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
I think we are in the same page here as well. Also the kimono line made me chuckle and almost wake my wife up- haha!
Mod
Kudos to Carey & Bentley.Well played.
Shifting gears here. We have largely approached this book comparing and contrasting the two presidents. To a large extent, this reflects Darman's text.
But, I think the book has a larger intent to follow historical developments that led from the peak of the consensus politics of FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, to the cycle signaled by the gubernatorial election of Reagan. It all transpired in 1,000 days.
On p.26 Darman offers that JFK had the astuteness to see the world as it is. LBJ and RFK, according to Darman, saw what would benefit them and believed it to be the right thing.
Upon further review, I think I would take issue with that. Darman's argument is predicated on the notion that Johnson's motivation driving him was to be a hero. I'm skeptical.
Look at LBJ's legislative record in the brief time he was in office. The portfolio of legislation is vast and deep, beneficially affecting the country. This doesn't strike me as being the work of a leader so egotistical that he operated in a fog about the social value of his policies.
It is true that not all of the policies delivered fully on their promise. But no policy does, and then there are unexpected consequences that always come into play.
A challenge for Darman's approach is how to compare, contrast, and ultimately link the portfolio of a highly accomplished politician with that of an underemployed B-movie actor edging into politics as a spokesperson for free market propaganda and warmup act for the most extreme politician of his age, Barry Goldwater.
The primary focus of the second chapter is on Reagan's personal life, and his thin resume as an actor and TV personality.
It seems that by the structure of the book the neophyte Reagan initially comes off unfavorably if contrasted with the accomplished vice president. But perhaps it's more rewarding to consider how the political landscape shifted from that of LBJ's administration in the early and mid-'60s to Reagan's successful gubernatorial election 1,000 days later.
Darman, I think, makes this point early, but it gets lost, I think, in the much easier option of comparing and contrasting the two. This is not necessarily the fault of readers because Darman invites comparing and contrasting, while at the same time striving to deliver a more thoughtful analysis of changes in the political landscape.
message 206:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Dec 11, 2014 07:37AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
However, LBJ was a work horse - who as Reston stated had his finger in every pie and had to be involved with every detail - in fact the only job Reston thought he had not done was mow the White House lawn.
But he did say that the changes in the political landscape were in part the result of the assassination, Vietnam and Watergate - also if I am remembering correctly.
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..."Interesting hypothetical. And I found the hypothetical "addresses" to the nation pretty creative and interesting.
One thought- does the Pentagon Papers present a parallel situation for the Nixon administration? Even though Nixon initially felt it mostly embarrassed the Johnson administration and they should just stay mum about it, Nixon's aides (especially Kissinger) convinced him that he had to respond and we all know how well that went.
Loved the hypothetical responses to the recent CIA torture revelations.Cary, I think you nailed Reagan's habit of outright denial of any unpleasant facts which did not fit into his rosy picture of of a country that can do no wrong:
"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
If we are perfect to begin with, how can we become better - right?
And Bentley, I loved this line in your "Johnson" response:
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.
How like Johnson to micromanage!
I'm not sure about Kennedy. There were those CIA attempts to assassinate Castro under his presidency. Maybe he would have tried to sweep the whole thing under the rug. On the other hand, it was a report from his own party.
Martin,Good point about the problems inherent in comparing two men at very different points in their careers. It would probably have been more fruitful to compare the presidencies of Johnson and Reagan than this somewhat artificial "1000 days."
However, you rightly point out that Darman's professed goal is to see how the ideologies of the left and right started hardening during this period into the inflexible mess that we have today. Johnson and Reagan are the representatives of these ideologies that the author chose to show the transition. With both men, we have to be careful to distinguish the myths that have sprung up around them with the reality of who they were and what they actually did.
I am interested in seeing how Darman develops this idea later in the book.
message 210:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Dec 11, 2014 10:41AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Not - but a very interesting observation and comparison John.
I do enjoy your posts. Hope you did not misinterpret my not which was the answer to how well the Pentagon Papers scenario went.
message 211:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Dec 11, 2014 03:26PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Obviously we would have to see which angel won out for Kennedy; was it the good intellectual analytical and reasoned angel or the darker and more complicated angel (Bobby) whispering in his ear as to what to do.
