WE ARE OPEN - WEEK THREE - PRESIDENTIAL SERIES: LANDSLIDE - December 15th - December 21st - Chapter Three-No Spoilers, Please

[Michael]

Darman, mentions the rule of 20. In his book The Next 100 Years, George Friedman mentions a 50 year cycle of strong to week presidents that move us from crises point to point of strength as a nation. I would like to hear what others think about these kinds of historical patterns? Do they have significance or are they a coincidence? Should we, as a society, allow them to inform or dictate our thinking, understanding and even decision making? I found this interesting and would like to hear what others think.

George Friedman

[Holly]

Kathy wrote:

"There won't be a library if we don't get a second term. No one will give a damn." (page 72) JFK

Of course that really is the question of Kennedy's presidency. Would he have been remembered as a hero if he had not died. “


From what I have read so far, it seems that JFK, his aides and his wife all spent time purposefully shaping their public image. Yes, I believe that if he had been able to complete his presidential term, they would have controlled public perception craftily.

“Cultivating the image of urbane gentleman scholar, Kennedy and Sorensen had peppered his speeches with countless lines from poetry and scripture.” (p. 68)

This tells me that Kennedy was not just concerned about delivering a message, but interested in being perceived in a specific way. I can’t imagine LBJ being compelled to include poetry or spiritual references in his communication. Possibly making his messages less muddled and contributing to his more effective legislative work.

I am especially convinced after reading the final pages of this chapter, when Jackie Kennedy requested Theodore White to visit her in Hannis Port, to take her statement:

“There will be other great presidents and the Johnsons have been so kind to men but there will never be a Camelot again!” (p. 87)

My impressions are that the Kennedys were people who enjoyed high culture. I think this provided them with fodder to help shape public perceptions of them. I don’t believe people who enjoy the high arts are any more heroic than people who enjoy traditional folk culture. But I think some people can be convinced that those people might be especially heroic, with the right words.

When looking back at Kennedy’s achievements, they seemed rather average.

“But his record of domestic policy was mediocre at best”. (p. 70)

Then the passage continues to describe how Kennedy was a “reluctant leader” on civil rights, pushing for passage of the anti segregation bill in 1963, in response to televised coverage of MLK’s 1963 Birmingham campaign.


The more I read about politicians, the more human they become to me. Fallible, imperfect, stumbling through some of the most significant consequential events imaginable. (thinking about Bay of Pigs, Vietnam War, both of which were mentioned in this chapter).

No wonder politicians spend time crafting their public images. If they want to hold onto power to be effective, they must be perceived as nearly flawless.

I have so much more to say, but this is my "high season" with Christmas concerts and suddenly a new classroom in a high needs community. I am still enjoying all the posts, and will be a little more present after Dec. 25.

ps. another personal connection: my mother absolutely adored Jacky Kennedy, dressing like her, imitating her hairstyle, and connecting to high culture as she followed the First Lady closely. It was apparent the Kennedys had an enormous cultural impact on society, in a way that I haven't seen since.

[Martin]

"I think most Americans outside the South were oblivious to the discrimination Blacks endured throughout most of the 1950's."

Au contraire, mon amie.

Discrimination in the north included such practices such as requiring Americans of African descent to rent, at extortionate prices, to live in segregated neighborhoods. This practice was the result of the migration North to take jobs otherwise taken by white folks who were off fighting WW II. And, don't think for a minute that people with darker complexions got paid the same as their white brothers and sisters.

Boston rivaled the South for discriminatory practices.

People were well aware.

I did a little research this morning on polling results in the 1950s on questions of race.

On the heels of Brown v Board of Education, just over half of those surveyed approved of the decision. But by 1959, the majority of those surveyed said school integration was more trouble than it was worth.

And that was well before the teeth of Brown v was handed down in the early 1970s from the less than Supreme Court giving guidance on how to implement its 1954 ruling. The Oxford History of the United States says the decision not to issue the guidance that typically accompanies a ruling was made to facilitate a compromise on Brown v.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/180257/maj...

by James T. Patterson

[Jill]

Holly wrote: " Kathy wrote:

"There won't be a library if we don't get a second term. No one will give a damn." (page 72) JFK

Of course that really is the question of Kennedy's presidency. Would he have been re..."

I think we often use the term "hero" much too loosely. You are not a hero because you are assassinated. Of course, in Kennedy's case, his WWII experience can be considered heroic but I don't think that is what the author meant. We don't call President William McKinley a hero because he was shot and killed by an anarchist.
Whether JFK would have gone on to be a well respected President is not a question that can be answered. He probably would have gone down in history as a very popular President and certainly his stand against Kruschev was a plus....but then there was the Bay of Pigs. If he had not been killed he would have had a second term and we can't be sure what decisions he would have been called upon to make. But his legacy will always be the style, personality, and youth he brought to the office which was so appealing to the American people.

