The History Book Club discussion

Hello Everyone,

For the week of January 12th - January 18th, we are reading Chapter Six of Landslide

The seventh week's reading assignment is:

Week Seven - January 12th - January 18th
Chapter Six: Everybody's Scared (pages 159-192)

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 12th

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

by Jonathan Darman (no photo)

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/...

by Jonathan Darman (no photo)

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/...

All, we do not have to do citations regarding the book or the author being discussed during the book discussion on these discussion threads - nor do we have to cite any personage in the book being discussed while on the discussion threads related to this book.

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.

Hello Everyone,

For the week of January 12th-January 18th, we are reading Chapter Six of Landslide

The seventh week’s reading assignment is:

Week Seven-January 12-January 18
Chapter Six-Everybody’s Scared-pages 159 to 192

Chapter Overview and Summary

Chapter Six: Everybody’s Scared

Three civil rights activists disappear in Mississippi the week before President Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act into law. Barry Goldwater votes against the bill and harms his own career through his famous self-proclaimed radicalism. Race riots erupt in New York. Robert Kennedy’s presidential ambitions drive Johnson to distraction. The Gulf of Tonkin incident leads Johnson to initiate military action against North Vietnam, despite his previous attempts to avoid drawing attention to America’s commitment to South Vietnam. Even Goldwater applauds Johnson’s actions. Johnson attends the Democratic Convention and agonizes over his own political future.

I really liked this chapter. I’m learning so much about Johnson. I think he really was an under-rated President considering all the civil rights problems at home and how he made things happen in Congress. And I think Reagan was over-rated and shallow in many ways, like not wanting to wear glasses and not wanting to see clearly. The GOP was trying to create a problem of scaring the public about communism and radicalism when they should have been more concerned about the civil-rights problems and problems at home and not trying to eliminate social security. The disappearance of the 3 civil rights activists was a case in point and it was so sad that this happened a week before the bill was signed into law.

After having read the first 5 chapters, I was surprised to read that Johnson was scared and debating about not running for president in 1964. With Kennedy and Johnson at odds, it just added to the dilemma. LadyBird came to the rescue and told him he could do it. LadyBird was such a strong and positive force.

Yes she was Helga - great post

Over the Christmas break I watched Thirteen Days (Cuban missile crisis) again. I am not sure how accurate the movie is but I was struck by how Kennedy seems to have his hands full trying to keep the military leadership from getting out too far ahead of diplomacy in the situation. Then I read this chapter and it struck me that this may be exactly what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin. Since when do the captains of US destroyers go weapons hot because they have a "feeling" that something is happening? There had to have been pressure from higher up. In need to read about the later investigation into the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. I was a babe anyone remember how it was reported at the time?

I think that was fairly accurate after listening to the tapes at the JFK library very recently after Thanksgiving

I agree, Michael that we are missing part of the picture. I thought I had read that the military decision had been made and that the U.S. was looking for a pretext to attack.

The decision to get involved more militarily did not seem to have caused any controversy - at least at this point. As Darman points out, the Democrats had to be careful to appear that they were "strong" in the area of national defense. People had not forgotten how Truman and the Democrats had "lost" China. (Of course, the Chinese Nationalists lost China, but that was beside the point.)

Helga,
I too was surprised the Johnson was running scared before the convention and even thinking about dropping out. He was a man of deep insecurities.

This insecurity made me think a little about Richard Nixon.

I don't know. I think it's smart to be scared of the enormity of responsibility that is the presidency.

I think that Bobby felt guilty as well as grief striken and could not handle the loss of his brother - he had already lost other members of his family and I think the grief became cumulative and probably LBJ or anybody in his brother's spot would have felt the wrath.

I am not sure why you say that Darman is writing conclusions as facts. I really wonder if it was not simply the military folks just ready for action. Kennedy had to hold them back on Cuba during the missile crisis.

Bentley wrote: "I think that Bobby felt guilty as well as grief striken and could not handle the loss of his brother - he had already lost other members of his family and I think the grief became cumulative and pr..."

Yes, I am sure he did; but he is an adult and our author seems to portrays him as a spoiled child.

Yes he does and he might have been that too.

try again

I share first my thoughts and observations on this chapter before I read the comments of any other fellow travelers on this read.

First I would say that everybody seems to include LBJ as much as the Freedom Marchers by the time I get to the end of this chapter.

