Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

*SPOILER THREAD
Random House will be providing us with a wonderful opportunity to chat with the author of the book Landslide: Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, and the Dawn of a New America which will be kicked off on or around September 8, 2014.

Jonathan Darman will be dropping in periodically to answer any and all of your questions regarding his book.

Please begin posting your questions for the author on this thread as soon as the thread is opened up.

Thank you and I hope you will you enjoy this special author experience here at the History Book Club. In the future, we will be opening up the offer.

Those of you who would also like to participate in the upcoming discussion can purchase a book from your local or online bookstore if you are not fortunate to participate in the free book offer to a selected few.

You can also preorder the book now and/or for download.

Regards,

Bentley

by Jonathan Darman

I have opened up the Q&A thread so feel free to start posting questions for Jonathan.

All, Jonathan Darman should be joining us for this discussion so please in advance begin asking questions concerning the book Landslide here on this thread. Here is an example of the format: (you do not have to add the citation for this book because it is being discussed)

by Jonathan Darman (no photo)

Question: - Here is where you would type your question. Make sure that your question stands out in your post so it is easy for Jonathan Darman to spot the question and answer quickly without wasting any time. We look forward to Jonathan being with us and we want to make the experience enjoyable for him too. This is a wonderful opportunity and we want to thank our friends at Random House for their generosity. Bold the word question followed by a colon and then type your question.

You can start posting questions for Jonathan following the prescribed format. Be advised that the discussion will not begin until December 1st. We are hoping that the books arrive in time but we will build into our reading assignments any notion of a delay.

==============================

Welcome Jonathan Darmon to the discussion and the Q&A thread - the discussion will not begin until December 1st but feel free to answer and respond to any questions that are posted in advance. We look forward to your interaction with the group.

Question:

When I think of LBJ - I think of a Master Politician who knew how to get things done and who viewed politics in many ways as his destiny and when I think of Reagan - I see an actor who was having a tough time finding a leading role and work and saw politics as an alternative. He knew how to work the camera, tell a joke or give a memorized speech with aplomb much like he had talent in remembering a script. Both of these men left their imprint on America. And of course we know how LBJ first inherited the Presidency after a most terrible event.

But what did you discover made these men tick in terms of the presidency? What did each man want to get out of that office and what motivated them to aspire to be President?

Welcome Jonathan, thank you for taking the time to join us.

Question: I noticed in your sources, you used quite a bit of oral history. What importance, if any, do you place oral history and how helpful was this in your research?

Great question Bryan.

Welcome Jonathan,

I look forward to reading this book. I find LBJ one of the most fascinating presidents.

From reading Robert Caro's series on LBJ, and, in particular the third and fourth volumes:

and both by Robert A. Caro

I got the feeling that Johnson was moved by two prime drives: For power and justice and that he needed to get the power in order to render justice.

Questions
1. Do you think this is an accurate view of Johnson?
2. What forces (if any) moved Reagan?

Welcome Jonathan, your book is well written. Your research, documentation and presentation in LANDSLIDE are exemplary. Thank you very much for joining us and thank you in advance for your answers.

QUESTION: On page xxvii of the Prologue, you mention that Johnson and Reagan had a great many similarities: they were born three years apart, the same events shaped them (the Depression and WW2), both men idolized FDR. Yet, in the early 1950s, Johnson became more politically progressive while Reagan began to play with right wing politics. How much influence do you believe Nancy Davis played in Reagan's political change? (This may be addressed later in your book.)

Thank you Jonathan for this chance to read your book. I do I apologize this is my first discussion in this group and in a book club in general. I have several questions.

Question: In the Prologue you mention you used the audio tapes that Johnson made while in office. Did you listen to the actual audio tapes? Or did you use the transcripts? Or both? If you listen to the actual audio tapes were they in good shape or did they have parts that were hard to hear?

The reason I ask is a book on Richard Nixon the author had trouble with parts of the audio tapes. Though he did say the portions that were digital were very good and you could hear things that you previously could not.

By John W. Dean

Jonathan, thank you for the opportunity to discuss your book. I am looking forward to reading the book. I've only finished the Prologue and Chapter One.

My question is about Lyndon Johnson moving into the White House after the Kennedy assassination. The hatred between Bobby Kennedy and Johnson is well documented and I am sure Bobby hated to see Johnson in the White House.

I couldn't help thinking that a lot of the problem was the lack of knowledge and communication between Johnson and his staff. I would have thought they would have been in contact with the White House staff and discussing the transition. Was the lack of communication due in part to the way Lyndon treated the people that worked for him?

Christopher wrote: "Did you listen to the actual audio tapes? Or did you use the transcripts? Or both? If you listen to the actual audio tapes were they in good shape or did they have parts that were hard to hear?..."

I am interested in what Jonathan has to say, but I can help with your question.

