The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Landslide
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES
>
WE ARE OPEN - WEEK SIX - PRESIDENTIAL SERIES: LANDSLIDE - January 5th - January 11th - Chapter Five - No Spoilers, Please
Bentley,I think Reagan's political conversion was sincere. I have observed that many people who were very liberal in their youth get a whole lot more conservative once they have a lot of assets to worry about (unless they become extremely rich, and then, like Warren Buffet, they stay Democrats :-).
I think he was influenced by Nancy's parents and their wealthy, very conservative friends.
The fact that the right wing of the Republican Party seemed to welcome him with open arms undoubtedly also had a lot to do with his changing political views.
It's hard to deny that Reagan preferred to see audiences as a blur, since he purposely removed one contact before his speeches.
Probably the closest recent analog to Reagan would be Fred Thompson, but his Presidential run didn't seem to get any traction. I remember Ben Jones (Cooter from The Dukes of Hazard) spending a term in Congress. Also, Clint Eastwood and Jerry Springer were mayors.
Mod
How many actors have gone into politics since Reagan? I can think of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Fred Grandy a/k/a Gopher of "The Love Boat." And Bess Myerson was a former Miss Ame...”
Comment fine - but the other should be in the bibliography - good add for that.
I finished this chapter last night. I am glad the book has gone back to Reagan. The chapter also went quite in depth into his life. Thus far I like how Jonathan has portrayed both figures as regular human beings with aspirations, and demons. I find it refreshing and keeps me interested in the book in general.
Though I did dislike a section in this chapter. I found the section where he changed the style to a screen play a tad bit annoying and distracting and not needed. This is my opinion as other may have liked it.
Though maybe I am missing it I still don't see what started Reagan into politics. The chapter seems to float ideas on what may have gotten him into politics. Such as the depression, or Communism.
I seem to be reading that he enter political life as a means to keep the spotlight on him. Maybe I am wrong and I am reading more into the book then should be read into it.
Bentley wrote: "Vince wrote: "Having read the comments now of my fellow readers - and having thought a bit more about Mr. Reagan I am curious is his actor foundation maybe made him feel that if he was popular he w..."My memory of the Young Republicans when I was in college. When I left and was working that and other things more than politics were my focus and having been one of the guitar carrying folkies I was not so often in the proximity of the YRs
And I was in school at a Hunter a CUNY (New York City) school which was pretty liberal or progressive - choose your word.
The Young Republicans were the students on campus in ties and jackets and quite somber and serious but New York had Democratic Mayors from 1945 to 89 - I started college in 1961 and the only non - Democratic there in this time fram was John Lindsay from 1965 till about 1967 when he became a democrat so -------- the Young Republicans on the whole were, to my view, pretty introspective.
Christopher wrote: "I seem to be reading that he enter political life as a means to keep the spotlight on him. Maybe I am wrong and I am reading more into the book then should be read into it. 'That is definitely what the author suggests.
Mod
Michael wrote: "Kressel wrote: "This was one of my favorite chapters in the book because it so eloquently explains how Reagan became the messenger for the Goldwater platform, turning something that scared the heck..."Michael - how can one be a progressive or democrat and work for a big firm such as AT&T or International Paper or Pfizer............... I think that you don;t have to believe in all the policies of your employer - especially if you are the guy who sweeps the floor or maybe reads the scripts.
I think more people are unhappy with abuse of power of big business rather than big business - everyone liked having telephones and TV networks etc.
Kressel wrote: "Comment deleted. How many actors have gone into politics since Reagan? I can think of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Fred Grandy a/k/a Gopher of "The Love Boat." And Bess Myerson was a former Miss Ame..."
Al Franken, Ben Stein (Speechwriter for two Presidents), Clint Eastwood, Fred Thompson, Clay Aiken, Jerry Springer, Ben Jones, Jack Kelly. I am pretty sure there are more those are the ones I know of along with the ones Francie listed.
