The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Landslide
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES
>
WE ARE OPEN - WEEK NINE - PRESIDENTIAL SERIES: LANDSLIDE - January 26 - February 1 - Chapter Eight - No Spoilers, Please
Mod
Bentley, I give up. Where is the Vietnam thread?
Thanks, said the one-eyed reader.
My favorite part of this chapter (page 252-253):"For a moment, all was silent. Then Johnson was engulfed by that greatest of treasures, applause from the hundreds of listeners he could see and the millions he could not. Watching from a living room in distant Birmingham, Martin Luther King, Jr., began to weep. By adopting the words of the civil rights anthem, the president had changed the movement forever. Its leaders were now American heroes. Its dead were now martyrs for the American idea. The story of civil rights was now part of the American story.
And part of Lyndon Johnson's story, too. As he concluded his speech, Johnson recalled the young Mexicans he had taught in Cotulla, Texas, in the school year 1928-29. Those students were poor and hungry and 'they knew even in their youth the pain of prejudice.' As their teacher, Johnson said, it had never occurred to him that he would one day 'have the chance to help the sons and daughters of those students, and to help people like them all over this country. But now I do have that chance. And I'll let you in on a secret -- I mean to use it.'"
It is so nice to see a truly good side of a president to help again respect the office when so much of what we here is negative.
Mod
(smile)
Mod
"For a moment, all was silent. Then Johnson was engulfed by that greatest of treasures, applause from the hundreds of listeners he could see and th..."
Yes it was Kathy and a very powerful segment of the chapter..
Kathy wrote: "My favorite part of this chapter (page 252-253):"For a moment, all was silent. Then Johnson was engulfed by that greatest of treasures, applause from the hundreds of listeners he could see and th..."
Yes Kathy. Mine too. I really liked that part of the chapter.
Bentley wrote: "Brian, I think he agonized over every decision - every single one. That is really overwhelming for anybody who does that - especially a president..."Interesting point, Bentley. George W. Bush comes immediately to mind. People who worked with him said Bush made the decision and moved on, different mind-set than LBJ.
I thought that Johnson's speeches and active support of Civil Rights were inspiring. He had his flaws, but was also capable of doing great things - a very complicated individual.By all accounts, he was an absolute workaholic. I wonder how many other presidents were so utterly involved with making sure their policies were passed into laws and implemented. Maybe FDR? Anyone else?
Mod
Interesting point, Bentley. G..."
Absolutely - he did not give the decisions that much thought - LBJ was very different and I think Senior Bush was too.
Mod
By all accounts, ..."
One cannot think of many Ann. LBJ had what they call "follow-through".
Regarding work habits, the only president I can think of who worked as many hours as LBJ was Teddy Roosevelt, both before, during and after his presidency. But he shares few of LBJ's other traits. Like LBJ, TR seems to have hated idleness almost to the point where it would make him ill.
But LBJ devoted all of his manic energies to politics, whereas TR was multifaceted (big game hunter, conservationist, voracious reader, author of 40 books, hiker, explorer etc.).
Mod
I really enjoyed reading about Selma in this chapter and Johnson's push for Civil Rights. I agree that his speech was moving. I want to go look for the full speech now. One of the aspects of Johnson that was brought up (again) and reinforced in this chapter was how he could often talk people into coming around to his side of things. I know Darman has mentioned it in past chapters, but I enjoyed reading about his discussion on Selma with George Wallace. (pg 250) This was a trait of Johnson's that they talk about if you go to Johnson City, TX and tour his ranch. So often he would bring people to his ranch in order to "have a talk" with them. He could wine and dine them Texas style, get down to brass tacks then send them on their way often after getting them to come around to his way of thinking.
Teri, I also liked that story about LBJ twisting Wallace's arm to get him to request federal troops for Selma.He was a very persuasive man. As Wallace later said."Hell, if I'd stayed in there much longer, he'd have had me coming out for civil rights." p. 250
Peter wrote: "Regarding work habits, the only president I can think of who worked as many hours as LBJ was Teddy Roosevelt, both before, during and after his presidency. But he shares few of LBJ's other traits...."Working long and/or hard is not necessarily more virtuous than working smart.
I remember reading Lincoln with the HBC and noted the time Lincoln spent in evening walks and going away for the weekend.
Ronald C. White Jr.
message 69:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Jan 30, 2015 08:57AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
I think all of the presidents have their weekend getaways including LBJ - one of the videos that I posted showed LBJ at his ranch telling how this was the place that he could go to relax on the weekends and felt rejuvenated. Others had Camp David and Bush had Crawford, Texas and the Senior Bush had Kennebunkport. Obama has Hawaii and Martha's Vineyard and occasionally Camp David. He does not seem to be as fond of the outdoors as other presidents aside from golf. JFK had Hyannis and was there a lot. Reagan had one of the "Western White Houses in California" which was his ranch and other spots.
Just as an FYI - when there is no photo - the citation looks like this:
by Ronald C. White Jr. (no photo)
I truly think LBJ really took everything personal and it was if the issues of the nation were absorbed into him. It was as if his amount of hours on the job were in direct correlation to his personal ability to solve the situation.After reading this I really had an even greater appreciation for LBJ's work ethic and how he became so persuasive when he felt the need.
