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
Mod
However if we discuss folks outside the scope of the book or another book is cited which is not the book and author discussed then we do have to do that citation according to our citation rules. That makes it easier to not disrupt the discussion.
Mod
For the week of January 5th-January 11th, we are reading Chapter Five of Landslide
The sixth week’s reading assignment is:
Week Six-January 5-January 11
Chapter Five-B Movie-pages 123 to 159
Chapter Overview and Summary
Chapter Five: B Movie
Reagan speaks at the 1964 Republican convention, accusing Kennedy and Johnson of appeasing and capitulating to global communism, and turns to conservative politics. Most young Republicans flock to Barry Goldwater. Reagan struggles with his slim chances of a continuing movie career. Lyndon Johnson outlines his “Great Society” vision in his State of the Union address and to reporters. Reagan demonstrates both his well-known idealism and his lesser-known pragmatism. Richard Nixon poses a potential threat to Johnson’s ambitions.
Mod
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 out of voters in 1964 into something that's in mainstream politics to this day. My favorite sentence was how contradictory it is for a person who said, "Government is the problem," to contemplate joining it. I've often felt that way about current candidates who profess libertarian views. If government is the problem and business creates solutions, then why not stay in business?
I enjoyed this chapter too. I like that our author continues to show us how human Reagan and LBJ are. And the transformation of Reagan from Democrat to Republican was well written to give one a clue as to what happened. It also gives me an idea of the fears of people at that time about communism.
As someone who is near-sighted, I cannot image how Reagan managed without glasses. I wonder if Darman's suggestion that part of his brain that processed face details eroded could be true (p. 125). Interesting.
Yes, I simply can not imagine living without really being able to see.
But wasn't that amazing the way he compensated for it with his ability to "feel" a room? On the other hand, as president, he was way too willing to let his underlings take care of the finer details.
If one can't see faces, it makes them just a "room," and so not intimidating at all? I wonder if that is why many singers close their eyes when singing to a crowd?
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 actor, not a politician - to me, this is insidious. It's one of the major problems with politics today. It's not viewed as a serious profession. Reagan started that. 3) Reagan's insistence that his political career "just happened" and how both the right and left bought into this nonsense.What a horrid man Reagan was.
This was a fascinating chapter. The author writes how Reagan tuned into the "rage" that groups like theYoung Republicans of California felt. I believe "rage" is the correct term because I still hear it today. But I honestly don't understand what the source of the rage us. Weren't most of these right-wingers well-to-do? As Darman says. this was a time of great prosperity and I don't think they were hurting. What am I missing here?Darman says that Goldwater even proposed getting rid of Social Security!(p. 152)
Looking back, I remember that my parents supported Goldwater. I even gave a speech in high school supporting him, Of course, this was before I decided that everything my parents believed was wrong, in typical adolescent fashion. In this case, I believe that my dad (who was the political voice in my family) really was wrong, but, in fact, he was personally a very generous man, who was not at all radical. Like the rest of his family, children of immigrants, they played by the rules and were successful. Maybe the idea that some people would get something they didn't deserve was what angered them.
As I got older, I truly found out that not everyone starts on a level playing field. It's not always just a matter of ambition and hard work, as most of these people believed.
Peter wrote: "2) His insistence that he was an actor, not a politician - to me, this is insidious. It's one of the major problems with politics today. It's not viewed as a serious profession. Reagan started that.I don't think Reagan started it. But as later chapters make clear, his being an actor helped transition him to image-oriented politics, and that's more a function of the rise of television than anything. JFK and especially Jackie were masters of the TV image. LBJ much less so. But he knew how to get a bill passed in Congress.
Yes, JFK was master of a TV image and FDR knew how to work radio and apparently, Lincoln was expert at working the newspapers (see below). But they were politicians, not actors; and politics was viewed as a serious matter, not something like an afterthought. 
by
Harold Holzer
Ann wrote: "This was a fascinating chapter. The author writes how Reagan tuned into the "rage" that groups like theYoung Republicans of California felt. I believe "rage" is the correct term because I still hea..."I could be wrong, but I believe the rage from the right wingers had more to do with the idea that the US government was trying to appease/coexist with the communist influence that was spreading in the rest of the world.
Great chapter and great book so far.
My initial notes before other influences from my reading partners at HBC.This chapter reminds me of a lot.
First I have the memory of the force and enthusiasm of the Young Republicans – the group and the young Republicans the people. Although not everyone they were a force to be reckoned with – even in the Northeast where I assume they were less strong.
