The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Landslide
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES
>
WE ARE OPEN - WEEK TWO - PRESIDENTIAL SERIES: LANDSLIDE - December 8th - December 14th - Chapter Two - No Spoilers, Please
The one thing I will quickly say about Reagan and the fall of the Soviet Union is that it was multiple causes, including just dumb luck, and I think Martin and others articulate this.For those who are interested, scholars recently talked about this topic on Reagan:
http://millercenter.org/events/2014/t...
Mod
???
message 154:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Dec 10, 2014 08:39AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
I like the contrast of the two personalities so far, but ..."
Mark, I am not sure it is about political views but about the book itself and everyone is invited who is reading their book to have their own interpretations of the book and of course what is written and what the author left out, how they felt about Kennedy, LBJ and Reagan.
I am not sure that being a good public speaker or performer makes a person extroverted - some great movie stars are very introverted personalities when you get to know them but like the limelight and taking on a role that they can lose themselves in. So I think the jury is out in terms of the discussion which we have just started regarding all of them (LBJ, Kennedy and Reagan). Of course some folks feel strongly one way or the other no matter who they are reading.
I do agree that Reagan is a hard man to figure out given his actor capabilities - what is really the man versus a role he was playing?
I am not so sure that I agree with you that a lot of comments on this thread have painted introverted characteristics in a misunderstood light - I think we are just discussing the men and everyone has their own opinion about the book and the men themselves. There are a couple of folks who are on the extremes - one loves Reagan and one does not and I have seen such comments, LBJ I think has a few of those himself - but as long as folks are civil and respectful - everyone is entitled to post their assessments.
Now regarding your post - please feel free to go on and elaborate in future posts why you think Reagan is the kind of man that you feel he is. Use quotes from the book or other books or articles you have read. Use citations for those books and add a link if it is to an article which you feel we should read. Also, maybe you have some anecdotes that you would like to share with us and by all means please tell us how you feel as we read more by posting. You can also post in response to any post and present your viewpoint. We like to hear all of them of course and we want to hear your posts which will provide the balance that you are looking for if you disagree with others. That makes for a great discussion.
Mod
"Johnson was among the most hyperactive executives the White House had ever seen, always seeking to put his fingerprints on every scra..."
I have to agree with your assessment - he was almost like a race horse coming out of the gate at the Kentucky Derby.
Bentley - de nada. Klein talks about a woman on his left, close enough to smile and share her opinion that reform in the Soviet is real. Presumably, this woman is one of two minders who escorted him. The next sentence refers to the mind sitting on his left nudging him. Now, I know the Rooskies could pack 'em into an apartment, several families in space barely sufficient for a close couple in the US, but I've never known them to pack them into the Bolshoi or theatre two-to-a seat, which raises the question: how many left hands did Klein have?
Since it required explanation, maybe it wasn't as funny as I thought.
message 157:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Dec 10, 2014 07:28AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
I am finding comments like this ..."
Hello Michael - yes Martin does have a way with words and has his own impressions of Reagan and I am glad to see you defend your views and many, many other folks about the man and the President. I think that Reagan found his niche when he was President even though I do not agree that he was as great as the Republican party has made him out to be. I think they have gone to the other extreme.
And what we are trying to discuss is the man and his accomplishments, his strengths and his weaknesses. And what the author in Landslide is saying about these men. We can agree or disagree with the author and have our own interpretations. But I think that not living up to your own billing is a problem for Reagan now because of how the Republican party had made him a poster boy for some of their extreme views and frankly I think they are doing Reagan a disservice. My father for example stated that he did not like what Reagan did to manufacturing in this country and other domestic decisions but he liked him when he was President - so you see there is a dichotomy out there. I like what you say and how you say it but I do not like what you do always and how you do it. Reagan seemed to have the ability to still be likable and I think the author made that point regarding the Screen Actor's Guild - that he was not a great actor but everybody liked him anyway aside from the friend of your mother's (smile).
Now as President we are trying to figure out what he actually accomplished and what is simply hype and we are trying to do that with all three men although our primary focus is on LBJ and Reagan - two very different styles.
You bring up Carter and there was one of the brightest men we have ever had become President but he was another one who could not work within the "system" which makes it hard I think for true outsiders. Unfair but true.