The moving from the Freedom Marchers to Washington conveys the distance between the actors in the story – and by locale their safety too I guess.

RFK is a big character here – pg 168 para 2 – his unwillingness to be part of, participate in, the sighing of the Civil Rights Ace - not standing showing other reluctance as if any recognition of LBJ as president declines the inertia of the JFK Whitehouse/presidency.

Also reading I wonder if Landslide by LBJ is in the end an accurate description of this election of maybe Tsunami for Goldwater is a more accurate name/title.

Pg 176 para 2 – that Johnson thought that Goldwater wanted to use the race riots as a negative for LBJ seems to have a bit paranoid. The last paragraph on this page makes me wonder if the question is the election or LBJ’s ego.

I come more and more to the conclusion (pg 178 para 2) that LBJ was unable to reconcile with RFK because RFK was immersed in grief and RFD still saw this as JFK’s term.

Also, pg 179, how deeply are we into Roman Catholicism when RFK says “I’m sure Jack liked it” about a piece written as if JFK was sitting in Heaven watching. Maybe there is heaven and one can be there forever but I think, this is personal, if the Roman Catholic rules work JFK would still have some time in purgatory (thinking of Marilyn and others).

Also the reading of the classics by RFK (why did I never have or take the time for that?) is very interesting and now I have added to my reading/bucket list- the Greek Way by Edith Hamilton (already downloaded a sample to my Kindle for my upcoming vacation).

Also I look at RFK, pgs 180/181 and his possible hope for the vice presidency. (who is this book about?) – I absolutely believe he would have wanted it – it would have, in my view, made the victory of LBJ into a second term for JFK and LBJ had to not allow that. (Being an only child I guess no one will ever be MY BROTHER that way.)

But on pg 184 para 1 why did LBJ tell the press he had “stopped” RFK – was the man really so insecure? - Did he so lack “class”?

On Pg 186 para 2 are we really to believe the bombing following the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which led us to be so deeply into this “war”, was mostly so the Democrats would not look weak? He did not even need someone else initiating the possibility of “weapons of mass destruction” or something like that.

Pg 191 para 2 – did LBJ really have such lapses in self-confidence? Mr. Darman says, “if his aides had listened….” So I am curious what real documentation exists for these possible failures of self-confidence of LBJ.

Pg 192 para 2 – “Eventually he made the right one” (decision) – I see this as real editorializing on the part of the author.

I think Mr. Darman has done a really good job but I think that often he is writing conclusions as facts.

I will look at his thread and see if there are any comments about this. I generally avoid anything with the possibility of spoilers – I am selfish that way.

Edith Hamilton

This has been my favorite chapter so far. Darman continues to delve into LBJ, Lady Bird, Bobby Kennedy, other key Republicans and Democrats and his understanding and perspectives are reflective and very insightful. The chapter title "Everybody's Scared" does a good job of capturing the tenor of the 60s which, in my view, was charged and at times, explosive.

I agree that LBJs running scarred or fear may have been for the enormity of the task - as Kressel indicates - and on the other hand was likely fueled by his, ever present, fear of failure. As with other readers I have cringed at some instances of how LBJ mistreated Lady Bird. In this chapter, her character, strength and iron will are trumpeted. (pg 192) "To step out now would be wrong for your country."

I certainly gained an interesting perspective on Goldwater and the state of the Republican Party. (pg 172) His image of the land was marked by "violence in our streets, corruption in our highest offices...anxiety among our elders." His messaging resonated with the core Republicans and accelerated the "everybody's scarred theme.

Passage of the Civil Rights Legislation and the general Cicil Rights movement fostered other fears such as fear for the personal safety of activists, "rioting in my white neighborhood or taking away jobs.

Finally, Vietnam and the specter of communism. I can hardly wait for more on this subject as it seems that for many this was the true unraveling of LBJs greatness.

I am curious about how other members saw the presentation of LBJ's fear in this chapter? I read it as almost an obsession or a monkey on his back? Darman does make a comment at one point that this was his way of protecting himself if things went against him. If he didn't win the election; "well I didn't want to be president anyway." So was it just self protection or was it a real set of fears? I do not remember LBJ other than historical video I have seen what was the public presentation? Did he ever let this fear out in the interviews or speeches?

I have a lot of respect for Lady Bird in those moments of unrelenting support for her husband. How many of us have been in some dark corner, filled with stress and our spouse or a close significant friend had our backs? I like that this was included in the book because I think we all need that person at least one time in life.