Regarding presidential work habits, TR was definitely driven like LBJ. Thanks, Peter. As for "work smarter" as opposed to just working harder- that's what bosses used to tell us in the business world when they were dumping more work on us.
:-)
Mod
You made me smile Ann. It was of course smart for them if you did the work of five people in your 80 hour week (smile).
Bentley wrote: "I agree Chef.You made me smile Ann. It was of course smart for them if you did the work of five people in your 80 hour week (smile)."
In working within a University setting I've found you have to rely on yourself and end up spending time on issues that no one else agrees or believes in but years later see the results.
Mod
Kathy wrote: "My favorite part of this chapter (page 252-253):"For a moment, all was silent. Then Johnson was engulfed by that greatest of treasures, applause from the hundreds of listeners he could see and th..."
This paragraph in the chapter really touched me, too. Such a pivotal moment in our history.
Mod
A bit of irony jumped out at me in this chapter. On page 248, Martin Luther King is quoted as saying "We've gone too far now to turn back." At the same time, LBJ was feeling the same way about Vietnam. He just couldn't bring himself to back out. This attitude worked out really well for one man's cause (although it cost him his life), not so well for the other.
Mod
Dave excellent observation. Well worth keeping in mind!
The more I'm reading this book , the more interested I'm getting in 1960's-1970's politics. Always seemed to be a big black hole to me as far as history goes. Vietnam was almost a no win situation for LBJ. Probably should have just said screw it and pulled out but who knows what the fall out politically would have been for him had he done that...I guess it couldn't have been worse then the option he went with. BUT the more I'm reading (I just started Stanely Karnow's book on Vietnam) the more I'm reminded the murky water the whole situation was for politicians. Karnow starts his book off with this quote from Kissinger:
"Vietnam is still with us. It has created doubts about American judgment, about American credibility, about American power--not only at home, but throughout the the world. It has poisoned our domestic debate. So we paid an exorbitant price for the decisions that were made in good faith and for good purpose." (page 9)
by Stanley Karnow (no photo)
Again we see (pages 234 and 236) the dark moods and high rhetoric of LBJ...grand ideas but almost doomed by his own melancholy...
One wonders if this was the beginning of the end for LBJ (page 238)...the ratchet up of Vietnam. Looking back one might speculate about why such a small, far off country could so capture (in more ways than one) our nation. What was the big deal? Why not just write it off, let it to... However, in the 1960s-70s, I was growing up in Korea on the doorstep of Communism and remember the very palpable fear we lived with as nation after nation in Africa, Asia, etc. seemingly fell to Communism. It felt like the whole world was against us and coming after us. We really were living in fear of the Domino Effect and believed that a battle line had to be drawn, somehow, somewhere...
Mod
I think the decisions made were for good purpose.
Mod
That is a very interesting observation Lewis and you had a front row seat so the fear was palpable. I think that was the mindset at the time as you correctly point out. It is hard for folks nowadays to walk in the shoes of those who made these decisions in the past.
This is my feeling too. Nobody wanted to be the "president who lost Vietnam" or any other place.
Mod
"it was for a good reason"And what reason was that, Bentley?
message 88:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Feb 10, 2015 02:28PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
And Martin let me remind you that differences of opinion are applauded here but with civility. There are a ton of reasons that US presidents got involved with Vietnam and their problems and they are not stranger than the reasons that the US got involved with Korea and theirs. In fact very similar. The involvement seemed to work for South Korea and we do agree that there was a different outcome in South Korea than the subsequent solution derived in Vietnam.
Apologies if I seem uncivil. It certainly is not intended."There are a ton of reasons that US presidents got involved with Vietnam and their problems and they are not stranger than the reasons that the US got involved with Korea and theirs."
Let's talk about Vietnam, since that is the subject of this portion of Landslide, no? I'm sure there is a glossary, or spoiler thread, or a Korea thread to talk about that police action and whether it was a success.
I have never heard a good reason for us to have intervened militarily in Vietnam. Let's start with the containment excuse. Containment was a policy engineered largely by George Kennan, which was built on the success of the European Recovery Plan.
Containment and the ERP were largely economic and diplomatic. There was no military conflict involved, one. Secondly, the nations that received the aid and support were well established. They were among the earliest modern nations on Spaceship earth and their pre-modern histories demonstrated the evolution into modern nation states over a period of centuries.
Containment only worked where there was a long history of nation states, which makes perfect sense, given that there has to be the legislative, judicial, and executive institutions in a country's DNA to manage an economy. That didn't exist in Vietnam.
Our containment intent, largely, was to contain the influence of the Soviet Union, although in the process it was also true that the US economy, which by WW II's end had accumulated an inordinate amount of the world's wealth. It was in our national interest to help the European nations re-establish themselves. It's worth noting that the Domino Theory, at least according to James T. Patterson in Grand Expectations, was folded into containment by Dean Acheson.
By 1950, we were assuming the French financial burden for defending the south of the former Vietnamese holding, and by 1954 we were picking up 75% of the tab. In the meantime, the south, in Vietnam, was soundly defeated by forces from the North.