Carter has gone on to be one of the most active ex Presidents we have and really has done enormous good for so many. Yet as President he was not able to accomplish what needed to be done.
I also personally agree with you in terms of Reagan surrounding himself with folks who could do their jobs. It is tough; there are always going to be about 50% of the country not buying anything you are doing if you are President no matter how well liked you are and as I have stated all of these Presidents are human beings and men who do not have Super Powers.
You make some good points Michael.
message 158:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Dec 10, 2014 08:30AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Ronald Reagan - 1981 - 1989
Always on Your Mind by Willie Nelson
http://youtu.be/R7f189Z0v0Y
Mod
(lol)
Mod
For those wh..."
Thank you Bryan for your link - very much appreciated
Mark,I think that Reagan was not so much an introvert as a loner. His children spoke of his detachment and even his beloved wife Nancy felt he kept her at a certain distance. The following quote is from The Invisible Bridge: The Fall of Nixon and the Rise of Reagan by Rick Perlstein
“There’s a wall around him,” as his wife Nancy put it. “He lets me come closer than anyone else, but there are times when even I feel that barrier.”
He's certainly an interesting personality because so many people felt a close personal connection to him when he spoke to groups in person or appeared on TV. This was also part of the "real" Ronald Reagan. He was a complex man.
Rick Perlstein
Mod
Hmmm Baker was quite crafty - Martin if you remember these folks you must be old indeed (smile).
That's an interesting article by Joe Klein, Bentley. I happen to agree that the Soviet Union was an "evil" empire in many ways. I just don't think that name calling is a very productive part of diplomacy.Klein rightly points out that Reagan's pragmatic actions (tax cuts, size of government, etc.) frequently conflicted with his rhetoric.
Mod
Very interesting and thank you for that quote.
Martin wrote: "Taking Reagan to task for failing to live up to his billing - whatever that was - certainly was not my intent, Michael. My intent was to give the lie to the myth that Reagan toppled the Soviet, or ..."Martin, I agree and several comments since have also brought some extra balance to the discussion. I fully agree that there was much already going on that led to the fall of the Soviet Union. The Candlelight Revolution for one which gets very little play in the media. Reagan gets lots of credit for bringing the Iranian Hostage Crises to a close which happened "almost" before his inauguration which leaves the work of the Carter administration out in the cold. What would have happened if recent petroleum and natural gas finds in the Russian Federation would have happened prior to the collapse? I hope I did not come across to in too strong a manner. Again, I do believe that he had good advisers even beyond the top three and lets face it what administration has not had some kind of staff hanky panky going on in the background which usually get the Pres in trouble at some level. I don't like Obama but I feel sorry for the staff turmoil that has affected his administration.
Being born in 1964 I cannot speak to LBJ but Reagan was the first President in office when I was of voting age. I also agree with your premise that there were factors other than Reagan's leadership. For example when inspectors went into Soviet missile sites it was quickly discovered that many of their missiles would not have fired because of moisture/standing water in the silos (cannot remember my source for this will try to find it). They had us outnumbered in tanks but many of the tanks in their count were late WW2 and Korean War era while under Reagan even our Guard units got Abrams and F-16's. I am enjoying the discussion just let me know if I go to far I freely admit I can get too invested sometimes.
Mod
My apologies for responding and reading the chapter late. My kids were ill over the weekend and then I fell victim to it and just started felling better today.I found this chapter to be a very interesting look on Reagan's life at the time. The critique was I think accurate. He was unhappy with not being in the limelight.
The character he played in "The Killers" was so far from what he liked to portray it made him unhappy. I have seen the movie though the acting is good you can tell he is uncomfortable in the character he is playing.
He did what millions of Americans have to do everyday then and now suck it up and make money somehow. It may be a job you are not happy with, but so long as you are not hurting anyone in anyway then you do what you have to do.
The roll he played in "The Killers" though I believe (and I stress this is my belief)was what made his decision to enter politics easier. It would be a return to the limelight and he knew it. He liked the spotlight and always would.