This book should be an interesting journey.
Bentley wrote: Hope you did not misinterpret my not which was the answer to how well the Pentagon Papers scenario went."No, I didn't - That's what I thought, because "not" is the only answer to that scenario, lol.
Mod
Martin wrote: "Kudos to Carey & Bentley.Well played.
Shifting gears here. We have largely approached this book comparing and contrasting the two presidents. To a large extent, this reflects Darman's text.
Bu..."
I agree with you his motivation was not so much to be a hero but to benefit him and the Democratic party. If you look at his key legislation master pieces they were aimed at key groups. Any type of Civil Rights legislation that came through Congress from his start in 1937 he voted against until the 1964 Civil Rights act which he passed.
So why did he pass that bill? Well from what I have read through other books that touch on this he passed in 1964 because Blacks feared him and his voting record on Civil Rights legislation.
His opposition would have spelled disaster for him at a run at the Presidency. When he passed that bill in 1964 when it came time to vote he got 94 percent of the black vote. I think and this is my thinking only saw the benefits for the party as well voting for it.
The only President to beat LBJ's black turn out was President Obama who got 96 percent of the black vote.
Then look at his Great Society bill. Though the idea great in concept poor execution. Medicare benefited the retired older crowd who were on SSI. Medicaid benefited the poor lower class. Welfare benefited the poor again. The latter two benefited all races.
These are his biggest pieces and I believe he helped move them through because of the enormous benefit to the party and possible to him if he went through and did not back out from the race in 68.
by
Glenn Beck
by
Robert A. Caro
Mod
Christopher wrote: "Martin wrote: "Kudos to Carey & Bentley.Well played.
Shifting gears here. We have largely approached this book comparing and contrasting the two presidents. To a large extent, this reflects Darm..."
Passing the civil rights bills had very mixed effects on the Democratic Party. The entire old confederacy shifted from Democratic to Republican.
Christopher,I agree that Johnson's legislative program clearly drew more voters into the Democratic fold - which they especially needed AFTER the Civil Rights Bill caused the Democratic party to splinter and most of the southern Democrats switched to Republicans. Ever the canny politician, he was certainly aware of this benefit, but this was not his primary goal.
However, I also think that he genuinely believed in the cause of Civil Rights when he had a chance to do something about it as President. You are correct that he towed the Southern Democratic line as a Senator when it came to civil rights legislation. He couldn't have maintained his leadership in the Senate if he had not.
However, Johnson had a genuine sympathy for the poorer classes, in part because he had been through hard times himself due to his father's financial problems and also because he taught poor Mexican-American kids in a segregated school. Sometimes actual contact with poor people changes a person's views.
My information comes mostly from Robert Caro's biography. I have never read Glen Beck.
Robert A. Caro
Peter wrote: "The entire old confederacy shifted from Democratic to Republican. "That is a generalization that is more political based than historical
A couple of articles that analyze this myth:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/arti...
and
http://www.redstate.com/2012/07/11/th...
Interesting articles, Peter, with a lot of thoughtful data. But I wouldn't go so far as to use that research to dismiss the notion that there is a causal link between the civils rights bill passed on LBJ's watch and the shift of the South to a Republican bastion.
"However, I also think that he genuinely believed in the cause of Civil Rights when he had a chance to do something about it as President. You are correct that he towed the Southern Democratic line as a Senator when it came to civil rights legislation. He couldn't have maintained his leadership in the Senate if he had not."Ann, this resonates with me because of a biography I read about Tallyrand, the French politician whose career makes one's head spin. Briefly, he served as a highly placed official in at least four different regimes around the French revolution. In today's political theatre (at least in the US).
Given Johnson's record and his expressions of support, I sense that Jean Orieux's Talleyrand anticipated politicians able to find a common denominator(s) while serving seemingly opposed political bodies. In the case of Tallyrand, the model modern politician, Orieux sees a public official hewing to the line of what was best for France in the midst of shifting contexts.