[Ann D]

Martin,
First, let me say that I totally agree with you about the discrimination in the North also being bad. This became especially apparent in the 1970's (after the period covered in this book) when Boston and other cities in the North and Midwest were forced to use busing for integration purposes.

However, at least outside the South, blacks were generally allowed (I'm sure there were exceptions) to use the same restrooms, drinking fountains, restaurants, and hotels as whites. There were not separate schools set up by law, although housing discrimination often resulted in this. Blacks were not subject to the same level of police brutality.

I didn't express myself well. Awareness did start to change in the late 50's, but I think most people didn't know or care about the treatment of blacks. Maybe most of them thought it was justified.

By 1963, however, I think that public opinion had definitely changed - especially since a lot of people were convinced that the really serious problems were somewhere else : i.e. the South.:-) For many religious leaders, it had become a moral issue.

These developments made the passage of effective Civil Rights legislation possible.

[Martin]

Ann, No argument from me on any of that. What surprised me is that only 52% of those polled supported the CRA. That's hardly a mandate.

[Vincent]

Kathy wrote: ""There won't be a library if we don't get a second term. No one will give a damn." (page 72) JFK

Of course that really is the question of Kennedy's presidency. Would he have been remembered as a h..."

Kennedy's heroism was PT-109- not in the White House and for that he will always be remembered as a hero I think.

[Vincent]

I know I am behind you all

what I really noted in this chapter (especially noted that is) is the pg 76 content about Kennedy "That was his real greatness urging people to take real fisk, to work and to make sacrifices for noble goals....."

But I also note the way that LBJ took up the lead.

JFKs ending was too early topermit judging what he might have accomplished. Maybe he felt in his first term not to screw it up for a Roman Catholic to be re-elected. Maybe Obama thought in his first term not to screw it us so an African American could be re-elected.

[Mark]

This has been a hectic week so I am only now getting around to this. I have skimmed through this thread and like some of the comments, in the future I will try to get around to posting earlier, but this week that wasn't going to happen. I don't feel too bad about not participating much this week as I did warn Bentley that the delay would cause problems for me.

As far as the reading goes, I was not around until well after the events of the chapter, so I have no memory to speak of, but I do find the transition interesting. The political rivalry and loyalty challenges Johnson had to deal with in transitioning into the presidency must have been challenging. It is hard to tell from this chapter, but it sounds like the problems Johnson had winning people over was mostly on a private level. For those that were around, or know more about this time period than I, was this same sentiment felt in the public at large?

While I don't have any memories of the events, having looked at how politics is today, it is easy to understand the tensions surrounding the transition from JFK to LBJ after the tragic assassination. The way the author describes it makes me think of the political relationship between the Obamas and Clintons today

[Jason]

What strikes me most about LBJ in this chapter is his ability to put emotions aside when he has a plan and knows what he wants.

Specifically, I'm referring to the conversation between he and Sorensen about the speech he was giving before the joint session of Congress days after Kennedy was shot (p. 79).

Sorensen makes it clear he thinks his sections of the written speech are better than what LBJ put together. He's flippant and disrespectful towards the President about it.

Quote as they discuss the speech:
"'Well, anyway,' said the president, 'your fifty percent is the best.'

'On that point, Mr. President, we agree.'"

And LBJ - despite the insecurity, temper and enormous ego - laughs it off like it's a joke. He must have been furious in that moment.

But he needed to keep Kennedy folks around to have legitimacy, and he had the ability to stifle it and laugh. Impressive.

[Martin]

A little humor goes a loooong way.

[Vincent]

Jason wrote: "What strikes me most about LBJ in this chapter is his ability to put emotions aside when he has a plan and knows what he wants.

Specifically, I'm referring to the conversation between he and Soren..."

Likely it was that the Kennedy "guys" first felt the terrible loss and then the immunity from criticism that then cloaked them and JFK after the killing of JFK.

Johnson was I am sure aware of his political limitations here and in the end took power as he could and led the country as he could.

Except for Vietnam he was mostly pretty good - wish I could say the same the George W "except for Iraq".

[Mary]

So far, this chapter is my favorite. Leslie Stahl comments "this book is a delicious feast of a read." Exactly my sentiment. Darman writes well and has rich insights on the interpersonal, political and psychological dynamics of the players. There were many.

I was struck by the stat that Kennedy won by .1 percent of the popular vote (had forgotten this). His 1000 days produced few concrete results. Yet he exuded charm, good looks and his wife, Jackie helped perpetuate the myth of Camelot (pg 86). Earlier, in this discussion, the question was asked about whether the perception of his greatness would have survived 8 years and the challenges of second term and execution issues. I wonder, but he was certainly the right leader for the moment.

In the realities faced by Kennedy aides of his actual record (pg 77) Johnson saw his opening. They needed some Kennedy accomplishments. And legislative accomplishments was something Johnson knew how to deliver. This underscores the LBJ perception that to succeed, he needed to amplify the myth. His legislative accomplishments regarding the Civil Rights Movement, War on Poverty and Great Society are astounding. Waiting for more insights on the disaster of Vietnam.

