soon to be) the president of the United States, I would be petrified with anxiety! But some people seem to relish that level of responsibility.
I love Doris Goodwin's easy to read style. Re FDR, he was a true politician who learned to sway with the public opinion that kept him in office. Consider how he wanted to enter the war, but the isolationist spirit that was post-WWI kept him in line with the will of the people. An intelligent President surrounds himself with a variety of opinions rather than hangers-on, encouraging debate and even welcoming disagreement. Re Obama, too soon to tell. The media's coverage of him is heavily biased; first almost a perfect image and now the old trashing game at which they excel. But if you do some research and see the qualifications of the people around Obama, it is quite an impressive team intellectually, not that the media would ever admit that.
Re Eleanor, a most admirable woman living through her husband's infidelity in a time when divorce and leaving were in no way as commonplace as today. She took the lemons and made lemonade, for sure!
Viviane wrote: "I love Doris Goodwin's easy to read style."I agree. I still take time to think through things as I go. But if I only have 1-2 minutes, I can read a page or two and still get a lot out of it. I have a couple more non-history things I want to finish before moving on to chapters 2-3, but it is hard to wait. What a good problem!
Mod
Bentley
The most surprising piece of new information for me was how powerful the isolationist forces were in the U.S. I knew it intellectually but the reaction to the end of the phony war by the isolationists as reported by Goodwin was revealing.I believe FDR's need for constant companionship will be made clear in subsequent chapters as will his manipulative and secret ways.
His relationship to Eleanor has to be seen in the mores of the times. Divorce was an absolute no-no for those who wished a public career. The Duke of Wales gave up his throne so he could marry a divorced woman. How sad that is in the light of today's Duke of Wales, Prince Charles, divorcing and re-marrying without fear of losing his inheritance.
I agree with Liz that FDR's affair with Lucy Mercer also has to be seen as a way for him to satisfy his sexual needs since Eleanor was quoted as describing sexual intercourse as an "ordeal". The fact that they never had sex again after 1918 says volumes about the nature of their relationship. As Liz points out, it was always more of an intellectually stimulating friendship than a romantic coupling.
I wonder what FDR's polio did to his ability to perform sexually. I do know he continued to see Lucy Mercer from time to time for the rest of his life.
Having actually lived through the times we are reading about, though I was very young, I can say with little fear of being wrong that television would have helped make FDR even more powerful. He was such a real person to the adults I knew, a status gained through his Fireside Chats, that with the immediacy of TV and with his ability to personally charm people, he would have been a TV idol. The only President who even comes close is our current leader, President Obama.
I am enjoying this book immensely. I'm reading it much faster than I thought I would. Hard to put it down.
I agree that Goodwin's style is superb. She brings us right into the moment of crisis at the opening, while so many historical biographers feel the need to start with grandparents and it's chapters before one gets to anything interesting. And she includes the kind of physical details that I think make prose so readable, such as FDRs favorite chair.
Bentley wrote: "Elizabeth...I found that odd about Franklin too. I thought that there might be a third reason for his not doing it; he did not want to have bad publicity and he didn't like firing people for polit..."I agree, Bentley. FDR is not known for being open about his innermost thoughts and feelings. I think that he might have intentionally distanced himself from certain activities so that he didn't show certain parts of himself. Even people in his most inner circle felt that he was an enigma in some ways.
Joe wrote: "As far as Eleanor's goals of renewing democracy... I understood her goals as being rooted in supporting and improving woman's rights, improving the lives of the poor, and combating harsh working co..."Interesting point, Joe. Eleanor does get the best of all worlds doesn't she? She doesn't really have to be a wife in the traditional sense (Missy covered that and what she missed Lucy Mercer and others took care of), but yet, she was able to accomplish so much and become independent on her own terms. I don't want to get ahead here because I've read about 1/3 of the book, but Eleanor undergoes a major transformation while FDR is President, which also impacted here relationship with Sara.
Sera wrote: "...I don't want to get ahead here because I've read about 1/3 of the book, but Eleanor undergoes a major transformation while FDR is President..."I can understand getting ahead. This is a hard book to put down. It is interesting for you to point out Eleanor's major transformation. If more is coming later in the book, I'm even more impressed with Eleanor. It sounds like she had already changed significantly.
As Andrea said, Goodwin jumps right into the story without overdoing the background. Yet there is enough background so you don't feel lost.
Whoever suggested this book (however long ago), thank you!
