The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Landslide
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES
>
WE ARE OPEN - WEEK THREE - PRESIDENTIAL SERIES: LANDSLIDE - December 15th - December 21st - Chapter Three-No Spoilers, Please
Mod
The first generation does hate Castro; the latter generations, not so much. And the first generation is dying out. Castro took over in 1959. So, if you were a middle aged or older adult when he took over.... well, you are probably not around. If you were a young adult or kid when he took over, how relevant is he?
I guess that would depend on what happened to your family or family's business, etc- or why they felt they needed to leave.
I have concerns over the "normalization of relations" with Cuba. (Shock huh?? lol). I'm a conservative and even every liberal Democrat president since JFK has stuck to the prior policy with Cuba.Here's my concerns: One, why now? Why didn't Obama do this say 5 years ago? Probably because of politics, as in, his politics.
Two, I feel as if we lost the "stare down". For 50 years, we stuck to our guns while Cuba has refused to change policy when it comes to human rights. I guess time will only tell if Castro takes the approach of "well, we won that one, what can they possibly do to us now if we really crack down?". Here's a 2012 report from Human Rights Watch (hardly a conservative publication).
"Cuba remains the only country in Latin America that represses virtually all forms of political dissent. In 2011 Raúl Castro’s government continued to enforce political conformity using short-term detentions, beatings, public acts of repudiation, forced exile, and travel restrictions.
In 2011 the Cuban government freed the remaining 12 political prisoners from the “group of 75” dissidents—human rights defenders, journalists, and labor leaders who were sentenced in 2003 in summary trials for exercising their basic rights—having forced most into exile in exchange for their freedom. Also in 2011 the government sentenced at least seven more dissidents to prison for exercising their fundamental rights, and human rights groups on the island said dozens more remain in prison.
The government increasingly relied on arbitrary arrests and short-term detentions to restrict the basic rights of its critics, including the right to assemble and move about freely. Cuba’s government also pressured dissidents to choose between exile and continued repression or even imprisonment, leading scores to leave the country with their families during 2011."
Read the rest of the report here:
http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/...
I guess I don't know enough about this new "agreement" but I'm wondering...did Cuba agree to any type of human right shifts in their policy??
I'll add, I do appreciate Bentley's moderate approach to this new development. I think that's at least fair. Maybe it was time, but there are still major concerns and we better not be slapping on the "rose colored glasses" all at once. I hope someone is out there keeping tabs on Cuba.On Wednesday a Russian warship docked in Cuba without explanation:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/wo...
It's not that Cuba is a wonderful place. But we have diplomatic relations with lots of countries that are not wonderful places.
I'm sure the crew of the Rooskie warship just wanted to stop in the nearest port to exchange their rubles for anything of value while that is still possible.
Martin wrote: "I'm sure the crew of the Rooskie warship just wanted to stop in the nearest port to exchange their rubles for anything of value while that is still possible."LOL...that's actually as likely as anything.
Mod
Justin your link was not to last Wednesday but a date from last February. I did post one about their reopening Russian spying activities in July but don't you think the fact that we have an embassy in Cuba is a good way to keep tabs of who is coming into port and why.
An often forgotten point, Bentley. Few people know that embassies are boots on the ground in the intelligence business. Boots on the ground is the greatest weak leak in US intelligence efforts, in the estimation of this son of a diplomat.
Justin wrote: "I have concerns over the "normalization of relations" with Cuba. (Shock huh?? lol). I'm a conservative and even every liberal Democrat president since JFK has stuck to the prior policy with Cuba...."If politics is the art of the possible, Justin, then I think a stronger argument can be made that prior to Obama's administration no president would take this action for fear of the political consequences. In other words, while the embargo made no sense because of its failure to accomplish its goals, abolishing it was not politically possible. Stuff like that happens, which is one reason we need to be careful about implementing knee-jerk policies. They have consequences that can be undesirable and long-lived.
message 113:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Dec 19, 2014 06:27AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Very true Peter and Russia is the one that is really causing the problems since JFK which is the reason we are discussing this on the thread and this country is the reason we are concerned about this little island now and yet - we have an embassy there (Russia):
http://moscow.usembassy.gov/ambassado...