I have been having some intriguing conversations with thoughtful friends about this book.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Mary we are delighted to have you join us. This book reels you in.

Yes, .1 which really shows a conflicted electorate. I have to agree he was the right leader for the moment.

I think you make an accurate assessment about how LBJ used the myth to his own advantage - I am not sure he was cognizant of what he was doing - I think he knew though what he had to do to then move his presidency forward from the assassination and he tried to have some sense of continuity in order to gain the cooperation he desperately needed at that point in time.

I think LBJ was also the man we needed and he certainly delivered. Kennedy and LBJ were an odd couple and you wonder sometimes about divine intervention when you see such odd bedfellows thrown together in such circumstances.

We appreciate your post and please have your friends join us in the conversation.

[Mary]

Hmm, so my next question. There is street smart, intellect and power. Where do these 3 presidents measure in?

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

I think that is a question you can answer fairly easily based upon your post - but my take would be street smart - Reagan, intellect - JFK and power goes to LBJ. But I think different folks would see different things in these presidents. LBJ could be quite folksy and street smart too and he was no dummy. JFK knew his way around, was extremely cerebral and well spoken and certainly had the power of charisma, charm and the power that he had in making very bright men want to follow him to the ends of the earth. Reagan was certainly street smart and knew how to turn on the persuasive rhetoric, he was smart enough and knew how to use the power of the office.

So you see things are not always cut and dry.

[Ann D]

I always wonder how much of a role adviser and speech writer Ted Sorensen played in JFK's reputation for intellect. There are allegations that Sorensen wrote most of Profiles in Courage and those stirring words in Kennedy's speeches generally came from him.

I don't doubt that Kennedy was quick witted and charming, however. I had forgotten that until I saw some films of him at the Kennedy Library.

LBJ was very intelligent, but unpolished, and that hurt him.

Reagan must have had a lot of social intelligence to achieve what he did, but the ideas expressed in his speeches always impressed me as being very simplistic.

by John F. Kennedy

[Helga]

As I’ve mentioned before, this book is very interesting and I have been following all of the discussions and am enjoying them immensely.

I’ld like to make a few comments about civil rights in the South. My husband grew up in the South during the 60’s so I spoke with him about it. I sort of missed it as when I started schools they were integrating. Based on the timeline on Civil Rights for my city of Columbia, there was a lot of marching and demonstrations in 1961. One thing that has always disturbed me was when I heard that in 1962, after Columbia desegregated its lunch counters, the State legislators voted to raise the Confederate Battle flag atop the State House in opposition to integration. And it remained until 2000 and then was moved to a ceremonial plot on the capitol grounds which I think is still a bad place. It should be in a museum.

Integration took a long time in the state. In 1963, 1000 USC students participated in a anti-integration rally and marched to the State House. In 1964 public schools began to be desegregated. But things were slow and in 1968 a well-known event known as the “Orangeburg Massacre” where three SC State University students were killed and dozens wounded by National Guardsmen who had been summoned as a result of protests against continued segregation. In 1970, a local High School, black and white students clashed and racial skirmishes were quite common for the next few years.
But through all of this in 1979, Matthew Perry became the first African American federal judge in SC history and in 1992, James Clyburn was elected to the US House of Representatives and was re-elected again in November 2014.

This is the link to the timeline:
http://www.columbiasc63.com.php53-9.d...

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Ann wrote: "I always wonder how much of a role adviser and speech writer Ted Sorensen played in JFK's reputation for intellect. There are allegations that Sorensen wrote most of [book:Profiles in Courage|83036..."

Ann I viewed JFK up close and personal in press conferences while visiting the JFK library right before this discussion began - and I agree with you that he was unbelievably articulate and could discuss the nitty gritty of any question posed to him clearly, brilliantly and with amazing intelligence - so much so that some of my friends visiting from another country were frankly amazed that we do not have folks who exhibited as much comfort in front of the media and could answer questions posed off the cuff with such command nowadays without a teleprompter.

Additionally watch some of the debates with Nixon and you will see once again he was always very sure of himself, the command of the subject and his delivery. So I have to disagree with you regarding the sole impact of Sorensen although Sorensen could pack a wallop with his words.

Sorensen was dedicated to Kennedy for a reason and the reasons were what I stated above. Sorenson was a great talent however and also did have a lot to do with the book Profiles in Courage - no doubt about it. And I think that Sorensen was much more than a speech writer - he was more a strategist and a great one too. I found this wonderful obituary of Sorensen and thought that I would post it here and in the glossary segment so it does not get lost in the conversation.


Theodore C. Sorensen with President John F. Kennedy in the Oval Office in 1961 - George Thames - New York Times

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Here is Theodore Sorensen's obituary written by the History Book Club's good friend and author - Tim Weiner.