I think the same observation is true of LBJ's stance on civil rights.
byJean Orieux (no photo)
John wrote: "Peter wrote: "The entire old confederacy shifted from Democratic to Republican. "That is a generalization that is more political based than historical
A couple of articles that analyze this myth:..."
John: A truly historical, apolitical analysis would at least acknowledge that the electorate of 1972 in the South differed drastically from the electorate of 1960 in the South. In particular, the Voting Rights Act enfranchised thousands of Southern black voters.
With some parts in the South going from a black vote of approximately 0% to approximately 25% of 33%, and the overwhelming majority of those (pre-existing and new black) votes going to the party of the President that got them the vote (Democrat), one can only imagine the cratering of white Southern votes necessary for the percent of Republican votes to remain the same -- let alone slowly drift upwards.
In 2008, Obama won North Carolina by about 51%-49%. He won by winning the black vote 95-5% and losing the white vote 65-35%. Articles that don't acknowledge this in looking at the "Southern vote" are simply disingenuous.
Mod
Well played.
Shifting gears here. We have largely approached this book comparing and contrasting the two presidents. To a large extent..."
Very true Peter
Mod
I agree that Johnson's legislative program clearly drew more voters into the Democratic fold - which they especially needed AFTER the Civil Rights Bill caused the Democratic party to ..."
Ann, excellent points.
Mod
That is a generalization that is more political based than historical
A couple of articles that analy..."
Good post and analytics Matthew - good insights Martin.
message 225:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Dec 12, 2014 11:00AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Here is a link to that thread:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Everybody's comments have been great so let us just remember that as we move on. Just remember that what is fair game on this thread is anything discussed in Chapter Two of course and anything that was discussed before - Prologue and Chapter One. Otherwise just discuss it on one of the spoiler threads in this folder.
Bentley wrote: "Here is an article which I just came across which is written by Joe Klein for Time Magazine - some folks love Joe Klein - some do not. Anyway if you do not know who Joe Klein is - here is a writ..."
I disagree with this line: "Reagan was a champion of the religious right, but rarely attended church and never paid much more than lip service to the right-to-life movement."
I have no idea how religious of a man Reagan was but he championed the right to life more then Klein is letting on. In fact, Reagan wrote a book on it. Now, there's only so much he could, or anyone can do, as President when it comes to this issue...in fact, there's almost nothing other then packing the courts.
by Ronald Reagan
message 227:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Dec 12, 2014 11:07AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Now the book you pointed out in and of itself disproves Klein's statement in terms of the right to life movement because Reagan in fact wrote a book about it.
But maybe these books and speeches were just more props. That would be unfair to Reagan and that is why we need to look at the whole picture of the man and even this one book (Landslide) will not do that.
Thank you for providing another viewpoint and opinion about our former President - Ronald Reagan and kudos for reading the Klein article and citing the part you disagreed with.
Mathew and Peter- the point I was making it that the statement that "The entire old confederacy shifted from Democratic to Republican." is an incorrect generalization. There are many clichéd political assumptions and that is one of them. I never stated and if you read the articles, none of them stated either that it did not have an effect. Statements like those imply and infer that when LBJ entered the White House the Democrat party cleansed itself of all racists and they stumbled all over each other to go to the Republican party and that the Republican party is now therefore, ipso facto, racist. It's illogical and absurd. The fact is that while some Democrats in the House and Senate did switch a good many did not- they either retired, lost seats in reelection or stayed in the party but became entrenched against any of the Civil Rights legislation. Such states also ignore an element social and economic problems and status played into it as well.
A primary example is Sen. Richard Russell of GA- a powerful Senator and one who was a mentor to LBJ when he entered the Senate in the 50s. Russell was a Democrat and died a Democrat in 71. He was an ardent segregationist and when LBJ strong armed him into serving on the Warren Commission he balked because he couldn't stand Chief Justice Warren for the Brown decision. LBJ told him it was a done deal and he didn't have a choice and that he needed him because he was so powerful and prominent. When the Civil Rights Act of 64 was signed he boycotted the convention, but did not switch parties. Russell continued to fight -even filibuster - against like legislation and had done so for years. He had a tenuous relationship with LBJ after that, but that eventually petered out in 68 over LBJ's nomination of Abe Fortas for SCOTUS. And Russell is just one example. Howard Smith is another.