I did find the account of Walter Cronkite's comment about Barry Goldwater a tad unfair. It was a tragedy and both parties were severely effected by the events of Kennedy's assassination. Though I am unfamiliar with this a little. Was the "No Comment " made by Goldwater himself or one of his staffers?
by
Edmund Morris
by
Richard Reeves
message 168:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Dec 10, 2014 09:28AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
I thought that this comment was made by Barry Goldwater himself and you have to admit if that was the case it was at the very least not in good taste given the circumstances and the fact that he was being asked about the President who had been assassinated. A more conciliatory statement could have been made versus a terse no comment.
However, there are reports that he was grief stricken over the assassination and maybe that is why he did not want to speak about it.
Here is an excerpt from his obituary where he talks about some of his words:
"He championed a brand of rugged individualism, and he never hesitated to speak his mind. He could be both colorful and profane, and he often said things he later wished he hadn't. "Barry, you speak too quick and too loud," former president Dwight D. Eisenhower once told him, and Mr. Goldwater acknowledged that Eisenhower was right.
"There are words of mine floating around in the air that I would like to reach up and eat," he once said.
Asked by journalist Stewart Alsop in 1963 what it might feel like to wake up as president some day, Mr. Goldwater remarked, "Frankly, it scares the hell out of me."
When members of his own party advocated policies that he considered too much like those of the Democrats, he ridiculed them for "me-tooism." Once he called the Eisenhower administration "a dime store New Deal," and the former president never fully forgave him.
Here is the full link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/...
And by the way I do not believe that Goldwater meant anything by the comment if he did make it and possibly he was too upset to talk about the situation.
Here is an interview and he seems to have handled things quite well and he called Kennedy a friend and the loss of a friend. I believe you are correct. Cronkite I believe was unfair.
http://youtu.be/PxnecmOWI-s
Here he is with Buckley on Firing Line on conservatism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtN9a...
And he was a good sport in his roasting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnmUU...
Michael wrote: "Martin wrote: "Taking Reagan to task for failing to live up to his billing - whatever that was - certainly was not my intent, Michael. My intent was to give the lie to the myth that Reagan toppled ..."Though I do agree Carter got left out in some aspects of the Iranian hostage crisis which was wrong. He did rescue those who escaped the embassy ordering the CIA to go in a bring them back. The OP that the movie "Argo" is loosely based on. He should be created for that and people tend to forget. It was his team that got the hostages freed in the end. Even though he paid a ransom of sorts to get them free. What did him in was all the screw-ups he made before the crisis and along the way.
Carter's actions preceding the Revolution and the capture of the U.S> embassy are what people look at. Some may have caused the Iranians to want to do this. He pro-Shah stance angered many who were against the Shah'a rule. Carter's televised toast to the Shah on New Year's Eve in 1977. This angered Iranians even more. Then when the Revolution did start the Shah came to the U.S. and instead of returning him the U.S. insisted he was here for medical reasons.
His actions that helped cause the hostage crisis to begin with are what destroyed Carter's Presidency. His failed rescue attempt Operation Eagle Claw which 8 service men died. The Second which was planned though thankfully never executed.
Mod
Bentley wrote: "Christopher - glad your kids and you are doing a bit better.I thought that this comment was made by Barry Goldwater himself and you have to admit if that was the case it was at the very least not..."
I can't fathom that the man said No Comment because he was being cold. I would have to assume that the news hit him like it hit the rest of Americans they were grief stricken and in shock.
The problem with the press is they don't take things like that into consideration they are trying to get the story out. Though it was not a prevalent then as it is today.
Though like Reagan during the AIDS crisis where you heard crickets as the AIDS epidemic grew in size and scale. Though Reagan was not sitting idly by not taking care of the problem. Though he should have spoke to the nation sooner then he did about the problem. Goldwater most likely could have handled the press a bit better with at least some condolences and a direction the elected officials should lead the nation in Kennedy's absence.
Mod
Bentley wrote: "I agree Christopher but if you watch the interview link that I attached you could see that he was very affected by Kennedy's death and said many good things about Kennedy. Maybe this was his way o..."Yes I watched it and I see he was affected by his death. So I do understand why he made the "No Comment" to Cronkite. Though I guess it is one of those hindsight deals where you see it could have been done a little better.
His statement of them being friends while working in Congress reminded me of a similar thing I read about Nixon and Kennedy. Though as time went on that friendship cooled as Kennedy became more popular and then won the White House.
by
Anthony Summers
Mod
It is just that with Goldwater what you saw was what you got - no theatrics there just pure emotion - and like he said he wished that he could grab some of his words out of the air and eat them (smile).