Theodore C. Sorensen, 82, Kennedy Counselor, Dies
By TIM WEINER
Published: October 31, 2010

Theodore C. Sorensen, one of the last links to John F. Kennedy’s administration, a writer and counselor who did much to shape the president’s narrative, image and legacy, died Sunday in Manhattan. He was 82.

His death, at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, was from complications of a stroke he suffered a week ago, his wife, Gillian Sorensen, said.

Mr. Sorensen once said he suspected that the headline on his obituary would read “Theodore Sorenson, Kennedy Speechwriter,” misspelling his name and misjudging his work, but he was much more. He was a political strategist and a trusted adviser on everything from election tactics to foreign policy.

“You need a mind like Sorensen’s around you that’s clicking and clicking all the time,” Kennedy’s archrival, Richard M. Nixon, said in 1962. He said Mr. Sorensen had “a rare gift”: the knack of finding phrases that penetrated the American psyche.

He was best known for working with Kennedy on passages of soaring rhetoric, including the 1961 inaugural address proclaiming that “the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans” and challenging citizens: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Mr. Sorensen drew on the Bible, the Gettysburg Address and the words of Thomas Jefferson and Winston Churchill as he helped hone and polish that speech.

First hired as a researcher by Kennedy, a newly elected senator from Massachusetts who took office in 1953, Mr. Sorensen collaborated closely — more closely than most knew — on “Profiles in Courage,” the 1956 book that won Kennedy a Pulitzer Prize and a national audience.

After the president’s assassination, Mr. Sorensen practiced law and politics. But in the public mind, his name was forever joined to the man he had served; his first task after leaving the White House was to recount the abridged administration’s story in a 783-page best seller simply titled “Kennedy.”

He held the title of special counsel, but Washington reporters of the era labeled him the president’s “intellectual alter ago” and “a lobe of Kennedy’s mind.” Mr. Sorensen called these exaggerations, but they were rooted in some truth.

Kennedy had plenty of yes-men. He needed a no-man from time to time. The president trusted Mr. Sorensen to play that role in crises foreign and domestic, and he played it well, in the judgment of Robert F. Kennedy, his brother’s attorney general. “If it was difficult,” Robert Kennedy said, “Ted Sorensen was brought in.”

Mr. Sorensen was proudest of a work written in haste, under crushing pressure. In October 1962, when he was 34 years old, he drafted a letter from Kennedy to the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, which helped end the Cuban missile crisis. After the Kennedy administration’s failed coup against Fidel Castro at the Bay of Pigs, the Soviets had sent nuclear weapons to Cuba. They were capable of striking most American cities, including New York and Washington.

“Time was short,” Mr. Sorensen remembered in an interview with The New York Times that was videotaped to accompany this obituary. “The hawks were rising. Kennedy could keep control of his own government, but one never knew whether the advocates of bombing and invasion might somehow gain the upper hand.”

Mr. Sorensen said, “I knew that any mistakes in my letter — anything that angered or soured Khrushchev — could result in the end of America, maybe the end of the world.”

The letter pressed for a peaceful solution. The Soviets withdrew the missiles. The world went on.

Theodore Chaikin Sorensen was born in Lincoln, Neb., on May 8, 1928 — Harry S. Truman’s 44th birthday, as he was fond of noting. He described himself as a distinct minority: “a Danish Russian Jewish Unitarian.” He was the son of Christian A. Sorensen, a lawyer, and Annis Chaikin, a social worker, pacifist and feminist. His father, a Republican who had named him after Teddy Roosevelt, ran for public office for the first time that year; he served as Nebraska’s attorney general from 1929 to 1933.

Lincoln, the state capital, was named for the 16th president. Near the Statehouse stood a statue of Abraham Lincoln and a slab with the full text of the Gettysburg Address. As a child, Mr. Sorensen read it over and over. The Capitol itself held engraved quotations; one he remembered was “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Mr. Sorensen earned undergraduate and law degrees at the University of Nebraska and, on July 1, 1951, at the age of 23, he left Lincoln to seek his fortune in Washington. He knew no one. He had no appointments, phone numbers or contacts. Except for a hitchhiking trip to Texas, he had never left the Midwest. He had never had a cup of coffee or written a check.

Eighteen months later, after short stints as a junior government lawyer, he was hired by John F. Kennedy, the new Democratic senator from Massachusetts. Kennedy was “young, good-looking, glamorous, rich, a war hero, a Harvard graduate,” Mr. Sorensen recalled. The new hire was none of those, save young. They quickly found that they shared political ideals and values.

“When he first hired me,” Mr. Sorensen recalled, Kennedy said, “ ‘I want you to put together a legislative program for the economic revival of New England.’ ” Kennedy’s first three speeches on the Senate floor — late in the evening, when nobody was around — presented the program Mr. Sorensen proposed.