Peter wrote: "I thought three very revealing things about Reagan in this chapter were 1) How his nearsightedness affected things (this is already being discussed in this thread) 2) His insistence that he was an ..."He was horrid, but accurate. Even in politics today all you see is a dog and pony show.
Ann wrote: "Christopher wrote: "I seem to be reading that he enter political life as a means to keep the spotlight on him. Maybe I am wrong and I am reading more into the book then should be read into it. 'T..."
Ok so I am not alone in that thought that is good.
Bentley wrote: "In one of the previous chapters - it was insinuated that he had run out of options in his movie career which had stalled and he had lost is GE Theater gig and he needed to pay his bills - politics ..."I did post the question in the Q&A thread. Though in the beginning I though the same thing(though I thought it was a bit of both). Near the end of chapter 6 I saw it differently.
Jonathan wrote that Reagan's brother offered him a job hosting Death Valley Days. Which the contract was until 1966. Leading me to speculate that he would not be hurting so much for money.
Mod
Is it me, or does the conservative movement in that time period sound a lot like the Tea Party today? Also I think the political climate discussed in this chapter covers the same issues we have in today's politics. Too much social help vs. the war on poverty, the Soviet threat vs. the war on terror. Medicaid then, ObamaCare now. Reagan needed a clear good guy and a clear bad guy...that sounded like Bush's "Axis of Evil" decree.
Cary wrote: "Is it me, or does the conservative movement in that time period sound a lot like the Tea Party today? Also I think the political climate discussed in this chapter covers the same issues we have i..."
I am Conservative Libertarian. I agree with some of the the tea party complaints. I am for a smaller more efficient government. Though I do agree with some of the social programs that Democrats have started.
I feel the programs were created to best serve those who are having problems and are unable to help themselves. It would seem that most programs were never truly thought out for the future. Nor were they reevaluated properly and fixes made to the systems to make the better.
Instead of investing in other countries problems use that money to fixes the problems at home. If people don't want to do that then you would need to raise taxes to compensate for those programs. Not a small hikes like the government has currently done but tax hikes to make solvent.
There will always be parallels that can be found in anything. See many parallels between Obama and Republicans today with LBJ and Republicans back then.
Mod
Thanks Vince - interesting
Ann wrote: "Bentley,I think Reagan's political conversion was sincere. I have observed that many people who were very liberal in their youth get a whole lot more conservative once they have a lot of assets to..."
Ann, I tend to agree. I can't judge Reagan with certainty if it were sincere or not but both my grand parents come from his era and both have similar switches. Both my grandfathers were Truman democrats and they switched at some point after JFK. They've voted GOP ever since (well, one is deceased now but did up until that day).
Clearly there was a wave of people (the Reagan Democrats) who helped elect him in '80 and '84. So it begs the question, was there a national wave of change, or did Reagan just foresee this change and capitalize on it? Darman hasn't or doesn't go into this yet and maybe he doesn't since I'm more referring to Presidential elections and not his victory in California.
Thanks Christopher for your perspective. It is fascinating to compare time periods (like the 1960s to today), because it comes down to political philosophy of how government should play in people's lives, so I think this transcends the time periods. It never goes away, and you can go further back, like the Progressive wing vs. the "old guard" found in the Republican Party during Teddy Roosevelt's tenure. The Republican Party broke apart in the 1912 election.
Maybe wanting to keep the spotlight focused on you is just another way of saying he was extremely ambitious. Is that a bad thing?
Bryan wrote: "Thanks Christopher for your perspective. It is fascinating to compare time periods (like the 1960s to today), because it comes down to political philosophy of how government should play in people'..."I go to college for Political Science and Government. In my studies I have done many papers. Some of the research I have done for those papers was eye opening on how bad the departments run some of these programs. Even how the program started out well but with government not revising the program from time to time to match the economy of the present, or to fix issues that were never thought of when they started the program. I believe the programs FDR, and LBJ started were well intentioned just not planned out very well.