Why not have an embassy in Cuba? Sounds like a good idea - there is a saying - keep your friends close but your enemies closer.
So I agree with you - if Russia why not Cuba.
Mod
Sounds a lot like China or Russia and we have relations with them.
Also you did have a link to Human Rights Watch about Cuba in message 105 but even Human Rights Watch is happy about the normalization:
Human Rights Watch stated:
Today, US President Obama announced that the US will resume diplomatic relations with Cuba for the first time in over 50 years, a move advocated by Human Rights Watch. Congress should also consider lifting the failed embargo, which has long been counterproductive to rights, imposing hardship on the Cuban people while providing the Castro government with a pretext for its many abuses. Clearly, a new approach is needed to ending decades of state-sponsored abuse on the island.
The rest of what they said is below: (Human Rights Brief - December 17, 2104) - there are many bad things going on around the world
http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/12/17/hu...
message 115:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Dec 19, 2014 06:46AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Also - those of you are part of the free book offer remember to also pose all of your questions to Jonathan on the Q&A thread - he is here with us so we need to take advantage or his expertise and his experience and ask him questions that come up. He will be popping in once a week or so and will answer questions that you pose when he is on. All recipients of the free book offer should be posing questions on the Q&A thread - it is also a good way to say thank you for this wonderful opportunity.
The Q&A thread is open to all group members as well who were not part of the offer but are reading Landslide. Great opportunity.
Justin, some valid points, no doubt. The U.S. will still have to deal with the government and the Cuban military in many things, like China, for instance. Time will tell if this policy will work.Here is a twist that I did not know: JFK wanted to reach out to Castro before 1964:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/ups...
message 117:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Dec 19, 2014 06:56AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
And the full article is on the New York Times website - how timely and what an excellent find on your part (smile)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/ups...
I like Michael Beschloss who you see often on PBS with Doris Kearns Goodwin.
Michael Beschloss, a presidential historian, is the author of nine books and a contributor to NBC News and “PBS NewsHour.
Michael Beschloss (no photo)
Doris Kearns Goodwin
In December 1962, at the Orange Bowl in Miami, President Kennedy and his wife, Jacqueline, greet newly freed Brigade 2506 members, who had been captured by Fidel Castro’s government in the previous year’s failed Bay of Pigs invasion. Credit Cecil Stoughton/The White House, via John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library
Kressel wrote: "Christopher wrote: "It does make me wonder would he have considered the Civil Rights bill if the assassination of JFK did not take place and he was President?"This book definitely makes it seem l..."
If he did not like the injustices then why not correct them earlier. He first positive vote on a legislation on Civil Rights was 1957 then in 1964?
He was a politician first and foremost. What I do see and have read in some books about him was he did nothing unless it benefited him. Maybe that was why there was animosity from the Kennedy crew towards him. Though the latter statement is my speculation.
He always though many moves ahead and if it did not show benefit towards him or his career he would not go through with it.
That i do believe is the big difference between him and Kennedy and why Kennedy became President not him. More or less I think Mr. Darmen did portray Kennedy correctly. Kennedy would try and tackle things though he would be truthful about the time it may take to accomplish.
Johnson wanted it then and there.
by
Robert Dallek
Bentley wrote: "Christopher wrote: "I found this chapter the best so far. I liked his description of JFK and how human he made him. Rather then some books that paint him as a God. I also learned something I did ..."
When I read books that glorify Presidents they make me laugh. Some make them out to be God and the holier then thou. You can then tell the book is going to be all the good and vilify all the bad.
I found that this chapter did the opposite of that and detailed the good and the bad qualities to make both human.
I knew Jackie was influential I did not think it was to that degree where she could make LBJ still look second best.
Mod
This book definitely..."
Johnson was no saint by any means but I still think he believed strongly in helping the African American community.
Mod
I also learned ..."
Yes, Christopher - this book is refreshing because it displays the whole man (warts and all) and it also shows that Jackie was not just a whispery young woman who was not extremely intelligent and resourceful in her own right. In some ways - the death of JFK allowed the real Jackie to step out and the world could see her great inner strength at a very young age - People forget she was a widow at 34.
