Transcripts For CSPAN2 Frederik Logevall JFK 20240711

Library and museum. On behalf of my library and foundation colleagues i am delighted to welcome all of you for watching tonight program online. Thank you for joining us this evening. I would also like to acknowledge the generous support of her underwriters of the Kennedy Library forms. Lead sponsors bank of america and the Lowell Institute and her media sponsors, the boston globe and wbur. We look for to a robust question and answers this evening turkey will see full instructions on the screen for submitting your questions via email or in the comments on our youtube page during the program. We are so grateful to have this opportunity to explore president kennedys earlier years in depth with a distinguished speakers this evening. This is the first major work about president kennedy in many years we have been anticipating this for some time. Much of the research took place in the Kennedy Library archives and we are very pleased to learn more about this, rancid new look of president kennedys formative years. I am not allowed to introduce tonight speakers. So glad to welcome Fredrik Logevall back to taking a library virtually. He is a professor of International Affairs and professor of history at harvard university, a specialist on u. S. Foreign relations history and modern international history. He is the author or editor of nine books including inverse of work which won the Pulitzer Prize for history, and the francis parkland project. Jfk coming of age in the amers his newest book. Im also pleased to extend a warm welcome to George Packer our moderator for this evening. A staff writer for the atlantic, his nonfiction books include our men, Richard Holbrooke and into the American Century, a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. The unwinding, 30 years of american decline which won a National Book award. The assassins gate, american in iraq. In the blood of the liberals. He is also the author of two novels and a plate and the editor of a twovolume edition of the essays of george orwell. Please join me in welcoming our special guests. Welcome everybody. I see theres at least a couple hundred of you, which is fantastic, and it will be a privilege and a pleasure to talk to read tonight and get our heads out of the present an out of the news for an hour or an hour and half and into the past which is a great refuge as well as a guide for us as we try to navigate one of the storm is years in our lives. Fred, i knew as the author of i think the two essential books on the vietnam war, and its not just me saying that. People i know who fought in vietnam who served in vietnam when asked him what of the books i have to read on the war when those researching my pocket Richard Holbrooke who served in vietnam said, oh, thats easy. Choosing war, and embers of war are the same guy, Fredrik Logevall. I knew you as a vietnam expert but now i know you really as something broader, as a new american expert and someone who shares a lot of interests with me in American History and Foreign Policy. Its great to get to talk to you about your completely engrossin engrossing, and source a link which is a word David Kennedy of the new york of the New York Times used in this book review, new biography of jfk. So welcome, fred, and welcomeo our audience. And i guess the first question is inevitable, but why another biography . There has been a major one in sometime but there are dozens. It takes a little bit of chutzpah to wade into those waters were so many other writers have gone and we thought we knew everything there was to know. So why did you take this on . Well first off, george, treatment is to be with you enter this opportunity to talk with you about all the stuff. It could be just not listening to you that in with our two most recent books, mine and our men, are kind of bookings because mine is really the beginning of the American Century and yours is about the latter part. May we can talk about that. The great to be on with you. I think ive been fascinated by john f. Kennedy and a kennedys for a long time. I had written about kennedy and other context especially relating to the cold war and in particular vietnam and, of course, in volume two which is still to come that vietnam question of what i like to call the mother of all counterfactual, namely, will be a dent in vietnam he survived . Its partly this interest in the kennedys, partly a sense that this hit me one day walking in harvard yard, a book that is berkeley but i could also use my training as a historian and use ten days of life to tell the story not just of his rise but americas rise, that you could map the rise of the United States to great power status come to superpower status on Jack Kennedys like he was born in 17 right as the u. S. Is entering world war i. Hugely important conflict of course. Dyson 62 which is arguably the things of american power. Prior to the mess in vietnam. So its of those two things and then maybe a third, george, which is that the materials in the library are just so phenomenal. And i knew this. The library that is hosting tonight event. They are so good, i thought a lot of them have not been tapped by a lot of people so there was something kind of fresh about them. And then it says about how please is used, they are