There are things I don't agree with both sides of the political spectrum. Even within the libertarian movement. If you look today the complaints are similar to complaints back when LBJ started the Great Society.
LBJ's programs were well intentioned just not well planned out before starting them.
P.J. O'Rourke once said: "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." There's some truth (and some exaggeration) to both halves, but most relevantly, I think Republicans could have lots of ideas that could improve some government programs, but don't offer them because if the program's start working, how could they defend getting rid of them?
Matthew wrote: "P.J. O'Rourke once said: "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says gove..."I do agree with you Matthew. Republicans are like Democrats in some ways. They expand government though not within our country. They expand it giving aid to other countries.
I personally am against this for several reasons. One once the money is given we have no control where it goes, or how it is used. When we interfere in most foreign affairs we screw up more then help it.
Reagan and his administration are very culpable with Pakistan producing a nuclear weapon. They fed aid to Pakistan to help the mujahideen in Afghanistan yet a good portion of it never reached its target. Why because Pakistan syphoned a portion of it off and diverted the aid to its nuclear program.
All the while Reagan and the administration knew this and held a position of pro-nonproliferation, and kept financial aid packages going to Pakistan. Why because Reagan wanted the Soviets to lose in Afghanistan.
Another example of an administration not thinking the future ramifications of a policy through just going ahead and doing it.
Deception by Adrian Levy(no photo)
Mod
Cary wrote: "Is it me, or does the conservative movement in that time period sound a lot like the Tea Party today?"It's not just you. The author doesn't make any overt connections to our present day, but I see them hinted at everywhere in the book.
I think the difference is that today you've got the "mainstream" Conservatives and the "Tea Party" (Goldwater) Conservatives. In the 1960s you also had even further right "John Birch Society" Conservatives and the nominally Democrat/ Dixiecrat openly racist Conservatives like George Wallace.
The result, I think, was in the 1960s it was both easier to tar Conservatives with the racist/extremist brush of their "colleagues" and also easier for the far right third parties to siphon off votes from mainstream Conservatives.
By the 1980s, the success of the Conservative movement was that people like Reagan and William Buckley were able to convince enough people that the Republican party shouldn't be tarred with the brush of past Conservative extremist movements.
Matthew wrote: "Probably the closest recent analog to Reagan would be Fred Thompson, but his Presidential run didn't seem to get any traction. I remember Ben Jones (Cooter from The Dukes of Hazard) spending a te..."
I can't imagine Jerry Springer as a mayor can you imagine the council meetings?
Vince wrote: "Michael wrote: "Kressel wrote: "This was one of my favorite chapters in the book because it so eloquently explains how Reagan became the messenger for the Goldwater platform, turning something that..."Vince, I agree but most people who do not agree with their employer are not on the public stage voicing their disagreement. And I guess that is more what I was getting at; not so much that if you don't agree with an employers position you cannot work for them. I see it like being an environmental lobbyist and driving a Hummer. At what point does an outspoken stance become hypocrisy?
It seems to me that if you think that government IS the problem, it doesn't make sense to join it.
Kressel wrote: "It seems to me that if you think that government IS the problem, it doesn't make sense to join it." There are a lot of scholars who have studied Political Science and are not a part of government yet they try and fix the problems by educating people. There are some who worked in the government who went on to leave and criticize the job the government does and try to educate the people.
That is like saying your car has a problem but because I know there is a problem I will not fix it but let it go.
How do you fix a problem if you don't join it and work on fixing it?
Matthew wrote: "I think the difference is that today you've got the "mainstream" Conservatives and the "Tea Party" (Goldwater) Conservatives. In the 1960s you also had even further right "John Birch Society" Con..."
How were they tarred and feathered for being racist. Those that led the Jim Crow crowd were all Democrats. It was Republicans who stood against racism and tried several time to pass Civil Rights bills that were blocked until 1957 and 1964. Who blocked those bills Democrats from the southern states.