This reminds me too in looking at this period that we were still in a tough cold war against the Russians and “global communism” including the attempt to put missiles in Cuba two years earlier in 1962. (I remember sitting in the college cafeteria that evening as the Russian vessels approached the US Naval blockade and everyone holding their breath until the Russians turned about). And the ties, or at least visit, to Russia buy Lee Harvey Oswald the JFK assassin.
I found the revelation of RR’s vision problem very interesting and the encounter with his son at his graduation. By the end of the chapter I was wondering if RR saw the audience not the individuals – did this lessened ability to identify individuals decline his ability to communicate with and have empathy for individuals – or just the whole audience – the whole of society as he saw it?
I also got the impression, well conveyed by Mr. Darman, from page 126 – para 4 “despite the horrors of last November, things in the country were going to be fine…” that Americans were feeling warm and fuzzy with LBJ and that defeating him was going to be come to be seen as derailing the “back to fine”.
I also was reminded of the Goldwater lack of empathy – especially pg 130 para 2 – about people not being able to find jobs ..”low intelligence or low ambition”. Maybe Arizona was too lily white for BG to realize the reality of the plight of some of America.
It is also striking to me that Ike is grouped with FRD, Truman, JFK & LBJ by the Young Republicans. With that view by 1964 there were 30 plus years of “liberal” or “leftist” presidents. Maybe so – I thought Ike did a good job – more to be seen with a soon to arrive reading at HBC.
Another interesting note from an Old guy like me is that Lew Ayres (pg 140) was in a conscience objector camp in WWII. I would be curious if this was at all reflective of his role in All Quiet on the Western Front – the movie that come out in 1930. I do not have time to look for or read a Lew Ayres biography if such exists.
From pgs 147 & 148 I get the impression that politics (pushed into his passion p 147 para 2 by Nancy per son Michael) was a passion he pursued partly because of his (pg 148) personal domestic fiscal responsibilities and his weakening entertainment career prospects. (The audience was more available and didn’t have to buy a ticket? – my personal remark)
As a final note I am wondering if Mr. Darman is not doing some editorializing in the book. Pg 148 “It is certainly true that Reagan was drawn to fantasies” – and pg 156 last para Reagan knew by “instinct”.
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 was a success.Of course as Pres he is only successful if his constituents are also I hope.
Peter wrote: "...2) His insistence that he was an actor, not a politician - to me, this is insidious. It's one of the major problems with politics today. It's not viewed as a serious profession. Reagan started that. ..."Peter, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by politics not being viewed as a "serious profession" and that being a major problem. I would agree with the aspect of it requires some qualifications, and a lot of work and dedication, just as any job/profession. That said, I don't think politics should be a career, and I don't think that only lawyers or people who go into politics should be elected. Personally, I think some career politicians cause major problem as they tend to start acting in their own self interest rather than for those that elect them.
In my opinion, elected office is a public service, not a career. People in government are paid not for the job that they do, but rather to allow people from any circumstance (not just rich) to serve in government. If it was a career and pay was meant to be fair compensation, the president of the united states is the most underpaid occupation ever.
I would love for you to expound on your comments.
I will get around to posting my thoughts on the chapter later, but wanted to respond to peter as I thought the topic was interesting.
Mark wrote: "Peter wrote: "...2) His insistence that he was an actor, not a politician - to me, this is insidious. It's one of the major problems with politics today. It's not viewed as a serious profession. Re..."Hi Mark
Your comments are interesting but not really pertinent to the book
That being said I think that the citizen patriot politician will not be able to exist ever again unless we come to publicly, evenly funded election campaigns.
Also I think that some of the responsibilities of government are so sophisticated and complicated that maybe we need people with experience in that area.
One of my "political heros" comes to mind - Mario Cuomo - just recently died. His experience was critical to his getting the job done in a time of less corporate money.
Bill Clinton also showed how his cumulative experience enabled him to succeed in his presidency (except the the Monica problem). Try his book and you will see.
Bill Clinton
Mod
Be careful of spoilers Kressel and mentioning what comes up later.
message 22:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Jan 05, 2015 09:19PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Peter I agree with you especially about number 2 - the jury is out as far as I am concerned if he was a horrid man or not - just cannot be sure - he was quite enigmatic.
Mod
Yes, I am amazed sometimes how conservative my parents really were and my father still is. Yet my father is so generous and liberal in many respects. Hard to fathom sometimes.