Just would like to throw this tidbit in here as some have discussed Reagan's WB career and ambition, etc. Reagan was contracted to Warner Brothers at the height of the "Studio system" and as such, in many ways had less input in the course of his career as many would think. The studios not only groomed their actors, but managed their lives- sometimes for certain female leads, down to what they could eat in a day. Louis B. Meyer was notorious for this at MGM. His mother's Chicken soup recipe was on the menu at the canteen, and there were a few starlets who were on Mrs. Meyer's chicken soup during the course of a picture. Unless you were a power player like Cagney or Bette Davis, both who fought the studio system and won some management over their own careers, the most anyone could do is have a couple of options to turn down a role, or work behind the scenes to lobby for a picture or not to work with a certain director. Reagan, as a "b" level player would have had less control prior to the 50s when the studio system collapsed. Jeanine Basinger's The Star Machine is an excellent look at the system.
by Jeanine Basinger No photo
Bentley wrote: "I think the debates probably cooled things down a bit there too.It is just that with Goldwater what you saw was what you got - no theatrics there just pure emotion - and like he said he wished th..."
Yeah he was a rare breed of politician. He told it like it was and he did not care about the consequences.
Mod
Very true John and what was cited by the author was that was one reason that Reagan fit the role as president - he did not mind giving up control and had been doing that right along in the movie industry. Great point.
Mod
It is just that with Goldwater what you saw was what you got - no theatrics there just pure emotion - and like he s..."
I think he cared after the fact - but what you got was brute honesty at the get go.
Mod
Agree with you Ann.
In referring to Reagan's life guard years on page 40, it says, "'You know why I had such fun at it?' he said. 'Because I was the only one up there on the guard stand. It was like a stage. Everyone had to look at me.'" Makes me think of beauty pageant queens. Reagan always appeared a wax figure to me, no emotion, no feeling, just words and no substance. Just my opinion.
One of my favorite songs from the Reagan years:Ronald Reagan - 1981-1988
What's Love Got to Do With It - Tina Turner
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE9eB...
Mod
What year did What's Love Got to do with it come out - Tina Turner has certainly aged well and been around a long time.
Bentley wrote: "I never thought about that - but you are right - beauty pageant queens. Interesting quote wasn't it.What year did What's Love Got to do with it come out - Tina Turner has certainly aged well and ..."
1984. Tina Turner continues to amaze!
Mod
This is such an interesting book and discussion. Thank you again for letting me be a part of this. As we read further, what I find so fascinating about the two president's is that LBJs personality appears to be that of a narcissist - it's all or nothing. You are with him or against. There is no neutral ground. You would expect an actor to have this type of personality, wouldn't you? Yet Reagan appears to have a laser focus on his ambitions for the presidency. His is a 'whatever it takes' attitude. No one is more surprised than me to admit I'm impressed by this insight into Reagan's personality.
Mod
That is interesting that you view the two men this way. I do think that LBJ had some issues and insecurities stemming from his father's situation and maybe that was part of what he acted out. He put up with a lot at the hands of the Kennedy's and I wondered why a man so powerful in his own right would do that. In Reagan's case, he was a man looking for a position and found politics more to his liking than acting yet he could use his skillets in both fields. Odd how being an actor prepared him for the presidency - at least I found it odd.
message 187:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Dec 10, 2014 06:49PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
What would be these three men's responses and what would these three men do or say and would they fire anybody or sweep it under the rug. What actions would they take in other words if it had happened when they were president?
What do you think their responses would be? Given their personalities and strengths/weaknesses.
Remember this is a hypothetical - it did not happen and there are no right or wrong answers - just think about their personalities and how they reacted to different events and try to predict what you think they would do, who they would consult and what actions they would have taken and why you think that.
You can discuss one or all three - whatever comes to mind.
message 188:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Dec 10, 2014 07:43PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
However for Reagan he could not write a biography but resorted to writing an historical novel.
Here is what one reviewer had to say on Amazon:
Why did Pulitzer-winning Theodore Roosevelt biographer Edmund Morris controversially choose to write his authorized biography of Ronald Reagan in the form of a historical novel?