When LBJ jumped ship so he could win the election Southern Democrats jumped ship from the party. Then became Republican yet even in that party they were outnumbered. All those setbacks for Blacks were created by Democrats not Republicans.
There was a lot to digest in this chapter, and a lot of thoughtful comments from all of you above.One thing that I'll add was a note near the top of page 152 that Goldwater's supporters convinced him to stay in the primary race by saying it would be "unmanly" to back out at that point. Sadly, I think that's a big part of the reason that LBJ prolonged and escalated the Vietnam War. It wouldn't be macho to back down.
Politicians can sure bring a lot of trouble on themselves, and usually ultimately on us, by acting only to save face.
Mod
by
George W. Bush
Christopher -- my point was explicitly about Conservatives, not Republicans. While one could plausibly claim in 1948 that Strom Thurmond's candidacy pulled racist's votes away from Truman, by 1968 it was clear that votes for George Wallace, while nominally a Democrat, were votes that would have otherwise gone to Nixon, the other Conservative -- not Humphrey, the other Democrat.It is, I think, to Nixon's (and the Republicsn party's) credit that the racists didn't find him racist enough to support, but it placed the issue squarely as a Republican problem -- veer racist and risk losing the middle, or avoid it and risk more Wallaces.
In this Chapter Darman even dings Reagan for supporting a John Birch candidate. These were real issues that Goldwater types had to face. Who got to be a "Real Conservative"? Joe McCarthy? Richard Nixon? Ayn Rand? The Birchers? The States-Rights Racists? How big was the tent going to be?
The debate is continuing. Today's True Conservatives draw the line to exclude Mike Bloomberg or Arlen Spector, but accept Rand Paul and Michelle Bachmann. These aren't obvious choices.
Mod
Bentley wrote: "Christopher with all due respect I think I remember the history a bit differently - unfortunately both sides of the aisle had a lot to do with civil rights bills not passing - in fact the Senior Bu..."Then you are wrong the website I provide will give you an accurate vote count for any bill Congress and the Senate have passed. One the vote count for the 1957 Civil Rights act was Republicans (For)153-19(Against)-28(Present), Democrats 129-90-15 for the House. For the Senate Republicans 37-0-2-7(Not Voting), Democrats 27-19-1-3.
The Civil Right bill of 1866 Republicans 32-4 Democrats 0-11 The Senate vote. The House vote Republicans 120-2-12, Democrats 1-34-4.
Civil rights bill of 1875 which would have done the same thing the Civil rights act of 1964 did unfortunately the Supreme Court struck it down. The House Vote Republicans 147-8-40, Democrat 0-80-10. The Senate vote Republicans 39-4-6, Democrats 0-19-0.
What the numbers show me is Republicans were the party that wanted civil rights so my history seems to be point differently then yours. Not all Republicans wanted it yet a far greater number then Democrats.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote...
Matthew wrote: "Christopher -- my point was explicitly about Conservatives, not Republicans. While one could plausibly claim in 1948 that Strom Thurmond's candidacy pulled racist's votes away from Truman, by 1968 ..."Though the definition is what is a Conservative. Yeah Reagan supported a John Birch candidate his right to do so. That is what makes our Country unique.
As is my right to disagree with the premise of Affirmative Action does that make me a racist? No I just don't agree with a law that elevates on race over another.
It is also in how you define the Constitution each party defines it differently. Democrats believe the document should be amended to fit the times. Example the 2nd amendment. Conservatives feel that the document can be added to but you cannot redefine certain rights in the document. I tend to agree with Conservatives on this.
You bring up Strom Thurmond in 1957 he was a Democrat. He switched parties because people like LBJ, and Kennedy were going against the party line. He then switched parties.
Arlen Spector did the same thing not believing in the party line the Republicans had so he switched as did Charlie Crist and many others. The difference is that when Thurmond did it Racism was not the Republican party line.
message 88:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Jan 08, 2015 10:13AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
This is what we are discussing - The Civil Rights Bill of 1964
Here are the voting results
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Ri...