LBJ would have had no passage of the Civil Rights legislation with Democrats alone.
Votes by party:
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 69% for
Republican Party: 82% for
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 63% for
Republican Party: 80% for
I am neither Democrat or Republican and I am looking at all factors here, and that was my original objection- to the generalized statements such as those. And again I am not trying to offend anyone or be argumentative, but if the clichéd political statements and generalizations are going to be made, they need to be at least be balanced with actual information.
"Statements like those imply and infer that when LBJ entered the White House the Democrat party cleansed itself of all racists and they stumbled all over each other to go to the Republican party and that the Republican party is now therefore, ipso facto, racist."I had no idea, about the inference that is. I sure never made that inference.
It was Peter's inference, not yours, from his original statement above-and who I was originally responding to. I apologize for that. I will correct that.
Bentley wrote: "I think the question that Klein inferred was that Reagan championed the causes of the religious right (even writing a book on the right to life as you correctly pointed out) but rarely in his priva..."And I agree with that part of Klein's article. I probably should have axed that from the quote but it was all part of one sentence. I don't think we've had very many "religious" president's in recent memory. JFK might come the closest actually.
IMO, to run as president you almost have to claim some sort of denomination. I don't think in the slightest that Obama is remotely religious, but he has to act like he is. I could say the same for many of our most recent president's. How much did W really follow the Methodist church?
It is certainly true that given a shift in party platform, there are generally three choices a member of the party can take: Loyalty, Voice, and Exit -- He or she can change position to match the party platform, work within the party apparatus to change the platform, or leave the party and join (or start, in the case of the Dixiecrats) a new one.I don't think anyone was making a straw-man argument that there was a single, unilateral moment existed when all racists suddenly became Republicans, and none remained Democrats. There are certainly racists still in the Democratic party, and non-racist Republicans.
A historical analysis looks at trends, though, and it is unarguable that a trend began around 1964, and continued until around 1994, wherein -- through "Exit", generational turnover, and election results, and district gerrymandering (supported by both Republicans and the Congressional Black Caucus), the South became more "Republican", and issues involving race and civil rights were central (though not straw-man exclusive) to that shift.
Matthew- I was responding directly to a comment Peter made: "Passing the civil rights bills had very mixed effects on the Democratic Party. The entire old confederacy shifted from Democratic to Republican." So yes, it was that statement - and I was not arguing that there was no trend- I never made such a statement- in fact one of the articles makes that argument that it was not overnight-especially at the state level that it was gradual.
Justin wrote: I don't think we've had very many "religious" president's in recent memory. JFK might come the closest actually.Actually I think Carter would be one. He has maintained a prominent position in his local congregation in his post-presidential years including remaining a Sunday School teacher.
Michael, yes. I think W, too.
Peter wrote: "Christopher wrote: "Martin wrote: "Kudos to Carey & Bentley.Well played.
Shifting gears here. We have largely approached this book comparing and contrasting the two presidents. To a large extent..."
It did but those Republicans that were in the party before the switch still believed civil rights was the right thing to do.
In the following link it shows you the house vote broken down.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote...
I also need to correct myself and my comment above. Lyndon Johnson voted against Civil Rights legislation from 1937 to 1957. The 1957 Civil Rights legislation he did vote for. My apologies for the mistake.
Though Republicans voted the majority to pass it both in the House and in the Senate. When Southern Democrats switched sides it did not make a difference the majority of Republicans were still for Civil Rights and stayed Republican.
Ann wrote: "Christopher,I agree that Johnson's legislative program clearly drew more voters into the Democratic fold - which they especially needed AFTER the Civil Rights Bill caused the Democratic party to ..."
Glenn Beck only touched on the Lyndon Johnson and Civil Rights.
I do agree that he had to tow the party line though I myself do disagree with people who do this. Someone somewhere always suffers when a politician tows a party line full well knowing that it is the wrong stance.