out there but no one has really done i think a kind of comprehensive life and times that im trying to do here. And you knew about the materials in the library from your Vietnam Research . I knew about it from the work on vietnam. I knew about it from some extent from other researchers, graduate students of mine and others who said, you know, incredible folders, files, documents in the library. Some of them use, a lot of them have it and use all that much. And, of course, stuff has come available. But it was probably because of my own private research, no question. You actually zeroed in on documents that you always knew were there when she commit yourself to this project like you said im going to, box 291, folder 73 because i know whats there are no and has ever used it. Obviously some of this in terms of the specific collections a specific folders, i had to see them myself up close but i knew a terrific biography of joe, sr. I was able as historians would we all do d you do this yourself, you look in the nose and you see to look what other people have done. I could see what david and few other people have done in terms of particular collections. Some of which ive not been open and available prior to that work. One of the marvelous things about the library even though our relatively small percentage of the librarys collections have been digitized, nevertheless, some great stuff, george. Anybody can access from the couch. Theres stuff available that means you can see without having to darken the doorways of this library, but its a great collection. How did you approach the genre of biography since i dont think you would written one, right . Its not the same thing as the history of war or the history of even two years decisionmaking about a war. Its more of, i would say a little closer to the problems that confront a novelist because you have to fill your book with characters, and especially with one character, and bring that character to life. All the harder, everyone always thinks they know that character so how did you approach the genre, the unknown genre of biography and what models did you use or what guidance did you give yourself as you figured out how to research and write it . Thats so interesting especially given that you yourself offered novels and so you have since of what you are describing. Thats totally fascinating to me. I think quite right, history and biography are not the same thing. I have come to realize how different they are in some ways. There are also important similarities. Its about finding evidence. Its about trying to figure out what happened. In this case its suited on a particular life but there are similarities here between his work and the work i have previously done. There also different. I think i had been fascinated by the kennedys. Is is in some ways the Great American story. This family, its an extraordinary one, beginning at a begin the book with the arrival of both the kennedys and the fitzgerald in the middle part of the 19th century and then of course joes rise in particular, that is to say, joe, sr. , this huge family, this marriage to rose. Jack was a sickly child emerges from this, and i wont say i thought the story would write itself or it turns out they never do but it did think this has Great Potential for me as a historian but also as somebody whos interested in biography and once to see if i can make this work, a kind of, as a said, both telling to an artist at the same time, both kennedy story in the end and americas story. Can i just briefly tosses back to you . Because you have this experience, george, how would you answer your own question . In terms of how you approach this with respect to our men . I had a different problem, which was Richard Holbrooke of the time my book came out was a fading figure in American Foreign policy. He kind of dominated many rooms in many news events in his lifetime but he was not on the scale of jfk, not close. Actually first went into the Foreign Service under jfk, his call to service that inspired holbrooke to join the Foreign Service. I felt that he needed to grab the reader with the first paragraph and never let that reader go, or else they would abandon the project because, who cares . That was my great fear, who cares . You didnt have that problem. People care about jfk. I begin my book about holbrooke in the voice of a novelist, even though the book as 35 pages of notes and is as accurate as i could possibly make it. It begins holbrooke, yes, i knew him as if you are about to hear a long yarn by some of the new holbrooke and that is the forsaken the entire book. It gave me a kind of freedom to do things that traditional biographies dont do, but always within the guidelines of the contract that the reader, which is that all has to be true. I tried to make it sound like just a great yarn that you want to sit down and here through a long night storytelling. You and i talked about this before but i think it succeeds just marvelously when we on the show together. It was great fun to talk about this. Just one thing if i may that you say i think in the early pages which i thought about and which would be fun to talk about a little bit. I am paraphrasing, i didnt have a chance to look at this before we came on but you said Something Like only in fiction can ever really