After having read Goodwin's Team of Rivals, I believe that this book (which was written before TOR) is a much easier read. TOR is so dense because it's filled with thousands of facts, whereas this book feels much lighter in this approach. Don't get me wrong, TOR was phenomenal, but it took me forever to read it. The FDR book moves more quickly, which is nice, because I read it at work during lunch for only about 20-30 minutes 2-3 times a week.I've also seen Goodwin on numerous news shows, including Charlie Rose. She is very knowledgable, well respected and passionate about her subject matter.
Eleanor Roosevelt was ahead of her time as a pioneer of women's liberation. She did it all - raised 5 children (probably with help but still the mother), and went around the US on various jaunts as needed for the issue and by FDR to see what was going on in the US. I would imagine their marriage wasn't unusual among prominent people who married unhappily for whatever reason, but could not divorce in those days because of the extreme consequences. Eleanor took advantage of every bit of her new 'freedom' and the freedom of being an intellectual partner with FDR, as was said without the marial intimacy that had constrained her before because of her dislike of the 'marital duty'. Lol, after having five children, I guess she wasn't interested in any more consequences of unprotected sex!FDR's dislike of being alone - the frustration of the polio had to be incredible for this very independent man. People being with him was a distraction. If you have any time in your life where you are ill and your independence is interferred with, fear comes into the picture easily. While I can't see that he showed any fear - particularly in his constant battle with his disability - he had to have been hit with a raging fear, especially where he got sick so quickly and suddenly. Having minimal time alone enabled him to concentrate on Presidential matters, and not have too much time to have his own problems grip him and take over his thoughts.
Mod
Great post Ed and glad that you are enjoying the book so much.
Mod
Yes Sera...maybe this book should have been called The American Sphinx instead of the one about Thomas Jefferson.
Joseph J. Ellis
Mod
Virginia, he showed fear of fire...according to some family members....he learned to crawl on his hands and stomach to the door....he was very proud of that fact but when he first showed Eleanor what he could do....she cried. Also, the door to his room was never locked as is usually the case with presidents when they are sleeping. The secret service was just outside his door. I think he feared his immobility and his mortality in many ways.
Sera wrote: "After having read Goodwin's Team of Rivals, I believe that this book (which was written before TOR) is a much easier read. TOR is so dense because it's filled with thousands of facts, whereas this..."I think the ease of reading is because Goodwin is basically telling a story, a narrative, that flows chronologically, as she points out in the Introduction.
I've not read "Team of Rivals" but I suspect it's more exposition than narrative, therefore less easily read and understood.
Virginia wrote: "FDR's dislike of being alone - the frustration of the polio had to be incredible for this very independent man. People being with him was a distraction. If you have any time in your life where you are ill and your independence is interferred with, fear comes into the picture easily. While I can't see that he showed any fear - particularly in his constant battle with his disability - he had to have been hit with a raging fear, especially where he got sick so quickly and suddenly. Having minimal time alone enabled him to concentrate on Presidential matters, and not have too much time to have his own problems grip him and take over his thoughts."Virginia,
I think you're reaching a little bit here. He liked being with people because people liked being with him. He was a charmer and had a high need to be admired by others. It was part of his self-validation. He also loved verbal conflict and argument.
I believe he was proud of his response to the polio and while he was definitely disappointed by the fact he could not be as active as before, nevertheless, he rehabbed with a ferocity seldom seen in those days.
I believe the description of how he re-lived his childhood sledding experience as a way of relaxing himself to sleep, argues against his trying to avoid the consequences of the disease.
I don't want to be a spoiler so I'll wait to continue this discussion when the issue is covered in more detail in later chapters.
"I think the ease of reading is because Goodwin is basically telling a story, a narrative, that flows chronologically, as she points out in the Introduction.I've not read "Team of Rivals" but I suspect it's more exposition than narrative, therefore less easily read and understood."
I think perhaps Team of Rivals was new ground for her, Goodwin knows the WWII era like the back of her hand - so she is just telling us a story. It will be interesting if she writes more of the Civil War period, I think we might see those subsequent books become more fluid.
I agree with Virginia about keeping so busy to have no time to focus on his own personal issues, otherwise he would have had to very clearly face his handicap, his marriage and perhaps even the need to "let people go" - staying busy hides many "issues".
Mod
It is odd that he felt such a triumph in basically being able to crawl to safety; while at the same time it was so repugnant to Eleanor to see her husband in this debilitated state.
Bentley
Mod
"Would a presidency like FDR's be possible today? How would the contemporary American public view a relationship such as FDR had with Missy LeHand? How might we as a nation react to a man handicapped as FDR was?"