So, the Miller Center that he cites might amplify (make the audio louder) in parts to help, but they don't do anything beyond that. Why are they bad in parts? The recorder usually is under a desk, so the sound is bad, and the tapes degrade over time.

Bryan wrote: "Christopher wrote: "Did you listen to the actual audio tapes? Or did you use the transcripts? Or both? If you listen to the actual audio tapes were they in good shape or did they have parts that we..."

I know the Nixon Library who handles all the audio from President Nixon's tapes did just that and also they made the audio digital. I know they did this so the audio will be there for futures generations. Though John W. Dean does state in the prologue of the book that even that sometimes did not help the audio. I was curious if they made LBJ's audio tapes digital and if he experienced the same problems Dean ran into with his book. Though with Dean he had a first hand account on some of the audio because he was present.

by John W. Dean

Christopher, I know the Miller Center is working its way through the Johnson tapes:



Oh, don't forget to add your author link on the book:

by John W. Dean

Bryan wrote: "Christopher, I know the Miller Center is working its way through the Johnson tapes:



Oh, don't forget to add your author link on the book:

Sorry about that. I fixed and thank you for pointing it out. Also thank you for the link to the recordings I booked marked it and I will listen to them.

Question

How did being a correspondent for Newsweek help you to prepare for writing a book. What skills were transferable and what new skills did you need to learn?

You have referenced Lady Bird as being extremely influential and helpful to LBJ.

Question:
In what ways do you think she influenced LBJ? And was LBJ appreciative of all that she did for him?

Hi Johnathan.

Question:
How did you come about writing about these two very different individuals that affected our country in very different ways?

Hello Jonathan,

Question:

Some of the group members feel that you were a little harsh on Jane Wyman in Chapter Two - do you feel that you were in retrospect? All reports seem to point to Wyman as wanting the divorce and Reagan being devastated by it. What were the reasons for the split - was it the political leanings of Reagan, the death of the child or was Wyman just not one for a long term marriage?

I am really enjoying your book, Jonathan.

On p. 44, in discussing unfavorable press reports of Nancy Reagan's habit of staring transfixed at her husband, you say: "The critique was unfair: the frozen public stare masked one of modern politics' savviest thinkers.'

Question:


I am not used to thinking of Nancy as savvy. Can you give us some examples?

Bentley wrote: "Hello Jonathan,

Question:

Some of the group members feel that you were a little harsh on Jane Wyman in Chapter Two - do you feel that you were in retrospect? All reports seem to point to Wyman ..."
m.
Hi Bentley, I certainly didn't intend to be harsh in my treatment of Jane Wyman! My main goal, in a brief treatment of their marriage, was to demonstrate how their opposite trajectories in Hollywood strardom (Jane on the upswing while RR was losing steam) put a strain on their relationship. In fact I have a great deal of respect for Wyman, who, even after her ex-husband became President of the United States, resisted demands to tell all about their marriage. The Reagan-Wymans were a young couple who were brought together in the unnatural setting of Hollywood and then subjected to a number of catastrophes (personal and professional) that would have challenged any couple. It's not surprising that their unioin didn't survive it all.

Ann wrote: "I am really enjoying your book, Jonathan.

On p. 44, in discussing unfavorable press reports of Nancy Reagan's habit of staring transfixed at her husband, you say: "The critique was unfair: the fro..."
Hi Ann,
Glad you're enjoying the book! I During her husband's presidency, Nancy Reagan established herself as a key guardian of her husband's public image and proved adept at sensing political and policy problems on the horizon. One of the things I came to understand about Reagan when researching Landslide was how good he was at understanding the limitations of his own abilities and interests and then delegating responsibility for those areas to to others. This is a hard thing for politicians to do -- they like the to be in control. It's one of the reasons Reagan was so successful as a political figure, he understood the hardest truth about politics, that nothing is ever totally controllable. Knowing that, he was able to rely on others, Nancy most of all. He let her handle a lot of unpleasant tasks -- dealing with personnel, policing loyalty, etc. -- from which he preferred to steer clear.

Jonathan wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Hello Jonathan,

Question:

Some of the group members feel that you were a little harsh on Jane Wyman in Chapter Two - do you feel that you were in retrospect? All reports seem to..."

Welcome Jonathan - we are delighted to have you with us and I appreciate your framing your discussion of Jane Wyman. I think she must have been a favorite of some of our readers (smile). As you correctly pointed out - Jane's star was rising and Reagan's at that time was not.

When you have an opportunity please respond to the questions that we have posted and we want you to know we appreciate the time that you are spending with us.

Questions will be added as folks are reading each chapter of your book.

Folks are really enjoying your book and there has been a lot of posting and discussion on many issues - please also feel free to participate in any of the threads dedicated to the book. We love having the input of the author and you can participate as much as you like.

