Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

"Martin, I think Americans understood World War II in spades."

I suppose it all depends on the meaning of "understood."

I don't think for a minute we understood in any meaningful sense the ramifications of using atom bombs, or for that matter the bombing tactic to create fire storms incinerating civilians. I think we're still trying to understand that.

Did we understand the role the Versailles Treaty played in largely helping to burden Germany with impossible reparations? Wilson (not Tom Hanks' volleyball) understood that, I think, but very few others.

Do the Jews figure into the equation? Or was putting out the Holocaust an unintended consequence?

How about our grasp on the ramifications of developments in China as a direct result of the Japanese invasion and the subsequent rise of the communists in China? Missed the boat again, no?

Or, most importantly, that WW II would finish demolishing of the world order that started with WW I; and the emergent new order? It was certainly more complex than us against the commies, no?

"I think to a certain extent they may not have agreed but understood the country entering into World War I."

I don't think anyone on Spaceship Earth understood what was at stake in WW I. They certainly didn't understand why and how it happened, the effect of the modern technology on strategy and tactics, and the geopolitical consequences.

"At the time, I think both the North and South understood the Civil War and what that was about"

Whoa, Bentley. How many people understood the link between John Brown's raid and the shelling of Sumpter?

Remember Bull Run I, when many of the good citizens of Washington thought it a good occasion to pack picnic baskets and watch the boys in blue wallop Johnny Reb? And, remember that the war wasn't going to last too much longer, a few weeks, maybe months? And what were they fighting for? The central cause of the war was to address the institution of enslaving people, but that certainly didn't come out until Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, no? And the people of the North, how'd they react to that? There were more than a few soldiers who wrote that if they knew the fighting was about freeing the Africans, they would have stayed home. And their brothers in the South? Had no idea they had no chance of winning. Thought they'd be back home in a matter of weeks, or so, after repelling the northern aggressors.

"and I think the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 were well understood."

The revolutionary war? If I remember right (a risky bet, I know) the colonists initially regarded themselves as Englishmen in conflict with other Englishman, right? And, it wasn't until that constitutional confab in Philly, you know, the one to make adjustments to the articles of confederation, that a country evolved, with a constitution and radical form of government comprising interlocking checks and balances.

1812? The tariff war, right? Or, was it in reaction to Brits grabbin' our boys on the high seas to sail in her majesty's navy? Or, because our leaders made a miscalculation in the Brit response to our trade and other initiatives? And didn't France somehow play a role?

"I can't get out, I can't finish it with what I have got. So what the hell do I do?" he lamented to Lady Bird. Johnson never did figure out the answer to that question.

I think that statement that Johnson made to his wife is very telling. He was caught in a no-win situation....the country was divided over a war that no one wanted and we were losing young men in battles that were not our own. But we were committed, men had died, and America wasn't going to just pack up and leave. Unfortunately, we ended up doing exactly that. This war will be argued for years to come.

This picture of American Marines trying to keep South Vietnamese from the American Embassy during the fall of Saigon pretty much says it all.

It was hard for my dad, but he never talked about any of it. however, it was tough for the families. I remember being afraid to read the newspaper and watch the news. The mothers and fathers with sons over there were probably on edge until their boys came home. Just more to add to the frustration.

Another thing about Vietnam that had a huge impact was that it was the first war in which the USA was involved that was televised.

Agreed about the bomb - especially the second one.

We might have understood what was happening in Versailles through others.

I think China was far removed from the average person's radar screen at that point in time and you probably can add Korea and the Philippines.

I think America understood World War II well.

And they understood what they were told about World War I and the moral dilemma at that time. Wilson did do this whether you agreed with him or not.

The Southern boys were fighting for their homes and their way of life. The Northern conscripts were fighting because they were drafted, wanted to save the Union and not break up the country and the abolitionists were fighting to abolish slavery. But they had something in mind when they fought whether it was the right reason or not. They had a rationale and of course no rationale can make up for 625,000 dead men fighting their own countrymen. I guess I just respectfully disagree with some of what you are saying. Yes, they thought that it would be a short rout but it never is that - is it? But I for one do not believe for a moment that Lincoln entered the war initially to free the slaves and give them equality. In fact, if the South had gone along with what Lincoln had originally offered their way of life might have been allowed to stand. But everything went to hell in a hand basket very soon because for one thing - the South did not like Lincoln one bit and did not trust him. The human factor always is at play isn't it.