get to know a person deep inside. And i thought about that because jack kennedy, many people think, and maybe this is true, somewhat elusive. Some people warmed me early on your never going to get close to the sky because of that nature that he had. Yet some of his mothers emotional patterns. I think youre so right in this and yet i hope readers will have to tell you what i write, i think we do get, i think i can get, given your parameters that only in fiction can we ever really know. I hope i get fairly close. I think you do. I think i wrote this to you personally. I think its sitting there on the book jacket now, this brings us so close to jfk. It is really an intimate picture, and we should talk about how you achieve that. But i think readers will find this is engrossing, its a page turner, thats because you always right there in the middle of a scene or very close to the characters, and yeah, there is of course he is on conic and detached and always observing his life and everyone else. Thats his character but the things that created that character i didnt understand very well until i read your book. Lets talk about that but two things at once. Your book doesnt begin but his story begins the month before we enter world war i. This is an interesting parallel to mind because holbrooke was born in 1941 which is that of the year the American Century began when we entered world war ii. Tell me about your decision to frame jfks life as a life of the American Century began in 1970 and what that means for our understanding of americas rise to global power. It mightve been earned his make may, the late great harvard historian, member of this department that i am now in, i think it mightve been ernie hill road, at this struck me of the time i was a graduate student, Something Like this, which is we think of the American Century beginning in 194041 or conceivably you could say maybe the late 30s. Some might say 1945 which i think might not be correct. But ernie said no, in fact, americas contribution to the war in 1917 in 1918 was formidable and because of the degree to which the european powers were decimated by that great conflagration, though it wasnt fully evident at the time, sagacious, farsighted europeans understandings undera matter of time for the americans were going to be dominant on the world stage. And in a sense there was a delay in the 20s and 30s american statesman, leaders were not quite sure what the what to do. I write about this in the book. Did they want the responsible of the leadership . Maybe not. But i still feel comfortable in saying that 1917 is absolutely critical to the American Century for two reasons the u. S. Entry into the war and then of course the bolshevik revolution which becomes so crucial later on and crucial to Jack Kennedys life. Physically the cold war that defined kennedys public life begin in 1970 basically the two powers of the cold war, their trajectory in collision with each other began in 19 you could make that argument. I think would say i sometimes say to questions often ask them about when does the cold war begin . If you look at the characteristics of the cold war which also happen to come and i say how many of those characters were present in 1917 . It turns out that maybe only two or three of them were. One of the might be a deep ideological schism, but some of the things that would be associate with the cold war which is great arms race, for example, suppression of interpol dissidence. Some of that we seek right after world war i also in the United States and thats of course also in the soviet union. A bipolar World Structure as opposed to a multipole for World Structure some of those may not be present in 1917 what i said very smart students interesting students make a pretty compelling case for 1917 as the start date of this superpower confrontation. Did you have a preconception about jfk going into this . Did you have a picture of him that youre going to then draw, or did you begin relatively agnostic and come here picture through the research . I think i had a sense to really its a really interesting question. I think i have since even when i begin from my work on indochina and the fact he visited in 1951 the beginning of embers of war. When he goes and asks all phase penetrating questions about what the french are trying to achieve. I think i have since that the common view of Young Jack Kennedy as a callow, kind of playboy, who had everything handed him, who was a very serious about anything, and only later became mature, striking politician i have since that was maybe not correct. I think the research i did, again the materials in the library are so marvelous i think show beyond a doubt that this is a guy who from an early age is serious about policy, deeply curious about the world. That is sort of a a half answe. It is suggesting i had an inkling that it wanted to revise what was a common view editing the research actually supports this. Some of the most riveting pages are young jacks trip to europe in 1939 when europe is moving rapidly toward war, and hes having a mix of a kind of rich boys vacation along with access to the most important counsels of government all across the continent, churchill, chamberlain, hitler. Doesnt he see hitler give a speech . No. To his regret never did see him give a