In terms of character, to have a presidency like FDR's the world situation would have to be similar, and while some might argue it is similar - I would not agree. 1940 was cataclysmic and while we may experience pieces of those troubles - nothing since then can measure up - Thank God. I attribute some of that to the better study of history and education - knowing our past mistakes does help the future.So - no president has been tried in the manner Roosevelt has been.In considering the relationship with Missy, I do believe our current society could handle that, especially considering some of the recent past, and if the president were a strong character as FDR was in being the consummate professional and politician.
Regarding his handicap - this I am torn - I would like to think that if a statesman/politician climbed the ranks as Roosevelt did through appointed and elected posts they should be able to achieve great things. But I do not know that we can rely on our American public. Although Christopher Reeve was respected and was effective with his injury - which was much more extreme - I think the "uneducated and unsophisticated" part of our society could not elect a man or woman they would see as weak. Perhaps it could happen if the tragedy or illness occurred while in office - but I really am not sure of it at all...
Mod
Curious as to what others might think.
Bentley
Contraire!I think U.S. voters are smarter than we give them credit for.
As to electing a President with a handicap, the electorate voted in G.W. and he was certainly mentally handicapped. (Grin)
I do believe that someone with the type of handicap FDR had could be elected. John McCain can't lift his arms and has Melanoma but managed to get nominated.
Robert Dole ran as the Republican candidate in 1996 and he had little or no use of his left arm.
I think it is far more of a handicap to be black and run for President than to be crippled.
I agree with everything so far, except the part where today's society could handle a Missy Leland. Today's public holds our elected officials to an extremely high standard... much higher than it used to be. And if that type of news ever became public, it would ruin the President. Only if it all could stay secret, it would fly. But I don't see that happening.
Alexis wrote: "In considering the relationship with Missy, I do believe our current society could handle that, especially considering some of the recent past, and if the president were a strong character as FDR was in being the consummate professional and politician.I strongly suspect that the Missy thing would be a non-issue, today. Many presidents have had assistants/secretaries who stayed with them for years and years with little or no scandal.
Rose Mary Woods followed Nixon around for years. In fact I'm surprised that the missing 18 minutes of the tapes, supposedly accidentally erased by her elbow, couldn't have actually been caused by some illicit activity in the Oval Office. I would have believed that over the story they did come up with.
Without spoiling, there is much more on the Missy relationship later in the book.
I think that if the wife is ok with the husband having a mistress, then we really should mind our own business. I also think that people have less tolerance of these types of activites when the politician in question sells himself as having some type of higher moral fiber than the average man. FDR didn't preach values to the nation or take some high moral stance in areas such as segregation, etc. He let Eleanor lead that effort, which I believe was a smart move politically for him. He could support her agenda without being a spokesperson for it. Plus, he had his hands full with the depression and how involved the US should become in WWII. Perhaps people were more tolerant of FDR's conduct (if they even knew) because there were much greater issues facing the nation at that time.
Bentley wrote: "Here is a question from the reading guide that I think we could begin to tackle:"Would a presidency like FDR's be possible today? How would the contemporary American public view a relationship ..."
A Presidency like FDR's is quite possible today. The crises may be different but call for the same intelligence, skills, diplomacy and decisions. NY Times ran an article a few year ago about the importance of a candidate being good-looking and healthy. Is it true? Judge by who has run.
Re the relationship with Missy LeHand, the public says it doesn't matter at all, that we should mind our own business and let who one sleeps with remain private, while in the next breath the media and politician's colleagues and foes proceed to character assassination that makes it well nigh impossible to remain unscathed from such a revelation. Two better questions are, "Just what kind of standard do we expect from a President?" "Do we really know what we want and believe?"
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln (other topics)American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson (other topics)
FDR (other topics)
FDR (other topics)
No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Morris Massey (other topics)Alan Winkler (other topics)
Doris Kearns Goodwin (other topics)
Jean Edward Smith (other topics)
Joseph J. Ellis (other topics)
More...
For the week of October 18th - October 25th, we are reading approximately the first 30 pages of No Ordinary Time by Doris Kearns Goodwin.
The first week's reading assignment is:
October 18 – October 25 ~~ Preface and Chapter 1 (9 – 39)
Preface – page 9
Chapter One – “The Decisive Hour Has Come” – page 13
We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.
This book will be kicked off on October 18th. We look forward to your participation. Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle.
Since we will not be starting this book until October 18th, there is a great deal of advance time still remaining to obtain the book and get started.
There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.
For those of you who would like to kick this book off early, please be my guest; however this thread is only dedicated to pages 9 - 39 (so no spoilers beyond those pages).
Welcome,
~Bentley
TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL
Doris Kearns Goodwin