I think we knew what we were fighting for in the Revolutionary War although there were loyalists to England and that is the side that they ultimately chose.

Martin you raise many points which we could debate but I think the whole point with Vietnam was that the Vietnam War was being fought in a place half way across the world and for the average American at that time - they could have cared less about Southeast Asia or who was in charge. They did not feel that it had anything to do with their democracy or their freedoms and therefore let us mind our own business and let the Vietnamese sort it out. I think that JFK tried to get into the mix with Ngo Dinh Diem and not being given the correct advice went along with the coup thinking that Diem would be successfully exiled and he felt that the assassination of the brothers (November 2, 1963) was abhorrent whoever was to blame. And in some ways he blamed himself for supporting the coup - but it shook JFK personally - what kind of advice was he being given about Southeast Asia - of course very sadly Kennedy ended up being assassinated on November 22, 1963. Further, things started unraveling fast although it appeared that Kennedy was trying to extracate the country from the quagmire before he died - but who is to know what would have happened. It was not a war that anyone wanted to be in and that was the issue at the end of the day. The American people wanted nothing to do with it.

But you created some great talking points and I understand where you are coming from. Others might agree with you and I hope they jump into the mix.

Jill wrote: " "I can't get out, I can't finish it with what I have got. So what the hell do I do?" he lamented to Lady Bird. Johnson never did figure out the answer to that question.

I think that statement tha..."

It was tough - sometimes things never get better. And you are right when all of the solutions are horrible which one do you choose.

Peter wrote: "Another thing about Vietnam that had a huge impact was that it was the first war in which the USA was involved that was televised."

Hmmm - Peter - the war brought into the living room of Americans. Interesting point. It became real and horrible and ugly as war always is.

Bentley - I would just point out that there is a difference between having an understanding, and understanding. Many have an understanding about war, few if any understand, if for no other reason the causes of war generally are not understood until long afterward and change, but also because war unleashes so much chaos that it is nearly impossible to understand it thoroughly at the time. Even sifting through its ashes later is difficult to understand.

And, yeah to your points on Vietnam.

Great comments everybody. I will be making sure that the media and links posted here are all in the glossary so that we can refer to them on other threads when discussing other chapters.

Some interesting tapes regarding the dilemma that LBJ was in regarding Vietnam:



Give a listen - the Russell one is also interesting. Russell, then Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee: " We're in the quicksand up to our necks, and I just don't know what the hell to do about it."

Martin wrote: "Bentley - I would just point out that there is a difference between having an understanding, and understanding. Many have an understanding about war, few if any understand, if for no other reason t..."

Yes you are right - one can think they know the rationale and have an understanding but not understand what they are getting into. War is like that.

Thanks for the opportunity to share in this discussion. I am simply here because I love history. I certainly don't have the deep political insight that so many of you seem to have so likely my comments will be inadequate throughout this discussion, so bear with me. This week's discussion has already left me wondering what I missed in the Prologue and Chapter One. That said, I do typically fall on the liberal side of politics which is why I have always had a negative opinion of Reagan. This is likely unfair since I usually steer away from learning more about him. I hope to gain from this book, an unbiased view of two incredibly different presidents with different styles and agendas. I hope the contrast between the two will help me understand more about both of them and their politics. One simple thought about this week's reading regarding LBJ as coming across as egotistical. I didn't find it odd since I can't actually think of a modern day president that doesn't fit that bill and wouldn't consider that a negative attribute in a president. I am anxious to learn what occurred in that first year LBJ became president that lead to his "landslide" victory.

Sarah nobody's comments are inadequate and there are no right or wrong answers. Welcome to the conversation.

Your statement is quite astute:

You said: "one simple thought about this week's reading regarding LBJ as coming across as egotistical. I didn't find it odd since I can't actually think of a modern day president that doesn't fit that bill and wouldn't consider that a negative attribute in a president."

I also just saw LBJ as a bold man who wanted to be bolder than his insecurities. I haven't figured out Reagan either - and wonder what he was really all about without the facade. Hopefully we will find out more.

Post with all of your thoughts - I look forward to reading them.

Folks - the presidential inaugural ceremonies and addresses are posted in the video section for Kennedy, Johnson and both of Reagan's.