There's a clue in a quote the book attributes to Jane Wyman, Reagan's first wife. As Ronnie speechified about the Red Menace at a 1940s Hollywood party, Wyman allegedly whispered to a friend, "I'm so bored with him, I'll either kill him or kill myself." This anecdote, if true, is more revealing than Nancy Reagan's charge in the book that Jane had attempted suicide to get Ronnie to marry her in the first place.
Jane was no intellectual--Morris cracks that "If Jane had ever heard of Finland, she probably thought it was an aquarium"--but he found to his horror, after years of research, that he felt much the same as Wyman. Reagan was as boring as a box of rocks, as elusive as a ghost.
Decades before Alzheimer's clouded Reagan's mind, he showed a terrifying lack of human presence.
"I was real proud when Dad came to my high school commencement," reports his son, Michael Reagan. After posing for photos with Michael and his classmates, the future president came up to him, looked right in his eyes, and said, "Hi, my name's Ronald Reagan. What's yours?" Poor Michael replied, "Dad, it's me. Your son. Mike."
Despite deep research and unprecedented access--no previous biography has ever been authorized by a sitting president--Morris could get no closer to Reagan's elusive soul than Reagan's own kids could.
So Morris decided to dramatize Reagan's life with several invented characters--including a fictionalized version of himself and an imaginary gossip columnist who makes wicked comments on Reagan's career. This is one weird tactic, forcing the reader constantly to consult the footnotes at the back of the book to sort things out, and Morris makes it tougher by presenting his invented characters as real, even in the footnotes.
Ultimately, the hubbub over Morris's odd method is beside the point. His speculative entry into Reagan's life and mind is plausible, dramatic, literary, and lit by dazzling flashes of insight. The narrator watches the young Reagan as a lifeguard (years before the real Morris was born):
One tunnels along in a shroud of silvery bubbles, insulated from any sight or sound.... Others may swim alongside for a while, but their individuality tends to refract away, through the bubbles and the blur.
Often I have marveled at Reagan's cool, unhurried progress through crises of politics and personnel, and thought to myself, He sees the world as a swimmer sees it.
We cannot verify Morris's notion that Reagan probably approved the illegal Iran-Contra funding without having a clue it was illegal, or that the "Star Wars" program sprang from his love of Edgar Rice Burroughs's first novel, A Princess of Mars, which featured glass-domed cities.
But however bizarre and ignorant his thoughts were, however cold his heart, Morris believes, the guy did crush the Evil Empire and achieve greatness. Morris achieves a kind of greatness, too, but one wishes he had written a more straightforward dramatization of history. --Tim Appelo
===========
I found the above very interesting especially when I read what Darman had to say:
Nancy was determined to give Ronnie everything in his second marriage that he had lacked in his first. "Jane had said publicly that she was bored by all of his talking," Nancy wrote. "But I loved listening to him talk and let him know it." Edmund Morris, Reagan's perceptive biographer, asked him to recall his mindset in the painful early days after the end of his first marriage. Reagan responded with a line he used in other places over the years, "I think the thing I missed the most was not, uh, somebody loving me. I missed not having somebody to love." Writing down Reagan's words followed them with a spiral curlicue useful to biographers, meaning, He feels the opposite of what he says."
Discussion Topics:
What were your impressions of what the author wrote in Chapter Two about Reagan as evidenced in the quote above? And why do you think that Edmund Morris felt the way that he did? What did you think about the anecdote with his own son Michael?
Now I know that there are many who will feel equally upset with what Edmund Morris said and did and well as the quote from Darman. But we want to hear both frames of reference so let everyone express their viewpoints. We want to hear from all of you.
Peter wrote: "I think there's an interesting contrast between the two men in how they expressed their ambition. LBJ had to dominate every situation - he was literally the kid who took his ball and went home if..."
That's a great way to put it.
Mod
LBJ had to dominate every situation - he was literally the kid who took his ball and went home if..."
I have to agree with Cary - interesting observation which I missed and had to circle back to see where you had posted.
Kathy wrote: "David wrote: "When reading this chapter, I couldn't help but think of the 80's Wendy's commercial, "Where's the Beef!". Reagan seems to be more character than substance. Worried more about appear..."I picked up some of the bias, too, even in the prologue. I'm curious to see if it is because the author sees Reagan as more interesting at this point of the timeline, or if there is a true bias. I'm leaning towards the bias, as both men to this point of their lives have accomplished plenty to be interesting to readers.