You can pop in as you have time and the threads are available to post on 24x7.

Thank you very much. If you want to reach me personally - please feel free to PM me. Random House also has my email address.

Regards,

Bentley

Brian wrote: "Hi Johnathan.

Question:
How did you come about writing about these two very different individuals that affected our country in very different ways?"

Hi Brian, By accident, honestly. I set out to write a narrative of the thousand days after the Kennedy assassination, a period I felt was so critical in our country's history and period that is sometimes overshadowed by the events of the late sixties. I always knew that LBJ would be a major character -- in those thousand days he achieved so much of consequence (the two Civil Rights bills, the Great Society legislation) and also made the fateful decisions that committed the country to war in Vietnam. But I stumbled on Reagan -- I knew that his election as governor of California would be important, but I had no idea how rapid, and dramatic was his political rise. In three years time he went from underemployed actor to leader of a reinvigorated conservative movement. When I started digging into Reagan's story I realized that the story of that rise provided a compelling window on the way that American politics changed in those three years. That the quick reversal from LBJ's landslide in 1964 to Reagan's in 1966, demonstrates that even the most stunning political victories are fragile and fleeting. And I saw that int the shared stories of LBJ and Reagan -- the most consequential liberal and conservative presidents of the late twentieth century -- there were some compelling revelations about the nature of political leadership and political life.

Thank you Hunter - do you have any questions for Jonathan of the Q&A thread? I know that Jonathan appreciates meeting you. I will move your comments to the glossary thread - thank you.

Bentley wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Hello Jonathan,

Question:

Some of the group members feel that you were a little harsh on Jane Wyman in Chapter Two - do you feel that you were in retrospect? Al..."

Thanks, Bentley. I'm sorry I'm a little tardy but very glad to be here and excited to chat with everyone!

We are glad to have you - no worries (smile)

Bentley wrote: "You have referenced Lady Bird as being extremely influential and helpful to LBJ.

Question:
In what ways do you think she influenced LBJ? And was LBJ appreciative of all that she did for him?"

Coming to understand the complexity, and the power, of Lady Bird Johnson was one of the great pleasures of working on LANDSLIDE. As the book goes on, readers will see that at key moments, Lady Bird was one of the few people around LBJ who dared to tell him things he didn't necessarily want to hear and see things he didn't want to see. When you read other people's accounts of their relationship, and listen to some of their phone calls, LBJ can often seem ungrateful for all the tireless efforts his wife made on his behalf... in fact, "ungrateful" is too kind a word. But when you read Lady Bird's diary entries or oral histories and interviews, it's also clear that she had a strong sense of the indispensable role she played in her husband's life. And it's also clear that she knew that he appreciated it.

Jim wrote: "Jonathan, thank you for the opportunity to discuss your book. I am looking forward to reading the book. I've only finished the Prologue and Chapter One.

My question is about Lyndon Johnson moving ..."
Hi Jim, Maybe. But my own feeling is that it had more to do with the way that the Kennedy people treated both LBJ and his staff. Prior to JFK's assassination there was practically no communication between the president and vice president's staff. The Johnson people didn't know the Kennedy people, didn't know the differences in their tone and body language, didn't know to listen to what the Kennedy people said AND what they'd left unsaid. You need that kind of intimate knowledge -- not to mention a great deal of trust -- in order to work effectively alongside people in a moment of crisis. So it's not surprising that there was miscommunication and mistake in the extraordinary, unpredictable days after JFK's death.
That said, researching those days, I came to have a certain amount of sympathy for both the Kennedy and Johnson perspective. The Kennedy people were dealing with extraordinary shock and extraordinary pain at the same time as they were expected to carry out their constitutionally ordained responsibilities. The Johnson people had to quickly take charge of an administration of which they'd never really been a part. Sometimes, when we look back at moments of conflict in our history, it's best to summon understanding and compassion for parties on both sides. I think this is one of those moments.

Bryan wrote: "Welcome Jonathan, thank you for taking the time to join us.

Question: I noticed in your sources, you used quite a bit of oral history. What importance, if any, do you place oral history and how ..."
Hi Bryan,
Oral histories are a fantastic source for a narrative historian. As a journalist, so many of the interviews I've done are with politicians or political aides with a specific agenda -- a message they're trying to get across, a group they're trying to reach. It's often hard in those interviews to get interesting, thoughtful and genuine answers to questions. Oral history interviews are different. Good oral history projects aren't usually tied to a specific event and aren't conceived with a narrow agenda. They are truly for posterity, and conducted with the knowledge that any number of things might interest future generations. Plus, often the interview subjects think that, because their words are for posterity, they can be more open and frank because no one will read their words until long after the politics of the moment have passed. (An aside: this is not always a safe assumption. Witness the recent coverage of oral histories conducted on the Clinton presidency )
The oral histories of the Johnson presidency are particularly wonderful. Lyndon Johnson was such a commanding presence in person, such a unique and memorable character, it was impossible to work with or for him and not come away with a trove of wonderful stories. Johnson did not leave the presidency a beloved figure in his country or in his party and he died less than four years after the end of his administration. As a result, the people who worked for him felt free to be quite candid about both his virtues and his shortcomings and the result is a great gift to scholars.