Kennedy made his mark with “Profiles in Courage,” published in January 1956. It was no great secret that Mr. Sorensen’s intellect was an integral part of the book. “I’ve tried to keep it a secret,” he said jokingly in his interview with The Times. But Mr. Sorensen drafted most of the chapters, and Kennedy paid him for his work. “I’m proud to say I played an important role,” Mr. Sorensen said.

He spent most of the next four years working to make his boss the president of the United States. “We traveled together to all 50 states,” Mr. Sorensen wrote in his book “Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History,” a memoir published in 2008, “most of them more than once, initially just the two of us.” There was no entourage until Kennedy won the Democratic nomination in 1960. It was not clear at the outset that he could do that, much less capture the White House.

“It was only after we had crisscrossed the country and began to build support at the grass roots, largely unrecognized in Washington, where Kennedy was dismissed as being too young, too Catholic, too little known, too inexperienced,” Mr. Sorensen said in the interview.

In those travels, Mr. Sorensen found his own voice as well as Kennedy’s. “Everything evolved during those three-plus years that we were traveling the country together,” he said. “He became a much better speaker. I became much more equipped to write speeches for him. Day after day after day after day, he’s up there on the platform speaking, and I’m sitting in the audience listening, and I find out what works and what doesn’t, what fits his style.”

The Kennedy White House was never a Camelot: “Neither Kennedy nor any of us who worked with him were mythical characters who had magical powers,” Mr. Sorensen said, “and we obviously had our share of mistakes.” But Mr. Sorensen was not ashamed to say he worshipped Kennedy. He was devastated by his assassination in November 1963.

“It was a feeling of hopelessness,” he said, “of anger, of bitterness. That there was nothing we could do. There was nothing I could do.”

For more than 40 years after he left the White House, Mr. Sorensen practiced law, mostly as a senior partner at the New York firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. He counseled leaders like Nelson Mandela of South Africa and Anwar Sadat of Egypt.

His life went on, in public and private; he was writing and making speeches well past his 80th birthday. But it was never the same.

In 1970, two years after Senator Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated on the presidential campaign trail, Mr. Sorensen ran for the Senate seat that Robert Kennedy had held in New York. The run was a mistake, he conceded. “I simply thought that if I were to carry on the Kennedy legacy, if I were to perpetuate the ideals of John Kennedy, as Robert Kennedy tried to do, that I would need to be in public office,” he said. “Frankly, it was an act of hubris on my part.”

In December 1976, out of the blue, President-elect Jimmy Carter offered Mr. Sorensen the post of director of central intelligence.

“I had to make a very quick decision,” Mr. Sorensen remembered. “I did not know whether a lawyer and a moralist was suitable for a position that presides over all kinds of law-breaking and immoral activities. But I wanted to be involved. I wanted to be back in government at a position where I could help things in a sound and progressive way, and so I said, ‘Yes, I accept.’ ”

Opponents of the nomination pointed out a potential problem. More than 30 years before, after the end of World War II, Mr. Sorensen, not yet 18, had registered with his draft board as a conscientious objector to combat. President-elect Carter’s top aide, Hamilton Jordan, placed an angry call to Mr. Sorensen, asking why he had not mentioned this suddenly salient fact before accepting the nomination.

“I said, ‘I didn’t know that the C.I.A. director was supposed to kill anybody,’ ” Mr. Sorensen recalled. “He wasn’t too happy with that answer.”

The nomination was withdrawn. That ended Mr. Sorensen’s ambition to return to work in Washington.

A stroke in 2001 took away much of his eyesight, but afterward Mr. Sorensen continued to lead “a very full life, speaking, writing, creating new enterprises and mentoring many young people,” his wife said.

Mr. Sorensen remained active in Democratic politics and took a particular liking to a freshman senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, when he arrived in Washington in 2005. When Mr. Obama began running for president two years later, Mr. Sorensen endorsed his candidacy and campaigned across the country, particularly to audiences who were opposed to the Iraq war.

“It reminds me of the way the young, previously unknown J. F. K. took off,” Mr. Sorensen said in an interview with The Times in 2007.

A year after Mr. Obama took office, Mr. Sorensen acknowledged frustration with his presidency, particularly the decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, a conflict that he called “Obama’s Vietnam.” But, Mr. Sorensen said, “The foreign policy problems are more difficult than they were in Kennedy’s day.”

“I still think it was amazing that a man with his skin color — and also he was a liberal Democrat, let’s face it — was elected,” Mr. Sorensen said in a 2009 interview in his Manhattan apartment, where a photograph of Mr. Obama joined a tableau of images from the Kennedy administration. “I haven’t the slightest doubt that there are a lot of white men who still find it difficult to accept the fact, the reality, that we have a black president in this country.”

President Obama said Sunday in a statement, “I know his legacy will live on in the words he wrote, the causes he advanced, and the hearts of anyone who is inspired by the promise of a new frontier.”