Enjoy.

We have two more days until Week Two and there is still a fair amount to talk about in the Prologue and Chapter One. Chapter One is mainly a revisiting of what happened in Dallas and how LBJ came into office and I think the group has done a fairly great job of tackling a lot of the important events of that chapter - however there are still a few loose ends.

The Prologue however has a lot of areas of discussion still untouched.

Here is a quote that I found to be very powerful - and I wondered aloud if the author was still feeling that what he described as the story of how America's politics had begun to fracture was still with us today considering recent events. Is that coalition still ruling the country. It is apparent that we have come a long way - we do have an African American president but have we come far enough? Or are things still the same but more of an undercurrent?

Please let us know what your thoughts were when reading these passages.

The author wrote:

"Politics changed too. Politicians discovered the political power of white rage and white racism, beyond the Democratic Party and beyond the Deep South. At the beginning of the thousand days, the party of Lincoln was an active partner with the Northern liberals in legislative efforts to enhance civil rights. By the end of a thousand days, the Republican Party had begun to assemble a new coalition built in part on the resentment white voters felt toward African Americans and other minorities. That coalition would rule the country for several decades to come."

Also, in discussing what the author talks about being the end of the thousand days:

"In its place was a new kind of politics in which voters chose between two fantasies of the American future, two myths in which the federal government could only be America's salvation or America's ruin. These two myths were born from opposite ideologies, but they promised the same thing; an America where all problems could be conquered and would be conquered soon. Both visions would inspire millions of Americans in the 1960's and in generations to come. But they would also divide and coarsen the country. Over time, the gap between fantasy and reality would grow and grow, leaving government in a state of dysfunction and paralysis."

Darman assumes the myths were fostered by two men: Johnson and Reagan. He states that the actual lesson of the 60's was: "History never turns out exactly the way we think it's going to."

Topics for discussion:

a) Any of the quotes above - feel free to discuss your views and your responses to what the author wrote.

b) Did anyone feel when reading the quotes that Darman was still describing the current political landscape and not just the 60's?
Explain your views.

Bentley wrote: "I think that Reagan's maiden speech is very much like Obama's. And to be honest with you I see some similarities between the two. Lack of experience yet great popularity. But it did take some ti..."

Oh I do agree with you on LBJ winning against Reagan. Though I think it would have been a lot closer then it was with Goldwater.

You are probably right Christopher.

Bentley wrote: "We have two more days until Week Two and there is still a fair amount to talk about in the Prologue and Chapter One. Chapter One is mainly a revisiting of what happened in Dallas and how LBJ came ..."

"By the end of a thousand days, the Republican Party had begun to assemble a new coalition built in part on the resentment white voters felt toward African Americans and other minorities. That coalition would rule the country for several decades to come."

I hope Darman elaborates later in the book on this quote of his. Quite honestly, I'm not exactly sure what he is referring to when he says this. Does anyone have any specific links to articles or facts that he might be alluding to in this statement?

To elaborate on Chapter 1 some more, and I know this has been briefly touched on, I found it amazing the lack of a smooth transition that occurred during that fateful day in November.

I knew from reading books on JFK that there was some animosity between the Kennedy's and LBJ but I clearly was unaware at the level it rose to, especially after the JFK assassination. Some things that jumped out at me and I jotted notes in my book:

On page 24-25, there seems to be paranoia and down right hatred between the Robert and LBJ. I asked myself while reading why JFK would go with LBJ as his running mate...other then "sympathy", I couldn't find any other reason but there has to be more to it then that. I've always pictured the VP and POTUS as being somewhat amicable people who generally get along for the most part (at least since we went to a same party ticket). This was clearly an odd combination.

And in a line where I again got a chuckle, LBJ tells Robert Kennedy while hunting and Robert gets knocked by the gun, "Son, you've got to learn to handle a gun like a man." I wrote "ouch" in the margin. Not for Robert getting knocked down, but for LBJ's comment. Gotta think LBJ relished that incident and opportunity to get that dig in.

"Politics changed too. Politicians discovered the political power of white rage and white racism, beyond the Democratic Party and beyond the Deep South. At the beginning of the thousand days, the party of Lincoln was an active partner with the Northern liberals in legislative efforts to enhance civil rights. By the end of a thousand days, the Republican Party had begun to assemble a new coalition built in part on the resentment white voters felt toward African Americans and other minorities. That coalition would rule the country for several decades to come."