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Here are the voting results: (Senate)
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote...
Overall on this piece of legislation you are correct:
Republicans supported this law more than the Southern Democrats. In the Senate, 94% of Republicans voted in favor, while just 73% of Southern Democrats voted for it. In the U.S. House of Representatives, 82% of Republicans voted in favor, compared to 78% for the Democrats.
The 1965 Voting Rights Act achieved for African-Americans a major goal of the GOP's Reconstruction Era-civil rights agenda, which the Southern Democrats had blocked a century earlier. The Southern Democrats are now the Southern Republicans however.
Christopher what happened with the party of Lincoln between 1875 and 1964 is a bit beyond the subject of this non spoiler thread.
If you would like to veer off course and discuss anything related to equality and civil rights - that is great too - and we allow that too but only on the spoiler threads. Let us bring this discussion back.
This is a thread for further discussion of 1875 -
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Right now let us get back to the chapter at hand (Chapter 5)
As Bentley cites, despite Christopher's attempt to see everything through a Democrat/Republican lens, the single greatest factor determining a Congressman's position on Civil RIghts legislation is whether or not they lived in a state that was part of the Confederacy. Party affiliation was almost entirely irrelevant.In the House of Representatives, for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Roll Call vote was:
Thirty-Nine Non-Confederate States: 283-33 (89%-11%)
Eleven Confederate States: 7-97 (6%-94%)
As you can see, this was OBVIOUSLY not a vote that was split based on party ID, but rather a vote based on whether or not you were a member of the old Confederacy. Trying to turn it into a referendum on which party was more racist just fails to acknowledge the reality of what was actually happening.
But, if you wanted to look at Party ID as a SECONDARY factor (which I wouldn't choose to do, since it would be such a minor factor, but am doing here because Christopher seems intent on making it a D/R issue), then you could do that by looking at the breakdown within each category.
Of the 89% of non-Southerners who supported the Civil Rights Act, more Democrats supported the bill than Republicans (94% versus 85%). On the 6% of Southerners who supported the Civil Rights Act, all 7 of them were Democrats (Southern Republicans voted 0-10 against).
So, by that measure, if one puts aside regional affiliation, Democrats were more likely to support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Republicans among both Southerners and non-Southerners.
Mod
Bentley wrote: "I am not talking about 1875 Christopher - I am talking about the time period in the book we are discussing. (Kennedy, Johnson and Reagan) and of course the time period between Johnson and Reagan..."
My Apologies. The house vote for the 1964 Civil Rights act Democrat 155-95-2, Republican 139-37-2. In The Senate the vote was Democrat 45-20, Republican 27-7.
Again LBJ did a great job pushing it through his party but again the majority of Republicans vote in favor. Both the House and Senate were Democrat controlled for this vote. Links to both roll calls to the Senate and the house along with how each individual voted.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote...
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote...
Matthew wrote: "As Bentley cites, despite Christopher's attempt to see everything through a Democrat/Republican lens, the single greatest factor determining a Congressman's position on Civil RIghts legislation is ..."I am not making this out to be a party issue. I am pointing out Republicans a majority voted for the civil rights bill throughout history. Including 1964. LBJ biggest problem was then Democrat Strom Thurmond who filibustered the 1964 vote as well as the 1957 vote which LBJ also voted for. Both the House and Senate were controlled by Democrats. The reply above gives you the roll call with each individual vote Yea and Nea.
Though the book does not delve into where Reagan stood on the issue.
What are your impressions about the idea Jonathan mentions that conservatives were more radical due to the fact that were out of power for a generation?I guess Jonathan is referring to the last time the "conservatives" were in power was in the 1920s early 1930s.
Christopher wrote: "How do you fix a problem if you don't join it and work on fixing it?"You've answered the question yourself: "There are a lot of scholars who have studied Political Science and are not a of government yet they try and fix the problems by educating people."