When I read about the terrorists of Philadelphia, Mississippi in a book about Reagan (even if in the context of an LBJ chapter), I cannot help but wonder how a candidate like Reagan who supported Birchers, Goldwater (one of the few anti-Civil Rights Act Republicans, we are told in this Chapter), and who launched his candidacy for President in Philadelphia, Mississippi itself, could have ever gotten any significant number of votes from any latitude north of the Mason Dixon line.

The economy.

For the presidency, that's true. And the hostage crisis. But for the governorship, his actor's ability to make Goldwater's message more appealing to people, set against the violent backlash we're reading about in this chapter.

A very interesting chapter. I'm struck by how much a manic-depressive LBJ was. How different things would have been if he had quit right there at the convention.

Regarding Goldwater's possition on Civil Rights:

Darman reports that Goldwater thought his refusal to support the Civil Rights Bill was the "honorable" thing to do. He was convinced that "it constituted usurpation of state powers by the federal government." P. 169

Of course, politicians often claim they reject federal programs because the issue belongs under state jurisdiction:for example, Romney's rejection of the Affordable Care Act (in large part based on the program he supported in Massachusetts), opposition to gay marriage, support for pro-choice, government involvement in educational standards, etc., etc. In some cases, it is just a dodge, and in others, they have valid points.

However - it is very difficult for me to understand how support for civil rights would not be considered national issue!

While the Civil Rights Act is clearly a valuable and important law, it is equally obviously a huge extra soon of federal power beyond where it had gone prior to 1964. The Civil Rights Act is permitted under the Interstate Commerce Clause, and it says that any restaurant off any rural route in rural Alabama must serve black people because someone traveling through town on interstate business might stop by.

This is absolutely true, but it completely eviscerates any limitations that federal law only covers things involving "interstate commerce," because now everything involves interstate commerce. I say "Fine," but if you are concerned about federal overreach, it is hard to see how you can allow the Civil Right Act, but still allow areas that only the states can legislate in.

I found the part interesting about Goldwater more or less sinking his election chances by saying that being an extremist on certain issues is OK. So similar to what we see today yet some never learn that this kind of a position is way too polarizing in a country that is as a whole, is moderate.

Michael wrote: "I am curious about how other members saw the presentation of LBJ's fear in this chapter? I read it as almost an obsession or a monkey on his back? Darman does make a comment at one point that thi..."

Good question, I don't know exactly, either, but I agree with Ann, Nixon came to mind. LBJ seems to have some deep insecurities and I think he was obsessed with his image....like Nixon.

Matthew wrote: "but if you are concerned about federal overreach, it is hard to see how you can allow the Civil Right Act, but still allow areas that only the states can legislate in."

Ah. So that's the logic of the opposition. But actually, the Supreme Court ruled that discriminatory practices violated the 14th Amendment back in the 1880's with a little-known case called Yick Wo v. Hopkins, in which a Chinese laundry owner brought a case because he was made to pay an extra high licensing fee.

Yick Wo v Hopkins dealt with governmental discrimination. The government had to be fair with laundry permits. But no one was requiring YOU to act differently. You were still free to drive 10 miles out of your way to find a laundry run by white people. The Civil Rights a Act took what had just applied to governments and suddenly made it apply to everyone.

It is still playing out, in different forms, with the baker who doesn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding. Or the Hobby Store whose owners oppose birth control insurance. These are people who want to run businesses, but don't want to have to give up their (possibly offensive) beliefs to do so.

It's true that it was governmental discrimination because it was the San Francisco government charging the extra fees, but we're still free to drive miles out of our way to find a store run by white people. The Civil Rights Act affects the store owner, not the customer.

Yes, but there isn't a legal distinction between buying and selling. If I'm a racist business owner, telling me whom I must sell to can be more of an imposition.

If you would object to a law as too intrusive if it prohibited racism in where you shop (or who you socialize with, or who you hire as a babysitter), then your disagreement with Goldwater is not about principal, but just about where to draw the line.

I found that the descriptive writing in this chapter was stepped up a bit. This dove every deep into LBJ's psyche; he sounded like he had some depression issues. Using food as a crutch...making up conspiracies that don't exist...letting things that were under control consume him. Lady Bird's support was vital to him.