Not so much "discovered" as "re-discovered" 100+ years later -- the first time as tragegy, the second time as a farcical tragedy.

In 1848, the Democrats and Whigs both had Northern "anti-slavery" wings and Southern "pro-Slavery" wings, and they co-existed peacefully because slavery was a "state's rights" issue, so didn't come up a lot in Congress. Then, issues like the Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act and Kansas-Nebraska Act decimated the pro-slavery Whigs in the South (eventually destroying that party) and similarly decimating the anti-Slavery Democrats of the North (eventually bifurcating the party, so that by 1860 the Democrats were running two candidates -- one of the North and one in the South).

By 1968, the exact same dynamic took place, beginning with both Democrats and Republicans having Northern "pro-Civil Rights" and Southern "anti-Civil Rights" wings. After the passage of the CIvil Rights Act, though, the issue of Civil Rights became nationalized, and a process began where the anti-Civil Rights Democrats in the South again bifurcated the Democratic party (George Wallace in 1968, instead of John Breckinridge in 1860). The Northern Republicans and Southern Democrats would rapidly start to fade away, creating two regional parties.

This explicitly named "Southern strategy" failed for Barry Goldwater in 1964, and succeeded for Richard Nixon in 1968. The difference, of course, being that Jim Crow laws hadn't collapsed enough in 1964, and Civil Rights laws weren't yet seen as a "Democratic issue." By 1968, they were.

Regarding the shifting parties re racism and White rage, I think Darman is exactly right, and it goes beyond race.

The party of Abraham Lincoln became the party of Jefferson Davis.

Just in terms of states and POTUS votes, if we look at the states of the confederacy and their % for FDR (1944) and Obama (2008):

Alabama 81 39
Arkansas 81 39
Florida 70 51
Georgia 82 46
Louisiana 81 40
Mississippi 94 43
North Carolina 67 50
South Carolina 88 45
Tennessee 60 42
Texas 71 44
Virginia 62 53

In 1944 FDR did better in every confederate state than he did nationwide (53%). In 2008, just the opposite (Obama also got 53%(and, of course, the only reason Obama did as well as he did in the southern states is that Blacks voted overwhelmingly for him; White votes for Obama in these states were minimal).

Beyond that: Which party is now calling for a smaller federal government? The Republicans. Which is proclaiming states' rights? The Republicans.

Excellent, Matthew. Just to expand on your point, in the presidential election of 1860 in effect there were two presidential elections with one pair of candidates in each the north and south.

Wikipedia has a good synopsis.

I also recommend the Oxford American History series. Books are all packed up, but I believe the Battle Cry of Freedom covers the election.

The larger point is that to this day the divide between North and South and fundamental attitudes toward civil rights can be traced throughout our history.

Oh, came across this on Reuters this a.m.:


Ultimatley, though, the problem is aptly described by Dr. Seuss in his history of the Sneetches. As along as some have stars on their bellies, and others don't, there will be a divide. It has to do with illusions we subscribe to due to our delusion that seeing is believing.

Some one needs to clue in the not so Supreme Court so the knucklehead contingent (commonly referred to as the conservatives) understand the never ending need for laws to protect civil rights. Honest Abe had it right when he observed that if your neighbor's civil rights are in peril, yours very well could be next.

by James M. McPherson

by Dr. Seuss

"that statement that Johnson made to his wife is very telling. He was caught in a no-win situation."

Yes, Jill. As is frequently the case, statements husbands make to their wives are very telling, especially those made under duress, even, maybe especially, for presidents. Ask Bill Clinton.

Justin,
You mentioned that you wondered why LBJ was chosen as JFK's running mate.(Note - Kennedy was also known by his initials. Perhaps Johnson wasn't so egotistical in choosing LBJ as his moniker after all :-)

I think it was purely a political calculation, based on trying to get the Southern vote. I was reading an article by Scott Lehigh of the Boston Globe in this morning's paper. The article discusses the book The American Vice Presidency: From Irrelevance to Power

"Given the very real chance that a vice president will become president, a poor selection does the nation a real disservice. And yet, Whitcover says, "most vie presidents were picked without much care, either as a booby prize of for the part of the country or the state they come from."