Mr. Sorensen’s 1949 marriage to Camilla Palmer and his 1964 marriage to Sara Elbery ended in divorce. In 1969 he married Gillian Martin. Besides his wife, he is survived by their daughter, Juliet Sorensen Jones; three sons from his first marriage, Eric, Stephen and Phil; a sister, Ruth Singer; a brother, Phillip; and seven grandchildren.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Continued from above:

Despite his stroke in 2001 and his diminishing eyesight, Mr. Sorensen worked on and completed “Counselor,” his memoir, over the next six years. “I still believe that the mildest and most obscure of Americans can be rescued from oblivion by good luck, sudden changes in fortune, sudden encounters with heroes,” he concluded. “I believe it because I lived it.”

Jeff Zeleny and Joseph Berger contributed reporting.


Trustee of The Century Foundation from 1984 until his death in 2010. He served as assistant to Senator John F. Kennedy and special counsel to President Kennedy. A senior partner of the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison, Sorenson was the author of numerous books, including Kennedy: The Classic Biography, and Watchmen in the Night: Presidential Accountability after Watergate

He wrote about The Century Foundation:

“TCF is strictly non-partisan. We are not the handmaiden of any political party, candidate or movement. But we are not neutral. We care about people, we care about our country and our planet, and we care about the power of progressive, well-reasoned, well-researched ideas. We believe, with liberalism under siege, that those ideas are needed now more than ever.”
THEODORE SORENSEN
Century Foundation Trustee, 1984-2010; Chairman of the Board, 1994 to 1999

by Theodore C. Sorensen (no photo)

by Theodore C. Sorensen (no photo)

by Theodore C. Sorensen (no photo)

by Theodore C. Sorensen (no photo)

by Theodore C. Sorensen (no photo)

Tim Weiner

Source for the above two posts - The New York Times

[Michael]

Helga wrote: "As I’ve mentioned before, this book is very interesting and I have been following all of the discussions and am enjoying them immensely.

I’ld like to make a few comments about civil rights in the ..."

Helga one of the things you reported in your post was:
"But things were slow and in 1968 a well-known event known as the “Orangeburg Massacre” where three SC State University students were killed and dozens wounded by National Guardsmen who had been summoned as a result of protests against continued segregation."

It made me think of Kent State (1970) only a couple years difference in time. I was only 4 in 1968 and 6 in 1970 but I have heard of Kent State and seen reports any number of times. It just struck me that I had never heard about the SC incident until now. Of course I also grew up in small town Western Montana where segregation was never an issue. We did not have any black or Hispanic people even living in town until my high school years.

I am wondering if Kent State got more airplay because Vietnam was a more emotionally charged national subject than civil rights events or if it was just that the events tied to civil rights were more regionalized.

This creates a certain level of fascination for me as we discuss these things and as some of our members talk of personal experiences in the civil rights movement era.

Thanks for sharing.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Michael and Helga - good posts. I was wondering the same thing - why did one get so much press and the other not as much. It could have been perceived as not having national interest and if so that would show some bias in terms of media coverage of certain events and not others.

[Bryan]

Good question. Perhaps the news was saturated in 1968 vs. 1970. White protestors were killed at Kent...which might be seen as more newsworthy.

[Katy]

It strikes me that history in ages past (using the cliché ) is written by the victor, but some of more modern history is written by the media also. Who is it that gets to choose what is considered "more newsworthy" or "of national interest." ?

[Katy]

Hi Helga,
Try and make your book recommendation fit our citation rules. Edit you post so that your citation looks like this at the bottom of your post:

by Jack Bass (no photo)

[Helga]

So true. I think the Orangeburg Massacre was known in South Carolina but untold nationally and not preceived important to the nation. Jack Bass is author of the book.

Jack Bass (no Photo)

Jack Bass is author or co-author of eight nonfiction books about the American South. His works have focused on Southern politics, race relations, and the role of law in shaping the civil rights era. He is Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Social Sciences at the College of Charleston.

[Helga]

Kathy wrote: "Hi Helga,
Try and make your book recommendation fit our citation rules. Edit you post so that your citation looks like this at the bottom of your post:

b..."

Yes, thanks. I was working on it when you sent your response. I got tied up and was trying to figure out how to do it.

[Katy]

Thanks, Helga.

[Ann D]

Thank you Bentley, for the information on Ted Sorensen. JFK was very lucky indeed to have him as an adviser, speechwriter, and friend. It sounds like he hero worshiped Kennedy.

If anyone wants to check out the "Authorship Controversy" section under the Wikipedia entry on Profiles in Courage, you will find that Sorensen did more than just play an important part in the book. He wrote most of it, although Kennedy was the man who won the Pulitzer Prize for Profiles in Courage. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profiles...

Joe Kennedy threatened to sue in order to shut up the claims that the book had been ghost written.

I have a tendency not to give Kennedy his due, I know. He was such hero to me as a young girl. When I found out about his reckless and very active extra-marital sex life, I never quite forgave him his moral lapses. Fallen hero, and all that. :-)

by John F. Kennedy

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

I think he did Ann - he was the most grief stricken when he died. I am sure he did collaborate with Kennedy and there were many ghost writers in that day and age as well. As far as the Kennedy dad - he had his moments (smile)

Obviously there are other points of view but Kennedy had written quite a few things before Sorensen came on board which are quite good.