The problem was an apparent one, and one recognized by our intelligence community. There was no there there in the south. The first thing that any nation must demonstrate is the ability to defend itself. The problem in Vietnam is that there never was a nation there. The nation in Vietnam was being born in the north.
We knew that.
But it was Richard Nixon that best expressed our contempt for the north by consistently referring to the north as that "s--t a-- little country."
We were backing a phantom country that failed to ever show realistic signs of developing into a political body capable of defending itself. And that dynamic never changed.
As far as the domino theory goes, it was largely based on ignorance of communism that in the public's eye saw it as international and monolithic. Our political leaders leveraged this ignorance to support their militaristic interventions.
Our intelligence community well understood that the Soviets, who supported the North, and Chinese were not unified under the international banner of communism. They were mortal enemies, and even to this day largely distrust one another.
There may have been excuses for our insidious involvement in Vietnam, starting in 1950 when we started giving ineffectual financial aid to a non-existent state that was stunted in its growth by rampant corruption.
But there never was a reason.
by
James T. Patterson
Interesting that on page 240 it suggests that people in the 1990s were stunned to discover some of LBJ's true nature. Was he so unknown before, I wonder? He did in many ways seem to be a torn individual (between great ideas and the torture of failing), as has already been well discussed. I wonder how much of it might have been accentuated by the times and events thrown into his lap...assassination, civil unrest, messy far off conflict... As with other presidents, sometimes the timing and period of serving is lucky, sometimes not so lucky...
Interesting that domestic equality was joined with a belief that foreign equality was also necessary and should be strongly pushed at the same time (page 241). As we have to keep learning with each successive generation, however, domestic programs are one thing, since we all live in the same country, mostly with the same values, ideas, and way of life. But attempting to push our understanding of equality and freedom on other nations is an entirely different ball game/kettle of fish... That is when we discover, often very painfully, that others have different values and ideas that translate into very different perspectives and understandings of things. An example today is the high popularity of Putin in Russia. We scratch our heads at that. But in that culture and society, they primarily value strong power and control by government (what better picture of that than Putin shirtless in the wilderness with an automatic weapon...can we imagine Obama trying to do that??). So Putin is their man. They look at our society with all its freedom and "wildness" and want no part of it.
We and our politicians, perhaps due to our abundant American optimism, seem to forever imagine that things will turn out as we envision and plan. So it was (page 243 bottom) that LBJ planned to have his war that would result in peace. Perhaps it is due to a bit of a blind spot that strong nations are infected with... At any rate, seeing Communism as the great foe of freedom and equality that needed to be curbed in Vietnam somehow was not taken on board fully by the American public, and so LBJ did not have, did not receive, the support he needed to make victory happen as we had hoped.
It must surely be an awful position for a president to find himself in (page 244)..."no chance of winning, no hope after losing..." It can be puzzling for us to imagine that so many South Vietnamese would flood into the Viet Cong army, seemingly to fight against freedom and a better future. Again, I believe it is a case of us often assuming that other peoples will see things as we do and strive to reach their ideals in the same manner as we attempt to in the US.
Mod
But there were tons of reasons that the US got involved and some of them clearly deal with the threat and the fear of communism spreading and taking over Asia.
Now do I think we should be involved with foreign wars if we can help it - no. I think the founding fathers had it right - no foreign entanglements.
Strange to imagine (page 246) that LBJ "needed to hear that he was doomed". Hard to imagine any president being in that position. I can understand hearing from those who disagree with you so that you are not only hearing one side. Perhaps LBJ needed to hear the thoughts of an old friend, more for the sake of sharing his own feelings and fears, but not so much for the sake of actually acting on those sentiments in the way Russell would act on them.
Mod
Maybe - I find that Caro has a good feel for LBJ - have you read any of his books.
Robert A. Caro
Mod
Very strange but you have to wonder - maybe this is what they know.
Mod
We do not understand the propaganda or what these folks may have been told about the aggressors. It is a bad business when you get involved.
LBJ could be very forceful and convincing (page 250), but perhaps he lacked the charisma so helpful in keeping the public sentiment with you... I wonder how a JFK or RR would have done, had they been in the thick of Vietnam during their years in office...
"Only greatness..." (Page 254). Would more people have thought of LBJ in that way if Vietnam hadn't existed, or if he had quietly pulled the plug on US involvement?
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Grand Expectations: The United States, 1945-1974 (other topics)Vietnam: A History (other topics)
A. Lincoln (other topics)
A. Lincoln (other topics)
Lady Bird Johnson, A White House Diary (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Robert A. Caro (other topics)James T. Patterson (other topics)
Stanley Karnow (other topics)
Ronald C. White Jr. (other topics)
Ronald C. White Jr. (other topics)
More...
1) We didn't learn from the French defeat
2) Johnson could have used his immense victory to withdraw. It would have raised a lot of concerns, but, from what Darman says, Johnson ..."
Help me somebody - my memory is slipping and I cannot find anything easily.
Did we not make some kind of deal with DeGaulle to support Vietnam/ Indochina going forward for his permitting France to join Nato?