Whitcover notes Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin ("an insult to the country and to the office) as particularly bad choices for the vice-presidency. Lincoln dumped an effective vice-president for Andrew Johnson to balance the ticket with a pro-Union Southerner with terrible results.

But, lets get back to Johnson. He wasn't chosen for the right reasons, but as far as domestic policy was concerned the country lucked out in having him take over in this crisis. Robert Caro's book shows Johnson rising to the occasion very quickly and taking firm control. In contrast, Darmon's book so far seems to show Johnson as somewhat adrift, but maybe he is just concentrating on the lost feeling of the country as a whole. Did anyone else notice this different interpretation?

by no photo Jules Witcover

by Robert A. Caro

Bentley wrote: "Christopher wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Yes and No on Goldwater.

The country in 2012 moving towards purple is interesting too. In discussing the 1964 map the point was that it was a landslide and the..."

As we look at the material and follow the discussions I am wondering if the fall of Camelot (with the assassination of JFK) did not start us on the path to the kind of cynicism we see today with regard to government, our choice of who we vote for or even whether to vote at all. On that day the nation entered into shock but then there was Vietnam, the recession, the fuel crises, Robert Kennedy Assassination, Desert 1, etc. Beginning in the 80's it seems we had some victories to celebrate but it seems to me the cynicism has continued to build. Civil rights advanced by LBJ now seem to be melting into new and perhaps more severe racial tensions? Perhaps some that are more well read with regard to this era of American history can help us to understand these seeming trends (or am I seeing patterns where there are none?).

Bentley wrote: "OK I agree that experience was lacking but if he had the necessary credentials and skill set at the time - he certainly had the ability to connect with people and read them well.

One thing that I..."

Well said Bentley, although in my own thinking I have been wondering lately if we could not benefit from someone who is like that early Reagan we see in the speech. Someone not yet deeply rooted in the status quo of congresses halls or the cynical world of politics. Someone would would search out the best of advisers regardless of party because they want the country put first. Someone who is willing to try to campaign without lobby dollars. There are a few other things I envision here but they can wait. I would like to think that we could elect a President who has not come up through the typical ranks in the typical ways.

Bentley wrote: "I think that Reagan's maiden speech is very much like Obama's. And to be honest with you I see some similarities between the two. Lack of experience yet great popularity. But it did take some ti..."

Reagan having won the presidency put good solid people into cabinet positions; let them do their job and listened. I will willingly stand to be corrected but has any president gone through people in his cabinet and advisory roles as quickly and often as Obama? I also think Reagan was a big picture president and Obama seems to be too worried about what some cop does somewhere that he loses the national perspective. Bush in some ways got a bum deal, again correct me if I am wrong but Bush ran on a strong domestic platform and then had to contend with 9/11 having never claimed to be strong on foreign policy. Obama ran on a peace platform yet has perhaps done as much war fighting as Bush did (sometimes more secretly). In some way every President will let us down; yet in other ways every President will shine. I despised Clinton yet was very much impressed with his education policies and he has been a good example of post-presidency involvement in humanitarian causes as have the Bushes.

Justin wrote: "Bentley wrote: "We have two more days until Week Two and there is still a fair amount to talk about in the Prologue and Chapter One. Chapter One is mainly a revisiting of what happened in Dallas a..."

Hopefully the author can answer that question when he pops in. I would pose that question on the Q&A thread for the author.

Justin wrote: "To elaborate on Chapter 1 some more, and I know this has been briefly touched on, I found it amazing the lack of a smooth transition that occurred during that fateful day in November.

I knew from..."

Justin I love it when folks quote from the book itself and give either the chapter number or page numbers - good for you.

Yes, I think the animosity started then or in the Senate. It embarrassed Bobby and he did not like being embarrassed. But what Bobby did afterwards was "classless" and he was so much better than that. His personal issues with LBJ and his inability to handle the overwhelming grief (that part was understandable) overtook common sense and dignity and any thinking about the welfare of the country versus dwelling on his personal hatred and animosity. I actually doubt that JFK would have become President without LBJ on the ticket.

Matthew wrote: ""Politics changed too. Politicians discovered the political power of white rage and white racism, beyond the Democratic Party and beyond the Deep South. At the beginning of the thousand days, the p..."

Good historical background Matthew thank you.