Yes Ann I think your bias is coming through because of what you mentioned (although many folks share your view) and in fact who knows - Sorensen's ego after the fact and because all of the Kennedy brothers and parents had passed away may have decided to toot his own horn at JFK's expense after all of these years - stranger things have happened. In fact, he had signed a disclaimer many years before and also graciously was given money from JFK for all of their collaborations and this deal had been set before Profiles in Courage won the Pulitzer - for all of his faults - he was a well loved man by many and like I said at the beginning - all of these presidents are men and not super heroes or god like - it is only the people who try to make them that and then we are always disappointed when they do not measure up and they invariably never do. However, you would have hoped that a President would not be involved with what he was involved in while in the White House - I do not think that is too much to ask for. It should be expected.

It would be impossible because of the pedestal we place them on for any man to live up to what the American people demand. I think in the end - what happened to him was horrific and for all of his foibles I am willing to give him a little slack considering his wife did after the fact.

And do I think that Sorensen contributed to the finished product - yes I do but I also believe the story that Kennedy had this idea and drafted the outline and did the first draft of the chapters. We have to give him some credit - he did become Senator and President and Sorensen remained in the background for much of his life although he wrote and capitalized on his relationship with Kennedy when he wrote his books. Sorensen was talented but JFK was more talented. The bigger question is should that particular book and author been awarded the Pulitzer if it was written in collaboration. That is the main question. Probably not.

I do think that Sorensen was a good soul, great writer, probably a very decent human being (who knew his boss was cheating) and was a talented strategist however and of course he idolized Kennedy. But remember Kennedy had written multiple books way before Sorensen.

I did find this which is worth noting - why after all of this time?

In his 2008 autobiography Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History, Sorensen said he wrote “a first draft of most of the chapters” in John F. Kennedy’s 1957 book Profiles in Courage and “helped choose the words of many of its sentences”. Was this done in 2008 just to sell a book - why in 2008 - was this a bit of ego showing through when nobody was still alive who could refute this since all of them (Kennedys) had passed away? Or maybe he just wanted to set the record straight but then why had he signed a disclaimer so many years before and taken the money as a ghost writer subsequently? I find this very odd on his part. And in this book he is even taking credit for counseling the president and made his role seem to me a lot bigger. He was important to the President and the President to him so why this kind of a book in 2008 - was it ego?

by John F. Kennedy

by John F. Kennedy

by John F. Kennedy

by John F. Kennedy

by John F. Kennedy
The book was originally written by Kennedy in 1958, while he was still a senator. It was written as part of the Anti-Defamation League's series entitled the One Nation Library. Subsequently, after gaining the presidency, he called on Congress to undertake a full reevaluation of immigration law; and he began to revise the book for further publication. In August 1963, excerpts of the 1958 pamphlet were published in the New York Times Magazine. He was assassinated before completing the revision, but the book was nevertheless posthumously published in 1964 with an introduction by his brother, then Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. In 2008, the book was re-issued by the Anti-Defamation League.

by Theodore C. Sorensen (no photo)

[Cary]

Sorry I'm late to the party for this week...end of year has been brutal.

Some things that stuck out to me...

The quote on page 60 about how "Lyndon wants in yesterday", and yet LBJ properly and correctly recognized the gravity of the situation...and maintained an air of calm and patience when he could have gone in like a bull in a china shop. Add this to him keeping JFK's cabinet in check while maintaining that he would see Kennedy's visions through to the end set the stage for the rest of LBJ's presidency. Johnson's decision to keep Kennedy's photo on his desk was a nice touch.

I think I saw this in an earlier post, so I apologize if I am repeating this thought, but I think JFK's biggest fault as president was in not utilizing LBJ's legislative maneuvering abilities to un-stick the many JFK initiatives that were miring in Congress.

The Camelot reference in the end made my hair stand up. Camelot references back to Somerset, England. During the JFK assassination investigation, the testimony of Robert Groden mentioned one William Somerset, an undercover FBI informant, as having a recorded conversation with Joseph Milteer in which Milteer mentioned an assassination plot against Kennedy. I thought that to be an interesting coincidence.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

I think that LBJ handled the situation with clarity in terms of what he had to do and when he had to do it.

Yes, this was mentioned before Cary but bears repeating - everything that Kennedy was trying to mobilize was not moving. LBJ had the ability to get things done and I tend to blame Bobby more than JFK.

I think that theory along with some of the others were debunked but you have to wonder what really happened and why.

[Scott]

My thoughts flow over to the current situations with Cuba, and what LBJ and Reagan would make of it in office and out of office.

I believe Reagan would have flown down to Cuba and demanded that the "Wall of Water" between the countries would be opened up and that each country would cultivate a new era of opportunity for business.