Ann wrote: "Christopher,You wrote: "Though I knew LBJ thinks five steps ahead on any decision he makes. How to make himself look good using the coattails of the assassination and using John as a martyr.
Also..."
Yet what most forget is that Kennedy was in office for how long 1036 days. He proposed the legislation in his June 11, 1963 speech. That was the day the legislation went before Congress with the help of the Republican leadership. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963. His legislation was only before Congress on 114 business days if you exclude weekends and holidays which Congress does not work. If you include them it was 164 days.
I find it unfair to assume it was stalled or even say that it was stalled. Kennedy had 164 days to work on it and there has been legislation that took months and more to pass. Kennedy did not have the time to work on the bill though given more time he may have passed it.
Also when Kennedy proposed the legislation I have not read of an account where LBJ said he would help get it passed. Though my reading on Johnson is limited.
Bentley wrote: "Johnson was no saint by any means but I still think he believed strongly in helping the African American community."Ditto. Sure, LBJ was self-interested. We're all self-interested, and anyone who goes into politics has more ego than the average guy. But that doesn't negate genuine impulses toward generosity and social justice.
Christopher wrote: "Also when Kennedy proposed the legislation I have not read of an account where LBJ said he would help get it passed. Though my reading on Johnson is limited."You might try
by
Richard N. Goodwin. He served as speechwriter for both JFK and LBJ, so he gives insight into both. And though he was a strong supporter of the "Great Society" and author of LBJ's civil rights speech, the book does not portray LBJ as god-like at all.
Mod
I think that the Robert Caro books are the best source for LBJ - I think you would enjoy them - Caro has a great style as well as being a balanced historian for the most part. The following is just one of them.
by
Robert A. CaroHere is a link to Caro's site and you can read about them there - an entire series on LBJ.
http://www.robertcaro.com/the-books/
Bentley wrote: "Christopher wrote: "Kressel wrote: "Christopher wrote: "It does make me wonder would he have considered the Civil Rights bill if the assassination of JFK did not take place and he was President?"..."
I am not saying he did not want to help. What I am pointing out is his failure to do so earlier on.
Johnson seems to me that he thought moves five steps ahead. He had a poor voting record with African-Americans. The 1964 bill he knew would almost guarantee him a Presidential victory if passed.
Even if it did not pass his attempt to take on his own party on something so contentious as Civil Rights would have made him look good and given him the votes.
His failure to stand up for what he believed earlier shows me that he fear reprisal in his party and it would not benefit him to stand up for what was right. Making him a Politician.
Bentley wrote: "There are always hypotheticals Christopher and believe me I would have liked Kennedy myself - he seemed extremely intelligent - a real Brain trust in the White House - we do not always see that. ..."
I read one of them it is a three part book I believe. I have read the last book of the series though I will read the first two. Thank you.
Kressel wrote: "Christopher wrote: "Also when Kennedy proposed the legislation I have not read of an account where LBJ said he would help get it passed. Though my reading on Johnson is limited."You might try [bo..."
I have not read it and will put it on my book list. Thank you for the recommendation.
Christopher wrote: "He had a poor voting record with African-Americans."Well, that explains why Coming of Age in Mississippi by Anne Moody, the memoir of a civil rights activist, didn't say a word on Johnson and the Civil Rights Act but went into emotional detail re her reaction to the JFK assassination.
by Anne Moody
Interesting point, Christopher. He wanted to be president and he could not reach out and push for full civil rights and get to the White House before 1960. It would be political suicide. I think timing and luck have a lot to say in politics.I think you can argue 1963-1964 was different as Darman is developing here. LBJ clearly understood that civil rights had to happen, but I think the times and politics before 1964 limited his actions. He played a major role in the water-down 1957 civil rights law, and you could argue that he could only go so far by pushing the southern Democrats.