speech. He was there and they had an opportunity to hear hitler at nuremberg and decided not to do it. Then they said we should have gone. But in 39 nevertheless, as you say, it was almost like a salad quality degree to which he shows up in these places that become a hot spot. Open the book, i open the preface within in berlin in late august of 39 and even carries a message from the u. S. Consular official, the ambassador had left but the senior government in berlin its in the message to carry back to his father was the ambassador to britain, joe kennedy, sr. The message says the germans are going to attack poland within the week. You have this kind of intrepid guy. He is benefiting from his fathers connection. He wouldnt be able to travel to these places and see these people if joe, sr. Was already ambitious for his two sons in particular the two eldest sons, but its also im sorry, its also jfks alone early striving and motivation. Lets talk about his parents and his relation to them. Because when i said early i felt i understood his character much better from your book, it was really because a special relationship with his father, the relationship with his mother is distant and i wouldnt be the first to say may be the source of some of his misogyny, because his mother let him down. She wasnt around for a lot of his child. Of course his father wasnt either but the mother was expected to be and the father was not. By this father comes across, joe kennedy comes across as, lets just say he made me feel like a lame father because he is just constantly arranging activities and events and everyday is scheduled and were going to go yachting in the morning and play football in the afternoon and then will discuss Current Events at dinner and reading at night. Hes incredibly for men of that generation, incredibly involved in his many childrens lives and incredibly devoted to the. That seems to be the core relationship for jack kennedy going up, is that right . I think it ultimately is and i think you describe really well and is an extraordinary aspect of joe kennedy seniors persona. Its a really interesting example of this i think which is that joe kennedy in 193435 is heading up the sec in washington, heading up an important new government entity, and get he pens these long letters, handwritten letters to jack whos in his last year at a prep school. He sends long letters, handwritten to joe, jr. Is already at harvard. The younger children, it strikes me that this is a guy who somehow managing important government policy is nevertheless, instructing his children, trying to mold his children and particular the sons come hes more concerned, its quite clear about that and especially the two older ones. So whatever one might say about joe kennedy as the businessman, as if the public, has old most disasters turn as ambassador dermer it. We can talk about that. His devotion to his kids is something. I will also say that i think rose kennedy, the mother, she deserves more in some ways credit for jacks upbringing than she is sometimes given. I think he gets his historical sensibility more from her than from his father. Hes actually more like his mother in many ways than he is like his father. His International Sensibility comes in part from her i suggest in the book. But as you say, george, she is emotionally withdrawn. She leads a kind of separate life through all of his illnesses at choate, at canterbury for his first prep school and then choate. She never pays a visit. I think she comes wednesday canterbury. She never comes to choate. She takes extended vacations by yourself including to europe. I think that was hard for him. You also said at one point what you expect from a woman whose husband is flagrantly cheating on her throughout their marriage. And his humiliating her by bringing mistresses home for dinner and, of course, shes going to withdraw. They alternative is to be fighting all the time and may be to leave, and alternatives she wants to inflict on herself or her family and the agreeance they go against our religion. The way out is emotional withdrawal. I think thats exactly right and i think, i suggest in the book they have kind of arrangement, which is hes gog to do more discreet in his affairs and maybe he was early on, and she is going to kind of look the other way. I think thats what happens here he has a notorious affair with Gloria Swanson in hollywood, and that i think its on some level he comes to realize i i can continue to do this. But youre so right, george here when you think about what she has to endure and when you think about his view of, his objectifying women, seeing them as objects to be conquered, its just a hard environment for her. Where did jacks ambition come from . One thing your book makes very clear is that it wasnt simply handed to him like instructions on how to be a man by his father. He is his own boy and man come in a way that is extremely attractive. He does not seem like a pampered, spoiled son of privilege who went his fathers way because that was the path of least resistance. In other words, hes not don trump, jr. He fights for his own path, even while never causing too much trouble. He never openly is defined and rebellious in the way that could deeply hurt his father, but he nonetheless manages to, against a great deal of