Thanks Jonathan, your responses help us readers as we move through your book.

I enjoyed the New York Times article.

I thought chapter 3 was the best so far

Question: for Jonathan (or anyone else)

1. Do you think that if JFK had let LBJ loose, he could have done more on civil rights?

(by "let loose" I mean if he had recognized Johnson's mastery of the Senate and said - "I want this done, you do it").

2. Why do you think Kennedy did not do as above and do you think Kennedy was only mouthing words about civil rights?

Thanks for taking your time to be here Jonathan. I'm really enjoying the book so far. I don't have a specific question yet but thanks for the NY Times link on the article on the Clintons. Very interesting reading and the Miller Center website looks very interesting.

Jonathan wrote: "Bentley wrote: "You have referenced Lady Bird as being extremely influential and helpful to LBJ.

Question:
In what ways do you think she influenced LBJ? And was LBJ appreciative of all that she d..."

Jonathan thank you for your response - I could not agree more. Too bad that in public LBJ was not more demonstrative in his appreciation but he was a tough man and she had to be even a stronger woman to have the positive effect she did have. It was good that he had her.

Question:What would JFK think about President Obama's new policy on Cuba? Michael Beschloss mentions in the New York Times that JFK did try a dual track approach by thinking about setting up some back-channels. Do you think this would have been successful? (Here is the link to the NYT article if you did not get a chance to read it:)



Thanks.

Hi, Jonathan.

Thank you very much for the book.

From reading the book, I can see the extensive amount of research that you had conducted when writing this book. What makes you decide what to include in your book and what to put in the notes?

Do you stick to your plan when writing or do you veer off into areas that you hadn't considered until you discovered it during your research?

Did you find anything of surprise during your research?

Hi Jonathan I have a 2 part question for you.

Question:

As I read your book granted we are in chapter 4 though thus far I find that your focus has primarily been on LBJ why?

Your focus on Reagan has been his movie career. Why not focus on what caused him to enter politics?

Again we are only on chapter 4 so we may not have gotten to that far. Though I just notice the focus is on LBJ.

Question:Did you get the chance to visit LBJ's ranch? If so, what was your impressions?

Thanks.

Hi Jonathan,

You wrote re: Reagan and his audience: "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].

QUESTION:

How did you draw this conclusion? 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?

Hello again Jonathan. I am sorry for all my questions but I am interested in having a deeper understanding of the book.

As I read the book I am seeing a pattern for Ronald Reagan that seems to emerge. Though this is what I see.

Question:

Did Reagan in to political life because he want the limelight to remain on him or was there another reason?

Dear Jonathan,

Great book! You can see present-day politics everywhere.

How are the exact words that Johnson wrote on that yellow pad (declining to run for president) known? Does the physical document exist somewhere still? And everything about his internal doubts comes from Lady Bird's diary?

Jonathan, thank you again for discussing your fantastic book with us. Bentley, thank you for including all of us.

Question:

On page 45, Reagan's biographer Edmund Morris notes..."He (Reagan) feels the opposite of what he says." Page 125 notes on Reagan and audiences states, "What matter most was knowing, feeling, just exactly what they wanted most." Then, on page 138, Reagan speaks of Nixon; "...He has been subsidized by a small clique of oil and real estate pirates..." Did Reagan believe this statement, or was he playing to his audience?

Thank you Jonathan, for the opportunity to engage with you during the reading of your book.

Question:

You mention quite a bit about Lady Bird's support of LBJ and how she was able to help him during some bouts of depression and/or momentary lack of confidence. I don't see much about Nancy Reagan mentioned. Did you see any comparisons/contrasts between the two First Ladies in any way?

All, Jonathan was contacted by me to let him know that there were still open questions to answer. It appears that Jonathan was only with us on December 15, 2014 and answered the questions at that time. However questions from message 32 on have never been responded to and I want you to know that I did contact the publisher and they also reached out to the author. There has been no response. I too like I mentioned sent an email but I received no response whatsoever. The publisher did say that the author would pop in on a weekly basis but it is anybody's guess why he has not responded to either of us.

In any case, it is most unusual and I do hope that the publisher is able to make a connection and your questions are responded to.

But in the end if that is still not the case - I think we all agree that it was a brilliant discussion of a book that got all of us talking and thinking about that period in presidential history and we are deeply thankful to Random House and their kindness once again in offering us this absolutely wonderful opportunity and book. Thank you Random House.