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
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
This has been an interesting chapter and this chapter discussion thread has been very interesting. There are several topics in the thread I wish I would have had time to be involved in.As this book unfolds I find it interesting that the most and least favorite thing about the book stem from the same thing. I think the author has done a great job telling a story in each chapter. It feels that the story he is telling between Johnson and Reagan is starting to converge which will make further chapters interesting.
That said, some of the aspects of his story telling I don't like. I have never been a big fan of books that don't cite sources on the same page. I am mostly just lazy and hate having to change to page to see the source. This book takes it to another level of annoyance and doesn't even put reference numbers on the page, so I don't even know what has a citation and what does not. I have to change the page to find the citations, then scan the page I was reading to find where the text that is referenced. I may have to ask in the Q&A why he did it this way.
In addition, there are scattered throughout the book places where he mentions what Johnson/Reagan were thinking/feeling or something of the sort. There are often no citation for these comments. For example, page 148 the comments about the lifeguard, "the teenage Reagan would resist the temptation to drop into the water to cool off, knowing that the wet trunks would chafe his skin..." no citation for that. It wouldn't surprise me if this was the case, but there is no citation yet he is describing what Reagan was thinking and why he made choices. Small things like that are scattered throughout the book, and make me feel I am reading a "story based on true events" type book.
Mod
The parts of this Chapter that most fascinated me were the implications for how one defines who "counts" as a member of the Party. We have seen that in this thread, as we debated whether Strom Thurmond (who broke off from the Democrats to run as a Third Party in 1948) and his ilk constituted "Democrats" (thereby making the Democrats the "more racist" party) or a separate group of "Dixiecrats" (thereby making the remaining "real" Democrats the "less racist" party.) And it continues through politics today. Will the Republican establishment back a "Birther" candidate? Will the Democratic establishment back a "Truther" candidate? Are these extremists and conspiracy theorist a branch of the party, or something outside that we exclude from it?The same thing was happening in the 1960s in and around the Republican convention. Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller were afraid that Republicans like Goldwater were pulling the party to an extremist fringe, while supporters of Goldwater thought Rockefeller and his ilk (like Eisenhower) were just RINOs (although they didn't have the term then.)
That is why I'm so fascinated with the way the John Birch Society fits in. They were the 1960s equivalent of the Birthers and Truthers. To them, Ike wasn't just a RINO, but an actual Communist agent. And if the Centrist Republicans could be Communists, you can imagine what they thought of Democrats. Many in the Conservative movement -- especially William F. Buckley -- firmly believed that the John Birch Society was a threat to the Republican Party, and that its followers were not "real Conservatives." Goldwater was stuck in the middle, wanting Bircher support but not wanting to seem even crazier than some people already thought him.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/ar...
That's why I found it fascinating that Reagan endorsed John Rousselot -- not just "a Bircher candidate" as Darman says on page 144, but the actual Western Regional Director of the John Birch Society. Not just a member, but a leader of the organization. And it wasn't just an endorsement by a political neophyte that he maybe regretted later on. After he was elected President, and after Rousselot was out of Congress, Reagan appointed Rousselot to be his "Special Assistant" in 1983.
Rockefeller wanted to draw the line to exclude Goldwater supporters. Buckley would accept Goldwater, but exclude the John Birch Society. Reagan was going all in, and supported Birchers all the way through into his Presidency.
I never put it together how long the Democrats were actually in office (except for Eisonhower's tenure). I found how Reagon tapped into the rage of the young republicans equally interesting. How that rage was based off of Cold War. The communist fear was a Republican them from what I see as well, whereas the Democrats were more attuned to internal affairs from what I am reading however there are hints of Vietnam coming too. I definitely like the chapter.
Vince wrote: "How do you not "join it"? We all want the government when we need them, fire de..."What I meant by "join it" in this case is run for office. If you think government IS the problem, which is what Reagan said, then it seems like a contradiction to run for office.
For the record, I personally don't think that government is necessarily the problem. Like you say, I am grateful for my fire department, garbage pick-up, etc. But I'm not railing against big government and then running for office.
Jack wrote: "I never put it together how long the Democrats were actually in office (except for Eisonhower's tenure) ..."Jack this was news to me also. Funny how I never actually bothered to even think about the democrat office run. This chapter has me thinking more about politics, other than just those people that make laws on the other side of the continent
I know for some this was their favorite chapter so far. I think for me it was my least favorite. I really expected to enjoy reading about Reagan more than LBJ since I remember him being in office, while I was really too young to remember much about LBJ. So far though, I've enjoyed reading more about LBJ.I don't have much to add to what has been discussed so far but have a couple of comments.