magnetism coming from his overbearing father, finds himself. How did that happen and how did it create a political ambition in jack . Yeah, i have thought a lot about that. Of course in going through the materials which are so rich but all archived materials, all of the kinds of evidence, the oral History Collection of the library which is magnificent, they cant reveal everything. I think what we see is somebody, because he was bedridden a lot with his various ailments continuous. And continuous. He became the family reader. He devoured especially european history and statecraft and diplomacy, was an early, he was an early fan to say the least of winston churchill. I think the ambition at least comes in part from him realize hey, maybe i could do something similar here. He also has his grandfather, honey Fitz Fitzgerald and the two of them are extremely close. There are quite different as politicians. Jack is much more reserved, much more urbane, sort of skull in his approach than his grandfather but if it theres also that, that grand profits is, i can aspire to something similar. And then finally come at a think this is especially in our own day and age, army such an appealing quality, george. He likes politics. Maybe i want to pursue a political career. So its those things at least in part that bring in this serious quality to him early on. Its not as if when joe, jr. Is killed over england or over the channel, suddenly its up to jack to carry on his fathers dreams. Jack was headed that way already. I think that he was. Pan would have been, you know, joe, jr. Would not have had what jack brought to that career, which is that incredible intelligence and broad learning, but also, that quality of being his own man, which is just essential when youre in the oval office and your generals are telling you that you need to start world war iii with the soviet union over cuba. Over cuba in 1962. Ahead to volume two. I think thats right and i think that joe, jr. Who was the golden child and who brought a lot to the table. He was straight from central casting in terms of being incredibly handsome, healthy as an ox. Extremely ambitious. Im not going to suggest, i dont say in the book that even if joe, jr. Survives and comes back from the war that we would have seen the same kind of trajectory from his younger brother, but he had his own reasons for running. As you suggest, i think he had a better claim, hed authored a book, a lightly revised theme of his senior thesis and that really rubbed joe, jr. The wrong way because he was used to being in the family, he had had these attributes before joe, jr. s tragic death. And hes making his own decisions. Even in terms of which office to seek in 1946. Its not his fathers decision to seek a house seat. Thats ultimately jfks. Tell us how his mind as a practitioner of statecraft. As someone who thinks about and eventually practices Foreign Policy developed in those crucial years from the late 30s to the early cold war when he first ran for office. How did he become the jack kennedy that we now know who is president . Seems to me those are the key years. Tell us what happened and how they affected him and bring in his father, too, because thats a crucial parting of the ways. It is. This was such a fun part of the whole writing experience for me, and my wife will tell you that i would, you know, i would talk about, again, what the materials in the library and elsewhere show about precisely that period. I think what happens is that he gets to harvard, where the he begins in 1936. Hes had effectively a kind of gap year, a year older than some, most of his classmates in the last of 1940. The student body is pretty heavily isolationist and continues to be so up until the end and i think he buys into that and his father becomes ambassador to britain in 38 and is a initially jack is inclined to agree with the his position. This is the distinction between him and his brother, joe, jr. Is never comfortable outside of his fathers shadow so he parrots his father right to the end and whats fascinating to me is to observe little by little, jack kennedy begin to see a more complex and crowded world than either his father or his older brother, to see the problems with the kind of narrow parochial nationalism that i think both of them endorse, to see the threat posed by both the japanese and the germans. And by, hard to say exactly when, but certainly before pearl harbor, lets say by the early part of 41 hes a confirmed internationalist. And that shift or growth in his view i think is totally interesting. And finally ill say that his own war experience in the south pac in 43 is important here in affirming for him, its kind of mixed, it affirms for Young Jack Kennedy that the United States has to play leading role in World Affairs. I think that question for him has been settled and for his mates. They had the long discussions in their tents about what the u. S. Role should be. I think he comes back from the war affirmed this that belief, but he comes back skeptical, i think, about the military as an instrument of policy. I think you see in his letters home, which are really interesting, a sense that you know, military leadership, it may not be a contradiction in terms, but i think hes skeptical of that. I think we see ill see if i can develop