By 1964, however, the climate changed to his advantage. The Civil Rights movement made further strides, the Democrats had a stronger majority in Congress, and he could work with Midwest and Plains Republicans in a divided GOP. Political scientist Aaron Miller writes about 1964 being unique:
"The point is that it was urgency and crisis that first set the stage and that opened the door so that LBJ could bring the force of his character and his legislative capacity to bear in facilitating the bill's passage." (p. 160)
by Aaron David Miller (no photo)
Christopher wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Christopher wrote: "Kressel wrote: "Christopher wrote: "It does make me wonder would he have considered the Civil Rights bill if the assassination of JFK did not take place and he w..."Maybe earlier wasn't possible.
We're facing the same thing with healthcare in this country, for instance. This is what many mean when they say Obamacare is a step in the right direction. The economic reality is that our healthcare system will become a lot more socialized before the dust settles. But, politically?, the public is not yet ready for that.
There were many who foresaw the need to advance Civil Rights, but foreseeing and realizing a political reality are two different things. (Read up on the emancipation regulation.)
One thing that struck me was how deliberately Jackie created the Camelot myth. I think it was partly for her own sake; surely it is better to be the widow of a legend than just another widow. It seems that all the Kennedys were determined to promote themselves as being above the Johnsons. Very much like the "popular" kids in school who have their own little clique...
It wasn't just the Johnsons that the Kennedys looked down upon. And it's the patriarch Joe who fomented this attitude, or recognition, depending on your perspective.
Jackie was a master of "the image." Like her husband, she knew how to use the new medium of TV. Think of those White House tours while JFK was alive. Think of how she became such a style icon. No first lady has achieved that to such an extent.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbFt4...
Jackie, I think, had a high appreciation of the importance of image when she entered the white house. The Bouviers, I'm sure, didn't send her to school barefoot.Early in the administration she did complain about of photo of her landing on her can after being thrown from her horse. So, she would appear to have some sense of the importance of flattering vs unflattering images.
And, speaking of horses (including clothes horses), she brought with her to the White House a highly cultivated sense of style, not a surprise given her personal, academic, and political background before she become first lady at 31 years old.
Georgetown and George Washington universities are on her resume, in addition to studying in France through one of the XX chromosome ivy league schools (Smith, I think).
Jackie's redo of the White House is still remembered and talked about here in ol' DC. I'm no expert on style, but I believe her redecorating efforts are still considered the gold standard.
By the bye, Jackie was the first wife of a president born in a hospital, so maybe all this is fitting.
message 136:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Dec 19, 2014 11:06AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
message 137:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Dec 19, 2014 11:37AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Here are some others for the President's wives from Kennedy to Reagan:
Jacqueline Kennedy, 1929-1994
John F. Kennedy’s wife was the first first lady to hire a press secretary and a White House curator. She also won an Emmy Award for her television tour of the White House.
Claudia “Lady Bird” Johnson, 1912-2007
Nicknamed Lady Bird as a child, Lyndon B. Johnson’s wife conducted her own campaign for her husband's election and lobbied for environmental protection.
Pat Nixon, 1912-1993
Richard Nixon’s wife created White House tours for the blind and deaf, and was the first first lady to wear pants in public.
Betty Ford, 1918- 2011
Gerald Ford’s wife once worked as a professional dancer with the Martha Graham Company. She also founded an alcohol and drug treatment center in California that bears her name.
Rosalynn Carter, 1927-
Jimmy Carter’s wife was the first to have a VCR in the White House, and to keep her own office in the East Wing.
Nancy Reagan, 1921-
Ronald Reagan’s wife worked as a professional actress, appearing in movies and in a music video—an anti-drug abuse message.
I found the answer to the question:
At the age of 31, Jackie Kennedy captivated the nation with her youth and beauty when her husband was elected president in 1960. But it might surprise you to learn that she is only the third-youngest first lady in American history. Who’s the youngest presidential wife ever? That title belongs to Frances Folsom Cleveland, who was only 21 when she married President Grover Cleveland on June 2, 1886, in the Blue Room of the White House. A close friend and former law partner of Frances’ father (who died in a carriage accident when she was 10), Cleveland invited Frances and her mother to the White House in 1885, right before the two women left on a grand tour of Europe. Though rumors flew that the president might marry Mrs. Folsom, he instead proposed to her daughter Frances by letter. They married when she returned, becoming the only president and first lady to wed in the executive mansion.