Later chapters will tell all....
message 192:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Dec 10, 2014 08:29PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Just for the record and this was posted on the introduction thread: Jonathan Darmon's family background - father was Richard Gordon Darman, who died Jan. 25, and was best known on the national scene as former president George H.W. Bush's budget director, a brilliant and determined policymaker who in 1990 negotiated a bipartisan deal with Congress to reduce the budget deficit. It appears he worked under 5 presidents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_...
Frankly I believe the author to this point has been even handed and not that kind to Reagan in Chapter Two. But if an historian/author is presenting the facts and they are not that favorable what is one to do. Of course, I am interested in hearing what bias you picked up. He was a former political correspondent to Newsweek. But I am sure that he has been around all sorts of politics during his young life prior to his Dad's passing and I love to read the inside scoop.
http://ww2.fairfaxtimes.com/cms/archi...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/was...
Bentley wrote: "Here is a hypothetical - we all know about the Senate CIA Torture Report and what President Obama had to say about it, the Senate, and the responses from Bush/Cheney calling the CIA participants "p..."Bentley wrote: "Here is a hypothetical - we all know about the Senate CIA Torture Report and what President Obama had to say about it, the Senate, and the responses from Bush/Cheney calling the CIA participants "p..."
Here's Reagan's hypothetical response. I'm curious as to how close my tone is to his. I chose him as he is the one I am most familiar with.
“My fellow Americans,
Today the Senate released a report in regards to our overseas CIA operatives committing acts of torture against enemy combatants in our ongoing war against terror. This report struck a nerve with me in that none of the members of the Senate had participated in the military tribunal system, nor had they themselves engaged in combat operations on foreign soil.
I have the utmost faith that this report is false. We, as the United States of America, are responsible for setting the best example that we can as the greatest nation on Earth. It disheartens me that so many would choose to believe the worst from a report that was slanted from the start.
I am going to assure all of you that are watching tonight, that the United States does not engage in torture for any purpose or punishment. This would go against our principles as a nation, and conflicts with our present foreign policy, in which old enemies are slowly becoming new friends.
The record will be set straight, as I have mandated internal investigations to disprove the Senate report, and to prove to all you, my countrymen, and to the world, that America is fair and merciful to its enemies.
Thank you, and God bless America.“
message 194:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Dec 10, 2014 08:28PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
The part that I like the best is the "old enemies are slowly becoming new friends".
He did like committees. It might go along with the Republican rebuttal. Sad but just mho - I think you nailed it.
Bentley wrote: "What bias did you pick up Cary and about whom?Just for the record and this was posted on the introduction thread: Jonathan Darmon's family background - father was Richard Gordon Darman, who died ..."
The bias I sensed was a bit of favoritism towards Reagan. I'm not all that familiar with LBJ, so perhaps that is where my senses are off. So far in the book I see two men that hit low points; LBJ in feeling left out/shut out as VP, and Reagan seeing his acting career essentially over. LBJ's feeling left out seemed to be lesser detailed than Reagan's unceremonious ending in Hollywood. That was the item that perked my ears a bit.
I concede that there were more important events surrounding LBJ's VP problems in Chapter 1, like JFK's assassination, which may have necessitated that some items or tidbits about LBJ as a VP needed to be left out. So, perhaps it was more because I didn't have time to feel LBJ's lose of self but there was ample page time to feel Reagan's troubles? Not sure, but the coming pages will settle all that.
Bentley wrote: "You are making me laugh. Sadly maybe so. I guess there would a host of flags around him or do you think he would be sitting in the Oval Office?"Oval Office, with his bowl of jelly beans in frame and off to the side.
Mod
message 198:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Dec 10, 2014 08:37PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Just for the record and this was posted on the introduction thread: Jonathan Darmon's family background - father was Richard Gordon D..."
Really - I thought he was being particularly snarky to Reagan. So you feel that he is giving more detail and more time to Reagan. I wonder if he had more details about Reagan versus LBJ - but then again I think he started with Kennedy/LBJ and then in chapter two settles on Reagan - we will have to wait and see how balanced is his focus.