Mod
Glad you like it Steve. It has stimulated great discussions.
message 25:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Jan 05, 2015 09:23PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
..."
Vince what do you remember about the Young Republicans - their origin and how they operated.
Mod
This chapter reminds me of a lot.
First I have the memory of the force and enthusiasm of the Young Republicans – the grou..."
Vince about the last part about Reagan and fantasies - I think that is a good question to pose of Darman on the Q&A thread.
Mod
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 out of voters i..."Kressel, I had a similar thought when the book was talking about Reagan's days as a Democrat and it talked about him being against big business. How can you be against big business but work as an actor in one of the biggest businesses in the country?
Steve wrote: "Ann wrote: "This was a fascinating chapter. The author writes how Reagan tuned into the "rage" that groups like theYoung Republicans of California felt. I believe "rage" is the correct term because..."Steve and Ann, added to this I think in building this rage was that (as I understood the author to be saying) if the government is paying something for you; social security, medicare, welfare, etc. Then you are somehow enslaved by that government because you now owe it a debt. Or are at risk of becoming too dependent. This is how I understood the thought process here.
One quote that hit me in my reading of the chapter is as follows: "He (Reagan) wanted to look at his audience, but he did not want to much detail. Seeing their faces was not important." [on my Kindle this is at 2239, not sure about page number in the hard copy].This caused me to question how this conclusion was drawn. Did Reagan say at some point that seeing faces in the audience was not important to him? Was it something Nancy or a biographer said? Perhaps it was a conclusion of the media?
The quote has just caused me to wonder how the conclusion was drawn. [I will also post to the Q/A]
Ann wrote: "This was a fascinating chapter. The author writes how Reagan tuned into the "rage" that groups like theYoung Republicans of California felt. I believe "rage" is the correct term because I still hea..."When the California Republican primary voters were polled, their top three issues were: "federal spending, Cuba, and Soviet espionage."
In terms of the first issue, the top federal tax rate was 91% in 1963, and Kennedy couldn't get a tax cut through Congress. Johnson passed the Revenue Act of 1964 on 2/26/64, cutting the top tax rate from 91% to 70%. Imagine what Republicans would think of a current Republican Congressman who didn't vote to lower the income tax from 91%!
As for Cuba and Soviet espionage, I guess if you really think the world is going to be imminently taken over by the Commies, maybe you get a little worried that no one else seems to be worried about it as you. (They probably thought of them like we would think of global warming deniers.) That could certainly invoke "rage," even if it turned out to be misplaced.
Michael wrote: "I had a similar thought when the book was talking about Reagan's days as a Democrat and it talked about him being against big business."I don't remember that point at all. I guess I'll look again.
In reading this chapter, it reminded me of how strange I find it that certain politicians will change their political party. So often, it's not tied as much from a ideological change as much as an opportunistic one. I've seen it happen in my state many times as being on the left of the isle here doesn't win a lot of elections. I guess I just don't think I could switch so completely over just to win an election. Maybe Reagan really did always relate to the right however and the change was more philosophical than opportunistic.
Kressel wrote: "Michael wrote: "I had a similar thought when the book was talking about Reagan's days as a Democrat and it talked about him being against big business."I don't remember that point at all. I guess..."
Kressel, I think where I got this was from the quote: "In the 1940's in Hollywood, he was a committed New Deal Democrat, a liberal who used his celebrity to point out the corrupt practices of big business and the mortal threat that moneyed interests posed to the forgotten man.[On my Kindle this is location 2433, sorry I cannot give a page number]
Mod
I think he was the type of person who switched horses in mid stream - maybe he was courted more by the Republican party and so he simply changed his message as one changes a script.
message 36:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Jan 06, 2015 09:15AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Social Security for one thing is money you pay into - so I do not buy that - and if politicians did not divert money from social security it would be solvent. So I do not feel that way about social programs which help folks like medicare or social security - they are the life blood for our parents and grandparents. But as you suggest and posted - I agree that this is probably how Ronald Reagan felt.
Mod
To me that implies a dehumanization of the connection process which we thought that Reagan was good at. It was unimportant that these were real people with real lives and problems. To Reagan it was unimportant who any of these folks were or what they faced. I hate to say this but it implies a very narcissistic attitude.
Mod
I very much agree with you David. Reagan I believe saw an opportunity so it was very easy for him to change his script.
Michael wrote: ""In the 1940's in Hollywood, he was a committed New Deal Democrat, a liberal who used his celebrity to point out the corrupt practices of big business and the mortal threat that moneyed interests posed to the forgotten man."Taking the position that big business can be corrupt is not the same as being anti-business. It's being anti-corruption and possibly pro-reform.