Such a young first lady fascinated the American public and press, who called her “Frankie” (a nickname she hated). Her hairstyle was widely copied and her face appeared on souvenir coins, while bustle skirts—a previously popular style—reportedly fell out of fashion after she stopped wearing them. In 1892, when voters reelected Cleveland to a second term after a four-year gap, Frances became the only first lady to return to the White House after leaving it. In September 1893 she gave birth to the second of their three daughters, the first child born to a sitting president. (Their oldest daughter, Ruth, supposedly inspired the Baby Ruth candy bar.) Grover Cleveland died in 1908, and in 1913 Frances became the first presidential widow to remarry. She died in 1947, after living longer after leaving the White House (51 years) than any other former first lady.
Frances Cleveland, 1864-1947
Grover Cleveland’s wife was the youngest first lady—age 21—and the only bride of a president to marry—and give birth—in the White House. Before their marriage, Cleveland’s sister Rose Elizabeth Cleveland served as House hostess of the bachelor president.
Source: http://www.history.com/news/ask-histo...
The comments about Jackie and her style remind me of what JFK said when the couple was making a presidential visit to France......"I'm the person who accompanied Jackie Kennedy to France".@Tomi (post 132): "Camelot" was indeed created, for the most part, by Jackie. No one with their type of credentials (education, money, etc) had been in the White House since FDR. Add looks and youth to that formula and it becomes "Camelot". And it was not just the Kennedys that looked down on the Johnsons; the staff surrounding the President were also guilty of that attitude and, as we have spoken of earlier, tried desperately to hang on to that image after the assassination, making it as difficult as possible for Johnson to make the transition to the Presidency.
Mod
Kressel wrote: "Christopher wrote: "He had a poor voting record with African-Americans."Well, that explains why Coming of Age in Mississippi by Anne Moody, the memoir of a civil rights ..."
African Americans did not stand behind him until he passed the 1964 Civil Rights bill. When he ran for President that year he to 94 percent of the African American vote. There were two benefits to passing that bill. The first being it would correct his previous voting records on Civil Rights which African Americans knew he had voted against all but 1 in 1957 and then pushing through the bill in 1964. This would give him a large voting base. The second being he stayed true to JFK's legacy which would solidify the other voting base middle-class white americans.
I stated in a week one post Obama was the only President to beat LBJ African American draw. Obama drew in 96 percent of that same vote.
Martin wrote: "Christopher wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Christopher wrote: "Kressel wrote: "Christopher wrote: "It does make me wonder would he have considered the Civil Rights bill if the assassination of JFK did not..."That maybe the case. Though here is my argument. Those who were for Civil Rights kept getting reelected so I would be under the assumption their constituents agreed with their stances on Civil Rights. Those opposed to this were the southern states and a few western states.
I would be interesting to see a poll result from the 50's on where Americans stood as a whole on Civil Rights.
Bentley wrote: "Justin wrote: "I'll add, I do appreciate Bentley's moderate approach to this new development. I think that's at least fair. Maybe it was time, but there are still major concerns and we better not..."Geeez...my mistake on that article. I should have checked. It was one of the first articles which popped up when I Googled it.
Yes, the embassy part is compelling. It's the part I struggle with the most and that weighs against my argument.
Mod
A good example of that: The Soviets used to conduct a parade in May to celebrate the revolution. Lots of hardware.Our military guys used to dress as Russians and go check out the gathering of the hardware the night before. And, of course, the parade route the next day went by the American embassy. One section of the parade was particularly intriguing to American officials. It was a section of missile casings that looked as if it housed the biggest, baddest intercontinental ballistic missiles. Scarey.
We never knew what was housed in those shells until in 1965 the parade came to an unscheduled halt in front of the Embassy. The contingent of Americans along the route included the younger, and smaller, of the Cairo brothers. A wirey little guy, who stood in front of his mother as her hands were draped across his chest.
With no warning, the Cairo kid bolted and disappeared up one of the mounted casings that was open a crack. His mother and the other embassy personnel freaked. Before the parade resumed, the Cairo boy leaped to the ground and exclaimed: "it's empty."