I also agree that he meant well with the Great Society package. With that said I also think politicians think ahead of the game when it comes to certain things. It may benefit people but they are not doing it just to benefit people they do it make a name for themselves. Politicians, Presidents especially know they are writing history and are making a legacy for themselves. So those programs that they pass are not created without a measure of selfishness on their part.
I am reminded of a quote:
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
Alexis de Tocqueville
I believe this is a true statement.
Bentley wrote: "This might be an interesting exercise if folks can remember this far back:Kennedy - 1961 - 1963
Johnson - 1963 - 1968
Reagan - 1981 - 1989
I certainly can't top the two list that started this discussion. There were a lot of memories in that list.
Two changes that I would make would be to add Marilyn Monroe to JFK. I would also list his family. Of the three men, I think he was more involved with his family.
My second comment is on LBJ. I would remove his wife. He treated her poorly and embarrassed her in public. Lady Bird Johnson was a created name so her initials would match his. LBJ wanted to match FDR and he thought the initials would make more people remember him.
I'm not much of music historian, but I do remember the spoof of the Kennedy Family that was recorded by Vaughn Meader. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_M.... I remember my family had a copy of the recording.
Jim
Mod
Will have to look into the Vaughn Meader spoof.
Mod
I agree that Johnson's legislative program clearly drew more voters into the Democratic fold - which they especially needed AFTER the Civil Rights Bill caused the Democrat..."
Very sad if that statement becomes true.
Mod
Well played.
Shifting gears here. We have largely approached this book comparing and contrasting the two presidents. To ..."
Thank you Christopher
Mod
Actually I think Carter would be one. He has maintained a prominent ..."
I was thinking Carter myself Michael.
Mod
No problem Justin and I would agree with Michael about Carter.
I'm thinking there was an interview with Carter that was well known for discussing his religious roots, but I cannot remember specifics. On a side note - I remember reading once that LBJ's famous BBQs were described as close to a " religion" for him- something he always did. Anecdotal of course, but funny.
Carter did an interview with Playboy during which he let on that he lusted for some women in his heart. In my mind, that was a strong negative indicator as lust is not felt in the heart.
message 246:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Dec 13, 2014 01:05PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
I really like all of the different viewpoints - they really add to the discussion.
Michael wrote: "Justin wrote: I don't think we've had very many "religious" president's in recent memory. JFK might come the closest actually.Actually I think Carter would be one. He has maintained a prominent ..."
Ok, I did not know that about Carter. Thanks for the info. I knew he was a Baptist but wasn't sure how "practicing" he was.
I am finding the book very intriquing so far. I have read substantially on the LBJ and Vietnam era's. That reading has focused almost exclusively on the Kennedy and Johnson administration and the slide into Vietnam. I am surprised in the reading to find some startling truths that I did not understand before. I knew Johnson kept much of the Kennedy administration, but I did not realize he kept them all. I also did not realize how much of Kennedy's legacy impacted Johnson's initial start as a President and his administration. How Kennedy's legacy (cult of the martyr I should say) made Johnson's initial administration decisions...namely Vietnam. I did not know how much hostility was between Bobby and the President. I am very interested in learning more about that.
Mod
Actually I think Carter would be one. He has maintai..."
Yes, I too thought he was a very religious man.
Mod
Jack, I too did not know that all of Kennedy's administration had been kept either although I knew that he had asked quite a few to stay on.
Sorenson was one who did not.
Nebraska native Ted Sorensen's role in Kennedy White House went far beyond speeches
http://www.omaha.com/news/nebraska-na...
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...
John interesting - I think we are on the same page - but I am thoroughly enjoying the read. I agree with you about biographies in general.
One thing about the prologue - I felt that he opened up the kimono and revealed a great deal early on - I think it would have been better for him to have someone else write the prologue to let himself off the hook or to play things a bit closer to the vest. That prologue was meaty. In fact, I was surprised at the change in style from the prologue to chapter one when the style became more engaging and chatty.
I have enjoyed both and I hope to learn more as we read further. You raise some interesting points about a journalistic style. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because I am enjoying the read so much and he is such an entertaining and engaging author.