On page 125 when Darman discussed Reagan not being able to see without glasses/contacts, I felt that he was also commenting on his state of mind as if he is building up to Reagan's Alzheimer's battle. "It was as if, after all the years of seeing ill-defined blotches, the part of his brain that processed the particulars of a person's face had corroded irreparably due to lack of use. Or maybe it had never been there at all." I certainly may be over thinking that (no pun intended) but I did start wondering if Darman will touch on any affects of Alzheimer's that Reagan may have experienced while in office. We'll have to read on to find out.
I did not get the impression that Reagan changed parties like he changed scripts but that as Ann had mentioned earlier, his beliefs became more conservative as he grew older as well as the influence of Nancy's family.
And speaking of scripts, I didn't care for Darman's use of a script as a mechanism to tell the story early in the chapter. I know it was to tie in the theme of the chapter "B Movie" but I didn't think it worked as well as it was intended.
Mod
I agree with Teri. Did not like the script thing in either chapter used. Gimmicky and clunky.I was surprised about Reagan's eyesight. Being nearsighted, I can see (no pun intended) how that could be a huge advantage in public speaking. I was also surprised that he felt the Goldwater supporters were too far right and needed to come back towards the center. Something today's neocons should wake up to.
It is an interesting contrast between Johnson and Reagan. Johnson stated early in his life that he wanted to be President of the United States. He reinforced that in his actions and discussions for years. The you have Reagan who denies he want to be a politician let alone president. I had to think if Reagan saw politics as just another opportunity to be on stage. I never heard of Reagan's eyesight as being that bad. It was humorous when he spoke to his so but didn't know who he was.
I went to a Goldwater rally in Detroit. I was never a supporter, but when because of my interest in politics. It was an interesting event. Mostly young men all of which were white. I was never sure why anyone would support Goldwater.
Jim wrote: "It is an interesting contrast between Johnson and Reagan. Johnson stated early in his life that he wanted to be President of the United States. He reinforced that in his actions and discussions for..."I like what you said in the first paragraph. I also find it remarkable that an actor with no military background was so militaristic as a president. He began the 600 ship navy and expanding the Air Force and Marine Corps. Essentially Reagan bankrupted the Soviet Union. Not bad for an actor.
Indeed, Jack, Reagan was in some war pictures, lol. Seriously, though, I think he did appreciate military service and the building up force as policy. He also used the olive branch too, to attempt a nuclear weapons deal.
Hard to imagine that RR's vision was as poor as is indicated on page 125. I don't recall noticing it, but I guess his appearances before groups and on TV did not highlight any vision problem...
RR did have a real talent for connecting with audiences and making people feel comfortable and good about things (page 125). That's a hard thing to match for an opponent!
I suppose it is classic politics to paint the opponent as a failure or bad guy. But I wonder whether it is really necessary for parties to resort to doom and gloom scenarios (page 126). Republicans frequently seem to do that, and to me all it does is reduce their credibility...
Mod
It is interesting to see the black and white idealism on both RR and LBJ (page 136). In RR's case, it was conveyed in an eternal optimism about the future. In LBJ's case, it seemed that he felt the load of having to usher in a great future on his own shoulders...and well as deal with the very real possibility of failure.
The Republican idea of the individual rising to meet the challenges of life was a picture that appealed to RR more than did some of the Democrat ideals and thus made him more comfortable as a Republican (page 140).
message 121:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Feb 09, 2015 05:25PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
I think in LBJs case he had always that fear of failure because he endured these feelings as a young boy. And it must have been scary. LBJ wanted to be known in own his right - yet at first had to walk in the shadow of Kennedy both when he was alive and when he was assassinated. That was a very difficult way to inherit the presidency.
It is odd that Reagan had these beliefs considering his upbringing.
Yes, sorry my comments are trailing everyone else. Up to date on reading, but still a way to catch up on comments...
Mod
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...
How do you not "join it"? We all want the government when we need..."
Ah - OK
So hydrofracking is not being banned in NYS (high volume horizontal) after massive public outcry - Governor Cuomo bend to the pressure - about 280,000 individual public comments were made to the Department of Environmental Protection.
Anyway people must exercise their franchise and rights. We must get people well educated - or at least better.
So back to the discussion, as you said, is to participate in the visible public view. - Of course you are in Alberta so maybe it is different there - but you can alos see the visible fight by the American public against the Alberta tarsands.
The government is only as monolithic as the public lets it be.
Enough of personal commentary - we all have to participate in the LANDSLIDES we think we need.