A military attache on the scene breathed a sigh of relief, not because the Cairo boy was back in his mother's arms, but because we finally knew what was in those shells. More bluff and bluster from the Soviets.
Peter wrote: "It's not that Cuba is a wonderful place. But we have diplomatic relations with lots of countries that are not wonderful places."From a human rights standpoint and as a citizen of Cuba we might be able to say it is a wonderful place. However, I am a US citizen living and working in Canada and there are sure a lot of Canadians that have Cuba as a preferred holiday destination.
I am a child of the cold war and have never had a desire to go there or to Russia. I am still trying to process the torture report (I downloaded it - 500+ pages) but at this point we may have to back of on sanctions due to human rights issues and reestablish that we practice what we preach.
Martin wrote: "I'm sure the crew of the Rooskie warship just wanted to stop in the nearest port to exchange their rubles for anything of value while that is still possible."I think they visit quite often...you know exchange money, find some warm beaches, a little bird watching, and a small break from Uncle Putin...lol
Martin wrote: "An often forgotten point, Bentley. Few people know that embassies are boots on the ground in the intelligence business. Boots on the ground is the greatest weak leak in US intelligence efforts, in ..."Well said Martin, if we go no further for the time being an embassy is a positive step on multiple levels. I also have a feeling that shipping lanes in the Caribbean are far more busy then in the 1960's so I am sure military vessels can be easily tracked.
Martin wrote: "Justin wrote: "I have concerns over the "normalization of relations" with Cuba. (Shock huh?? lol). I'm a conservative and even every liberal Democrat president since JFK has stuck to the prior po..."Martin and Justin, do you think this situation may have lasted as long as it has because it is somehow, in the American mind, subconsciously tied to JFK's assassination. And I do not mean this from the standpoint of the theory that Castro was behind the assassination. Cuba was one of JFK's victories while in office as we have read in this chapter. Perhaps preserving his [JFK] legacy has kept us from trying to improve things with Cuba.
Christopher wrote: "Kressel wrote: "Christopher wrote: "Also when Kennedy proposed the legislation I have not read of an account where LBJ said he would help get it passed. Though my reading on Johnson is limited."Y..."
In light of what we have read about LBJ being placed on a back-burner in the Kennedy administration. I am wondering if he would have had an opportunity to offer help in moving it through Congress. If he had offered would the offer have been accepted consider what we have read regarding the attitude of Kennedy people to LBJ?
Christopher wrote:I would be interesting to see a poll result from the 50's on where Americans stood as a whole on Civil Rights.
I think most Americans outside the South were oblivious to the discrimination Blacks endured throughout most of the 1950's. However, by the time Kennedy and Johnson got involved with serious legislation, the nation had witnessed a lot of demonstrations, as well as the police brutality they invoked. Suddenly, TV brought it into people's living rooms. I think public opinion had definitely shifted during the early 60's, but the Congressional committee chairmen from the South were doing an excellent job of keeping the bill bottled up until Johnson came along.(And we know how Congressional obstruction can keep anything from happening, don't we?) Kennedy wasn't pushing too hard because he was worried about the next election.
Here is a time line of the Civil Rights Movement that people might find useful:
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/civilr...
I went to a Catholic school in South Dakota and we heard a lot about the injustices Black people suffered in the South. One of the nuns who taught us U. S. History was even reported to have gone to demonstrate.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
COUNSELOR: A Life at the Edge of History (other topics)A Nation of Immigrants (other topics)
Why England Slept (other topics)
The Letters of John F. Kennedy (other topics)
The Strategy Of Peace (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Theodore C. Sorensen (other topics)John Fitzgerald Kennedy (other topics)
John Fitzgerald Kennedy (other topics)
Jack Bass (other topics)
Jack Bass (other topics)
More...
I think the main reason for the delays has been the importance of the Cuban American vote in Florida. The Cuban Americans came here legally with automatic political refugee status, unlike other Hispanic immigrants. They hate Castro and the first generation is understandably bitter about all they lost in the revolution.
But, it is time to move on.