Peter wrote: "Regarding the shifting parties re racism and White rage, I think Darman is exactly right, and it goes beyond race.

The party of Abraham Lincoln became the party of Jefferson Davis.

Just in terms..."

It does sound remarkably similar to what Darman is saying.

Ann wrote: "Justin,
You mentioned that you wondered why LBJ was chosen as JFK's running mate.(Note - Kennedy was also known by his initials. Perhaps Johnson wasn't so egotistical in choosing LBJ as his moniker..."

Yes, I did Ann - I really do not think that LBJ was adrift but trying to figure out a way to move forward during a very shocking period in American history. One of the worst of times.

Michael wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Christopher wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Yes and No on Goldwater.

The country in 2012 moving towards purple is interesting too. In discussing the 1964 map the point was that it was a l..."

I do not think you are mistaken Michael. I think the assassinations, Watergate, the political deceptions all made the American people coarser than they once were and unable to sleep at night without one eye open waiting for the other shoe to drop. Distrust crept in and once trust is eroded - it is always easy to see the worst in about everything. I am not sure how a country comes back from that. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle but that is exactly what we need to do. Bury the hatchet.

Michael wrote: "Bentley wrote: "OK I agree that experience was lacking but if he had the necessary credentials and skill set at the time - he certainly had the ability to connect with people and read them well.

..."

That is what folks were voting for when they voted for President Obama and I have to say this - I think you need someone like LBJ - coarse as he could be to shake things up and put their finger in every pie and manage the details and strong arm things through. And I think the atmosphere is even more politically charged right now. Someone needs to know the ropes to get anything done. The campaign promises that are made seem to be just that - empty promises. Just try to make it happen.

And remember the Reagan of the Goldwater endorsement was an actor who was trained to perform a role - he was not a seasoned politician yet - I would not have wanted that Reagan in charge of nuclear weapons - in fact he was not competent to do that. Nor would he have had any of the skillets necessary to even understand the law. At the very least - President Obama was a lawyer, had graduated from Law School, did sit in the Senate - so there was that albeit a slim portfolio. Reagan at the time of the Goldwater endorsement didn't even have that and I think folks romanticize about his capabilities and he did not have any at the time. He couldn't even get a decent acting job. But I understand that there are many who love Reagan - and I get that. I do think he grew into the role after being Governor but by then he had managed a large operational budget and had some executive training and experience with getting things done.

Oh,there is a better solution than asking the impossible or near impossible: introduce the notion in civics that there is no such thing as government without flaws. Teach, early on, the different styles of government, their strengths, and their weaknesses, and what is a reasonable expectation in the imperfect exercise of governing.

And the first reading in the class to provide a framework would be Aristotle's Politics.

Other reading would include All the King's Men.

by Aristotle

by Robert Penn Warren

Michael wrote: "Bentley wrote: "I think that Reagan's maiden speech is very much like Obama's. And to be honest with you I see some similarities between the two. Lack of experience yet great popularity. But it ..."

I think there have been many and I actually think that Obama had some continuity during his first term - and some did not even have that. I think everybody puts the guy under a microscope - think of how many times LBJ took off for Texas and managed the White House from his home - same with George W. JFK did not have a long history to look at - Reagan was another one photographed all of the time on his horse and at his ranch - the California White House.

Michael wrote: "Bentley wrote: "OK I agree that experience was lacking but if he had the necessary credentials and skill set at the time - he certainly had the ability to connect with people and read them well.

..."

I think it is getting harder and harder to get somebody who can do that without knowing the ropes - you cannot get them up to speed fast enough. The world is dangerous - even more so - the problems are more acute - the country is different and more dangerous in many respects - the problems are numerous - the family unit has disintegrated- and we have Al Qaeda, terrorists, a colder Russia, and all sorts of threats where you want somebody deeply informed to take over. The country was very fortunate that LBJ was the one who inherited the situation and not somebody else. As the saying goes, things could have been worse.

Martin wrote: "Oh,there is a better solution than asking the impossible or near impossible: introduce the notion in civics that there is no such thing as government without flaws. Teach, early on, the different s..."

Good point Martin - what happened to the civics class. Ethics should be another one.

Bentley wrote: "There are some other quotes in the Prologue which is a very dense reading segment which we should talk about and discuss - this section was chock full of great kernels of information and discussion..."