Part of Goldwater's quote on pg 170, "...He's the phoniest individual who ever came around", stuck with me. I wonder if his paranoia and insecurity was derived from having this exact same thought about himself at times.

A faked attack and false information leading to US military involvement. Sounds very familiar over the past 15 years or so.

It is interesting, isn't it, Cary? I keep going back to his past, and LBJ's dad lost everything. He was a prominent politician and fell into ruin. This could have started some deep anxiety in LBJ and there are many ways it manifests itself.

Actually, I agree with the Civil Rights Act. I just wanted to understand Goldwater's legal objections to it.

Kressel wrote: "Actually, I agree with the Civil Rights Act. I just wanted to understand Goldwater's legal objections to it."

I thought he claimed that his objection was that it was a federal law that overstepped State's rights to make laws?

I visited Johnson's boyhood home in Johnson City, Texas last year. The guide seemed to be very knowledgeable, but when I asked him about the financial downfall of Johnson's father, he didn't want to discuss it, only saying that the father had several ups and downs in his financial life.

The house itself was nice and the tour was interesting. As a boy LBJ heard many political discussions.

The basic structure of American law is that the Federal government is Supreme but Limited -- when it passes a law, it trumps a conflicting state law, but it is only allowed to legislate in the narrow areas permitted by the Constitution. State laws are general -- they can be about anything, as long as the Constitution doesn't prohibit it -- but they can be trumped by a permitted Federal law. Generally, Federal Laws should be limited to things that are Federal in scope.

Goldwater's objection was that actions by private companies that are not intimately involved in interstate commerce (like a restaurant in Birmingham Alabama where 99% of the clientele is Alabaman) are not the proper subject for Federal laws. Because if the federal laws can apply to everything, and they are also Supreme, then what limits on federal power is left?

It is a legalistic argument that may be plausible, but very few people actually hold -- the vast majority support or oppose the Civil Right Act based on their personal views on black people -- not any theoretical balance of power reason.

This is an interesting discussion - states rights vs. those of the federal government - which has gone on throughout our history. I can't think of any modern industrialized country where the states/provinces have so much power, but maybe I am just ignorant.

Ann you wrote: "I can't think of any modern industrialized country where the states/provinces have so much power, but maybe I am just ignorant."

While I am a US citizen I do live and work in Canada. Canada is a Confederation of Provinces that have very strong rights and, in fact, at times exercise those rights to tell Ottawa that they just are not going to do things the way the Federal government wants them done. The Federal government is not without teeth but the provinces have a lot of power to self-govern.

Yeah. I don't know where Mississippi's autonomy ranks alongside Montreal, Scotland, and the Basque Region in Spain. It only becomes relevant when they want to use their autonomy to do dumb stuff. That's when you hear about Mississippi.

Of course, everyone switched sides when it's States Rights to have assisted suicide in Oregon and universal healthcare in Massachusetts or any other liberal policy.

Thanks for the information on Canada, Michael.

Mathew, I would put Scotland and the Basque regions in a different category then U.S. states. They have different cultures and different historical languages.

How serious were LBJ's 2nd thoughts about accepting the nomination? I was shocked to read about that, and then quickly jumped to the conclusion that he was just dealing with some mild insecurity and needed his ego stroked a bit. Things had gone so smoothly for him up to that point. Possibly turning the government/country over to his political nemesis at such a critical moment?

Matthew wrote: "Yeah. I don't know where Mississippi's autonomy ranks alongside Montreal, Scotland, and the Basque Region in Spain. It only becomes relevant when they want to use their autonomy to do dumb stuff. T..."

Montreal is different and one really means Quebec and they are empowered by their hydro electric generating which has led to a strong industrial sector - and their calls for independence really intensified after Charles DeGaulle visited and said, loudly, "Viva" or "Libre" I forgot "Quebec"

The other realprovince in Canada, I think that talks about "independence" is Alberta - similar to Texas sometimes - with strong petroleum and hydro-carbons to offer them a road to independence.

In a way ditto for Scotland who, until the recent DROP in oil prices made them think their North Sea crude was empowering. How they could, if needed, defend their shoreline without the Brits would however be hared to imagine.

The Basque region is culturally different but the real question in Spain, I think, is Catalonia which has the industrial strength and fiscal viability.

Anyway when I was a teenager working in a restaurant the fact that I unloaded trucks coming across a state line made me entitled to the Federal minimum wage.