And "educating people" is just one way. How about social entrepreneurship and activism? Running a business that gives people good jobs? There are countless ways to solve the world's problems outside government. A true libertarian would be doing precisely that.
Yes. Herbert Hoover was a great American and a libertarian at heart who saved countless lives through his famine relief efforts. He did not rely on governments, which he found inefficient, and as a result became a famed humanitarian. Largely on the strength of this reputation, Hoover became President, and when the Great Depression hit, Hoover continued to believe that the private sector was the way to handle it. Unfortunately, Hoover was no longer in the private sector, and there was no one else who stepped forward. And therefore history remembers him as one of the worst Presidents instead of a great libertarian do-gooder.
Kressel wrote: "Christopher wrote: "How do you fix a problem if you don't join it and work on fixing it?"You've answered the question yourself: "There are a lot of scholars who have studied Political Science and..."
Very true Kressel. Very good comments on this interesting chapter.
Matthew wrote: "Yes. Herbert Hoover was a great American and a libertarian at heart who saved countless lives through his famine relief efforts. He did not rely on governments, which he found inefficient, and as a..."If I remember correctly from the biography below, while it's true that his efforts for food relief after World War I came from the private sector, he was thereafter appointed "Food Czar" and said that relying on people's charity wasn't enough and government funding was necessary.
by William E. Leuchtenburg
Kressel wrote: "It seems to me that if you think that government IS the problem, it doesn't make sense to join it."How do you not "join it"? We all want the government when we need them, fire department, roads etc.
Respectfully I think that is a bit too simplistic.
Christopher wrote: "Bryan wrote: "Thanks Christopher for your perspective. It is fascinating to compare time periods (like the 1960s to today), because it comes down to political philosophy of how government should p..."I just watched disc 5 of the Ken Burn's documentary of the Roosevelts.
Things are done the way they seem to need to be or can be and then modified. Think of the great depression and say again that FDR didn't do well.
Look at the independence of your grandparents, or someone elses, who gets and need Social Security - although they contributed to it would they have.
Consider the Americans who lived in poverty in 1963 and the African Americans who faced terrible discrimination then (and still today but less).
I don;t think that we can fault these programs. And remember these were the programs, the legislation, that they could get passed.
Vince wrote: "Kressel wrote: "It seems to me that if you think that government IS the problem, it doesn't make sense to join it."How do you not "join it"? We all want the government when we need them, fire de..."
Is this not part of the problem we face today? Government by the people and for the people is a founding principle in the US. However, government has become monolithic and people feel, even with a vote, that they really have no voice so they have stopped voicing an opinion.
Apathy, I think is another major issue. Why write a letter to my congress person? It won't do any good. Some of us have written those letters and even had decent results. I think it is important when we see government as the problem to get more involved in government.
If we stay at arms length we get into situations where the government has to take over things that really should not be run by government. So, to bring this back to the discussion we see these men getting into politics and we do not like at least some characteristics about them or their leadership but they saw something they wanted to accomplish and got involved. Right or wrong; successful or lacking they did get involved.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Herbert Hoover (other topics)41: A Portrait of My Father (other topics)
Deception (other topics)
Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention (other topics)
My Life (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
William E. Leuchtenburg (other topics)George W. Bush (other topics)
Adrian Levy (other topics)
Bill Clinton (other topics)
Harold Holzer (other topics)
More...
Vince, thanks for reminding me of the recent Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, and fears that the Cubans and/or Russians were involved in JFK's assassination. I can understand the fear of Communism, but it seems to me that Ike's and JFK's governments were dealing with the Communists pretty effectively. Of course there was that bogus "missile gap" that Kennedy talked about during the 1960 election which also riled people up.
Many of these hard core right wingers hated all the presidents from FDR on. Maybe the Young Republicans were of a different ilk. Still, according to the author, they also had that "rage."