"a) Do you think the number of deaths for a war that the American people did not understand caused the American people to turn their back on the Vietnam war and in doing so to a large extent LBJ?"

I think the issues surrounding the Vietnam war are extremely complex yet I agree that the death toll did have something to do with American sentiments toward the war. Most likely because it was a television war for the first time in history. Those deaths were realized in American living rooms far more quickly when the news came by telegram, newspaper, movie reel, or radio. However, there are many more issues to discuss that turned public sentiment against the war and ultimately LBJ. Vietnam, if we were going to get involved should have remained a small unit (special ops) war. Likewise, in mho, the War on Terror went much better in the earlier years when it was fought more by special ops troops rather than regulars based in large compounds. Special ops troops were more effective because they are trained both to find and engage the enemy but to work in civil improvement and medical roles as well.

You know, arm twisting is impossible these days because to twist an arm you need leverage over the person attached to the arm. And that doesn't exist anymore.

It started with TV. Prior to, the party was the path. But with TV, a new path was opened and party politics began to erode. The figurative cave in came in Chicago in '68. Party rules were rewritten. Transparency was introduced.

Today's party leaders, even the president, no longer can twist arms. Their power is diminished.

Johnson used to have files on everyone. And he knew how to use what was in those files.

Today, not so much.

Bently said, "I questioned that sentence too Martin when I was reading it and a critical reader should do just that. It would sound like LBJ was the only doubter in a roomful of hawks or was the wise man among those who knew no better not the one who escalated the war which resulted in 58, 209 casualties. I wondered at the choice of words and I will have to dig deeper to see what I find"

I am missing something what quote are we talking about here?

Michael wrote: "Bentley wrote: "There are some other quotes in the Prologue which is a very dense reading segment which we should talk about and discuss - this section was chock full of great kernels of informatio..."

Excellent post Michael

Martin wrote: "You know, arm twisting is impossible these days because to twist an arm you need leverage over the person attached to the arm. And that doesn't exist anymore.

It started with TV. Prior to, the par..."

He was very good friends with J Edgar. I think folks with experience have leverage - being a newbie you do not. Takes some time - experience should not be under-rated in that job. The guy or gal has got to be proven to be able to handle the pressure, the abuse, not be thin skinned and be smart as a treefull of owls.

I think we are talking about 216

Finally getting to chime in here. I really enjoyed the prologue and first chapter of this book. I was born a little after the Kennedy assassination and my first memories of a President are Nixon. I think one of the sections I found the most interesting was the transition between Kennedy's staff and LBJ's. How horribly uncomfortable that had to be trying to pack up JFK's belongings while LBJ is trying to get things set up. Obviously this President/Vice-President pairing was purely a political animal, they were not partners or even friends it appeared. Yet I did find it funny how stories spread from the Kennedy staffers that were exaggerations or outright lies to make is seem as if it was way worse than it was.

Thank you for coordinating this Bentley, I can tell I'm going to love this read!

David I too thought the LBJ / JFK office staff trying to switch offices was awkward for both parties. Both men came from political families so they were born & bred for it. But it seems that the Kennedys took the idea of a dynasty more seriously. America's Royalty in a way.

David wrote: "Finally getting to chime in here. I really enjoyed the prologue and first chapter of this book. I was born a little after the Kennedy assassination and my first memories of a President are Nixon...."

Great post David - you are welcome and I think we will very much enjoy this read and getting to know - JFK transition, LBJ and Reagan as well as the times (turbulent as they were) in which they were president. You are right about how LBJ was treated. It was a bad time - no need to make things worse - graciousness on the part of Bobby would have helped as well as Lincoln but maybe they were grieving in their own way and acting out that hurt and loss.

Kathy wrote: "David I too thought the LBJ / JFK office staff trying to switch offices was awkward for both parties. Both men came from political families so they were born & bred for it. But it seems that the Ke..."

Yes Kathy good observation and post.

Bentley wrote:
"I think you need someone like LBJ - coarse as he could be to shake things up and put their finger in every pie and manage the details and strong arm things through. And I think the atmosphere is even more politically charged right now. Someone needs to know the ropes to get anything done."

I strongly agree with you, Bentley. One of the things that attracted me to Obama was that he did not have much experience being mired in the existing political structure. I have now come to look at that as a real disadvantage.