If the definitions of Federal powers had not been further defined and therefore expanded as our country grew and the world became more modern we would not have succeeded as well as we have.

But I think that both LBJ & RR were realists about that but using it could influence the real world for Americans

But I thnk this is far off track from the idea of "Landslide"

Steve wrote: "How serious were LBJ's 2nd thoughts about accepting the nomination? I was shocked to read about that, and then quickly jumped to the conclusion that he was just dealing with some mild insecurity a..."

Perhaps he knew that Lady Bird would "come to his rescue"... I think he definitely needed his ego stroked! And as to why Lady Bird would encourage him to try to stay in the White House, perhaps he was less abusive to her when he had so much else to occupy his mind.

Kressel wrote: "I don't know. I think it's smart to be scared of the enormity of responsibility that is the presidency."

I agree. Seems that many of our most powerful presidents (Lincoln, for example) had moments of extreme insecurity; but that helped to make them the "great" ones. I imagine that to take on the responsibility of the presidency means that you have to be a little crazy, anyway...

Good comments all.

I was at Paramount Studios a couple of weeks ago and they had great hopes for the movie Selma which is a movie right up our alley in terms of subject matter and presidents (LBJ).

However though it was nominated for an Oscar - it did not receive nominations in many categories - in fact this article seems to blame the LBJ supporters and camp for that.

What went wrong with the Oscar hopes for ‘Selma’?

Topic Discussion:

Read the article below and let us know whether you agree with the moviemakers or with the LBJ supporters. Interesting views and situation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/s...

Source: The Washington Post

Interesting article, Bentley. I haven't yet seen the movie, but is on my list of ones to take the time to view.

After reading the article, it just shows one more time how ugly things can be behind the scenes of the Oscar nominating process. A whispering campaign, as the Post called it is very possible and that can kill any nominations for a film. It wouldn't be the first time that has happened. Some great films have missed out because of dirty dealings in the background.

But as much as I would like to say that the film was sabotaged since it should have received at least 4 more nominations, it may just come down to the fact of the lateness of release which did not give much time for viewing by the voters.

This was discussed on several talk shows today also. The topic of LBJ being portrayed in a negative way was talked about on a news program I watched and a few brief discussion between LBJ and King were played. As the article hinted at, I hope the lack of nominations is due to late release rather than racial reasons or retribution for the bad-guy portrayal of LBJ.

The Hollywood narrative needs bad guys. That's what attracted Reagan to the anti-Communist right, and that's why LBJ has been made into a villain.

Other Topics for Discussion:

Are you a purist when it comes to movies about historical events or do you expect the writers to revamp the facts to suit the screenwriter and producer?

Do you think that the movie Selma based upon what you read in the article and what you know about LBJ from Landslide and other books painted the President in an unfavorable light and should it have done that if you feel that this was the case?

The problem that we can see here is that many young people learn history from the movies and will take away from this movie some of the story line and portrayals as being the gospel truth. If it is in the movies - it must be so. (lol)

Should the movie have been solely judged on the movie itself, the acting, directing, cinematography, etc. or do the LBJ folks have a point that the film purposely distorts the truth.

It is tough when a movie is hurt by a "whispering campaign" or is sabotaged. I do have to agree that it would have been better to have been released sooner. It just made the cut. Has anybody seen Selma yet?

Michael wrote: "Over the Christmas break I watched Thirteen Days (Cuban missile crisis) again. I am not sure how accurate the movie is but I was struck by how Kennedy seems to have his hands full trying to keep t..."

That has always amazed me too. I was only 9, so I wasn't exactly following the news at the time, but when I was in high school, it seemed to be pretty well accepted that there was a desire to cook up some excuse to go to war. I still can't believe that the commander "sensed" that they were being attacked. Two modern warships equipped with radar and other equipment - they can't KNOW whether they're being attacked? Sheesh!

This was an interesting chapter - although I very much agree with Bentley's comments about the author editorializing. It's not necessarily a bad thing. It's only bad if the book is presented as pure history or news reporting. Looking back, I would say that I expected more objectivity, but I can't say that it was promised anywhere.

The big surprise for me in this chapter, as it apparently was for others in this group, was the fact that LBJ seemed to be seriously considering not running for President in 1964. I had no idea of that. I do recall that many were surprised that he chose not to run in 1968 - but if he was so close to walking away in 1964 when things were downright rosy in comparison, it makes that decision in 1968 seem to be a no-brainer.