Of course every historian has a bias - those who say they do not - are lying.
I had some problems with the Prologue and also feel there was a "snarky" tone against Reagan. I've read through his source material and the prologue a couple of times, and it comes of feeling being focused through a political prism. Even some of the language seems presumptive and working as a political piece with a dose of presentism. Having said that- I believe him to be an engaging writer and am interested to see where he takes things beyond chapter 2 (where I am at the moment) and of course this is just my take and early impressions. Way too early for any kind of overall assessment. And I agree, historians do have biases, and sometimes they let them unduly influence their work. However, I believe the best historians try to at least recognize them and try to work through them and balance their evidence. The let the evidence guide them, rather than conform the evidence and bend it to fit their thesis or preconceived notions. And they need to at least be upfront about them. Biographies tend to show a bias- pro or con- more than other genres.
But to be honest, this author is a journalist- one specializing in politics- nothing against him, but that is the reality. There are many journalists who become good, even great historians. Some of my favorite popular historians started out primarily as writers, reporters or editors - and quite a few have more training and education in history and research methods.
But then there are some who cannot help but work through historical evidence like they are writing a news feature or editorial piece, with present day "goggles" - they are just journalists writing a long editorial. Is that his working model here? I don't believe so. Does that influence how he approaches the material or his evidence? Not sure. The prologue for me tells me a lot about an author's thesis, intent and approach to the topic and sometimes bias and tone will reveal themselves there more than in the body of the work.
It is early in the book yet so we have time- but I would argue these are a set of valid questions.
message 200:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Dec 10, 2014 09:23PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
It is with a heavy heart that I speak tonight for the dignity of man and the destiny of democracy. I have just read the Senate Torture Report and I am saddened. There is no cause of pride in what has transpired in the years preceding my presidency.
However you have the right man in the office to fix this problem with the help of the American people.
There have been many pressures upon your President and there will be others as the days come and go. But I pledge to you tonight that we intend to right these wrongs where they should be fought -in the courts, and in the Congress, and the hearts of men. We must preserve the dignity of man and the rights of every individual. But preservation of the rights of captured terrorists does not give them free reign or unfettered access to the same rights as our fellow Americans. Yet none of us can be proud of what we discovered today from the Senate report.
I will authorize a bill to put before the Senate and the House of Representatives to stop torture and any illegal practices being exercised by the CIA. In fact, I have requested Mr. Brennan's resignation and the resignations of all CIA members involved in these activities and in the hacking of the Senate's computers. In the meantime I will take over running the CIA myself in addition to my regular duties as president until I am certain that the situation is rectified to my satisfaction. And I will let you in on a secret - you can bet it will be.
As your President I will keep you informed regularly on our progress.
I am going to assure all of you that are watching tonight, that the United States will not engage in torture for any purpose or punishment. This goes against our principles as a nation, and conflicts with our present foreign policy, in which we are straight with our international friends and fair and just even with our enemies. This lapse in judgement cannot be ignored but due to the pressures and strain of 9/11 - some latitude was given to the CIA which they "extended" way beyond their mandate and operated in secret not even briefing my predecessors. Such a sad state of affairs for such a great and noble nation hurts my heart.
It is our duty to divine God's will and right these wrongs. We will do it with the help of every American with their prayers and tomorrow is a new day for all of us and for the dignity of every man.
It is with your help that we will seek the courage to right these wrongs and clear the CIA of folks who attack what we stand for with these sorts of activities. We will right these wrongs now and in the future.
God bless America.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Decision Points (other topics)Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation (other topics)
Talleyrand: The Art of Survival (other topics)
The Passage of Power (other topics)
Broke : The Plan to Restore our Trust, Truth and Treasure (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Matthew Dallek (other topics)George W. Bush (other topics)
Ronald Reagan (other topics)
Jean Orieux (other topics)
Robert A. Caro (other topics)
More...
As for the quality of people closest to him, let's not brush aside the facts. As mentioned upthread, James Baker III, Edwin Meese, and Michael Deaver comprised the troika closest to Reagan. Meese resigned under the cloud of an investigation over suspicion of financial corruption. Deaver was convicted of perjury.
Baker acquitted himself well, as usual.
I would suggest that what lies in the middle is the middle, nothing more, nothing less.