LBJ on the other hand, a president that gave the USA permission to return to normalcy after the Kennedy assassination, would have wanted business to return as the country did so after the passing of JFK.

As for the conclusion of the chapter, its interesting to see how the chapter ended with Jackie Kennedy drafting a note to Theodore White on how she wanted the country to remember Camelot, and not Dallas. Jackie wanted to direct the way everyone thought about her husband and not how he passed.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

I think that the Kennedy family and JFK owe a great deal to the 34 year old Jackie who was in the White House at the time of the assassination - she crafted the message and the image that is portrayed to this very day. And none of us knew that the young and gracious demure Jackie was behind that message and how staunchly and directed she was in getting her propaganda out there. She was masterful in her public relations imagery and she wanted JFK's legacy to be firmly entrenched in the world's psyche and that has never changed. Her storyline and her portrayal has remained in place and has stood the test of time.

[Scott]

I agree

[Sarah]

There has been a lot of discussion about how the Kennedy's looked down on LBJ and how he was underutilized during his presidency. What was LBJ's role in those first 1000 days and why was he chosen as his running mate to begin with? It is also mentioned that Johnson was important in the passage of the civil rights bill, but was this just him pushing JFK's "legacy" or was this his stance prior to being VP?

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Sarah I think he was chosen because he was from Texas and the South but he should have been chosen because he was the master of the Senate and could get legislation through Congress and was the best at that. I think it was his stance prior to that point because he had told his good friend from Georgia that to propel either one of them onto the national stage - they had to pass one of those civil rights bills and he used other language. However, I think he did want to help the poor and the people he encountered growing up.

[Martin]

And, he wasn't chosen in the sense that the position was offered with the understanding he'd turn it down.

[Jill]

Bentley wrote: "Sarah I think he was chosen because he was from Texas and the South but he should have been chosen because he was the master of the Senate and could get legislation through Congress and was the bes..."

I think you are right on target re: Johnson as choice for VP. I think that choosing him because he was a man from the South balanced the ticket and brought in the votes. But his strength lay in his tremendous power with the Senate. In either case, his style and frankly, his looks, did not take any of the spotlight away from Kennedy.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Martin wrote: "And, he wasn't chosen in the sense that the position was offered with the understanding he'd turn it down."

True Martin.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Jill wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Sarah I think he was chosen because he was from Texas and the South but he should have been chosen because he was the master of the Senate and could get legislation through Congress..."

You are making me laugh. LBJ was the ugly duckling (smile) which did not turn into a swan but a very good president with a few warts.

[Jack]

Jill wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Sarah I think he was chosen because he was from Texas and the South but he should have been chosen because he was the master of the Senate and could get legislation through Congress..."

Completely agree. The Southern ticket was where Kennedy was lacking. Remember, as soon as he was VP, he was a non-entity. I recall many of my Vietnam readings regarding the Kennedy administration and LBJ was nowhere to be found. I never fully understand how he was marginalized until this book.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Yes Jack that is true. Now we can see why he was missing from those.

[Vincent]

Bentley wrote: "Yes Jack that is true. Now we can see why he was missing from those."

just another comment to Jack & bentley and their observations.

I think we should also note that Kennedy the Catholic would certainly have needed help in the South.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Yes Indeed - and that was why LBJ was on the ticket. JFK would never have been president at that point in history without Lyndon.

[Michael]

Bentley wrote: "Yes Indeed - and that was why LBJ was on the ticket. JFK would never have been president at that point in history without Lyndon." I agree but I seem to remember reading in Landslide that the Kennedy people were surprised that Lyndon accepted the offer to be JFK's running mate. So was the surprise based on they didn't really want him? That is how I originally read it. Or was the surprise based on the idea that the VP job has traditionally been an empty portfolio and therefore it was a surprise that someone cut out like LBJ would take the role?

[Bryan]

Michael, it is hard to construct the exact details on why LBJ was chosen. At first, LBJ was on top of the VP list, but JFK didn't think LBJ would give up the Senate for the VP slot, and there was some bad blood between the Kennedys and LBJ due to the nomination race. In the end, JFK knew LBJ could bring unity to the Democrats. On the other side, there is evidence to suggest that LBJ wanted the VP slot, and maybe expand the powers of the vice presidency.

[Kressel]

It's funny, though, because many traditional Southerners ended up seeing LBJ as a traitor.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Michael wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Yes Indeed - and that was why LBJ was on the ticket. JFK would never have been president at that point in history without Lyndon." I agree but I seem to remember reading in Landsli..."

Michael - I was also surprised that the Kennedy people were surprised - if they were so surprised - I have never heard floated what their plan B was - because without Lyndon - Kennedy would not have won. I think Darman implied the former versus the latter.

Yes folks on one side or another Kressel ALWAYS see someone who stands up for something which is not what they believe as a traitor. And resentment did run deep in the South at that time.