I believe Reagan's change was ideological. People change their minds over time. Even us.
Mod
I think the 1950s and 60s were a time when the parties were realigning so quickly that it would be shocking for a person to vote for the same party in every election. If your main issue was race relations, just look at the vote totals in Mississppi from 1948 to 1972 as the state swung wildly from party to party trying to find the most racist option. (in 1960, unhappy with the racism of both Kennedy and Nixon, they gave their votes to not-yet-reformed KKK member Robert Byrd, who wasn't even running.) if you cared most about the Communist threat, you'd swing the other way.
David wrote: "In reading this chapter, it reminded me of how strange I find it that certain politicians will change their political party. So often, it's not tied as much from a ideological change as much as an..."David, I have been living and working in Canada for a number of years now so having grown up in the US I have seen the two systems at work. It is fairly common under Parliamentary systems for elected members to "cross the floor." It happens at the Federal and Provincial levels. I think it is likely less common in a two party system. In the Canadian system a switch is sometimes strategic, sometimes it is because their constituency demographic has shifted, and sometimes it is because the party will not let an MP or MLA vote their conscience which is problematic if they are trying to follow the wishes of the constituency.
I suppose the corollary to my belief that people change their minds and reinvent themselves all the time is that nobody can ever convince anyone else to change his/her mind, especially in a debate.
The section from the chapter in which Ron and Nancy explicitly accuse RFK of "counter programming" to blunt the impact of his speeches makes me wonder how much of the anti-Communism of the Right was a form of extreme conspiracy theory, among both the gullible followers, and those who are so smart that they can connect the dots even when they don't actually connect. (You can debate which category Reagan falls into!)Certainly everyone in the John Birch Society falls into that category, but maybe a large chunk of the Goldwater Wing too.
It seems logical to me that if you tend to find Vast Conspiracies everywhere, you'd be more likely to join the part that sees Big Government as a problem.
You make some good points, Kressel. Communist containment would never work for an idealist Ronald Reagan, and this is what Truman (even Eisenhower) would offer. As Matthew suggests, the parties were different (large umbrellas of liberals to conservatives in each party) and shifting during the Depression through the 1960s. Maybe because he was actor, he could be more comfortable in change....thinking out loud.
Kressel wrote: "Michael wrote: ""In the 1940's in Hollywood, he was a committed New Deal Democrat, a liberal who used his celebrity to point out the corrupt practices of big business and the mortal threat that mon..."I think you are right as I rethink this with your comment in mind I may have read more into the quote than was intended.
message 48:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Jan 06, 2015 11:39AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
by...”Kressel - we do have a bibliography for these kind of adds. Could you delete this here and add it there. I agree that folks change their minds but 99.9% of the time when they change their mind they are not extemists moving from one end of the pendulum to another. I think that Reagan was the great imposter. Folks thought he was one way but he was another and he played the role of president well and that was probably his finest role. I think he should have gotten an Academy Award for that part and you have to hand it to him he knew what he had to do to get to that position and provide for his family and he accomplished it. How many actors can become president? He was the one who did and he is revered by many - some who think that he was one of the finest presidents that we have had. I personally do not share that view but there have been worst presidents than Reagan so he is to be admired for what he did accomplish.
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 America.
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..."
Although not actors, I can think of Sonny Bono, singer, and Jesse Ventura, professional wrestler. And Shirley Temple Black.
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...
For the week of January 5th - January 11th, we are reading Chapter Five of Landslide
The sixth week's reading assignment is:
Week Six - January 5th - January 11th
Chapter Five: B Movie (pages 123-159)
We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.
This book is being kicked off on December 1st.
We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, local bookstore or on your Kindle. Make sure to pre-order now if you haven't already. This weekly thread will be opened up January 5th
There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.
Bentley will be leading this discussion and back-up will be Assisting Moderators Kathy, Jill, Bryan, and Jerome.
Welcome,
~Jerome
TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL
REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.
Notes:
It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.
Citations:
If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.
If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Also the citation thread:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Introduction Thread:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Table of Contents and Syllabus
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Glossary
Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Bibliography
There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author used in his research or in his notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc with proper citations. No self promotion, please. We will be adding to this thread as we read along.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts - SPOILER THREAD
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Directions on how to participate in a book offer and how to follow the t's and c's - Landslide - What Do I Do Next?
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...