this or if it should be developed into volume two, but you see it really in some ways through the end of his life. So its those two. Its interesting because it may be, you know, he was lieutenant, right . Correct. So he was a young officer, but he was not someone for whom the war was in any way ab trastt because at headquarters he was out there being shot up. A group of officers became the overconfident generals of vietnam who thought that america had nothing to worry about with these peasants in black pajamas because we had fought the nazi war machine, the japanese war machine, this is going to be nothing, were the United States. Jack kennedy didnt come back from the Second World War with that kind of confidence in the american military. Maybe in the american example to the world, but not in our ability to impose our will and i have a feeling that it may have been the experience in the South Pacific, but its also just his nature to be skeptical, to sort of have an eye on the darkness and on human frailty and the flaws in our nature, our blind spots, our ability to deceive ourselves. So, all of that seems to be there at a very young age and im sure youll be able to trace it straight through to the crucial years in the white house. You know, i think thats so wellput. I think partly because of his ailments, partly because of the tragedies that he suffered losing well, he effectively lost rosemary through a botched, horrible lobotomy in late 41, the sister closest to him in age, theyre only about 18 months apart. Loses his brother, and his his oldest sibling, kathleen or kit. And the sense that life was fraught. He had a welldeveloped sense of irony, a kind of selfdeprecating humor. I think that combined with, as you say, the experience in the South Pacific, he came back, i think, with a sense that there were limits to what certainly in military terms, there are limits to american power, even though in 45 the United States is colossal in what it can do and achieve. So, yeah, i think youre absolutely right. He didnt fall prey to what so many later generals fell prey to and thats evident here early on. Before we get to the political chapters at the end of the book, lets talk about jfk and women because, man, there are a lot of women in this book. They come and go request i can they come and go, quickly. Hes a hound dog, hes just constantly writing letters to his friends about just having bedded this nurse or failed to bed this nurse or and then theres a ton of girlfriends that come and go and some of them he seems really smitten with and especially inga arvad, some are instruments of pleasure. And you definitely dont spare him, but his treatment of women and the worst moment is when his wife, jackie, has a miscarriage, and hes off sailing around off the french riviera, if im not mistaken and finally gets back maybe a week or two later. Its pretty unforgivable. Its hard to want to stay with him. So how did you handle that fraught material which you dont hold back, but somehow you make it possible for us to go on wanting to know the next chapter. Yeah, i think its a challenge, george, and i think it will be a bigger challenge, frankly, in volume two. I dont think, as a first response, i dont think that the behavior in the period up through 1956 is predatory, if thats the right word here. There isnt the position of power, i guess there already is a power differential in the latter part of this, hes a senator and so forth. But i suspect not having researched this fully or written volume two, i think that this is going to become more problematic in volume two, but its already problematic. And i think, you know, some of this clearly comes from his father. I think we have ample evidence that he expected, indeed instructed his sons to proceed in the way that he did and to view women as objects to be conquered, theres no question about that. He was unfaithful to jackie before the wedding and after. And i think, i cant have it both ways. I cant on the one hand say hes his own man in politics. He does not follow his fathers dictates in terms of his political positions or which office to seek or which career to choose. Hes his own man, or whether to support isolationism versus interventionism before pearl harbor. If im going to make at that argument with respect to the political stuff and career stuff then obviously he should show the ability to not follow his fathers dictates when it comes to women and he doesnt. It its right. It doesnt have, at least again, as far as i can see, some of the more problematic elements that wed see with joe, sr. Who sometimes asked out, if i can imagine, jacks girlfriends himself. Right. And, but nor can we say it was a different time back then because this is, i think, a more i would even say use the word pathological attitude towards women and sometimes i got a whiff, if not hatred, at least disdain, dehumanizing eye toward them, as if i dont need to treat you the way i would treat my gay friend lem billings to whom jack, after rejecting his advances, is a loyal friend for the rest of their lives. Other than his sister is different, shes like an honorary guy, but the women dont get that treatment and i wonder if theres something darker than just being a bit of a scoundrel about it . It may be. I think that inga, who weve talked about, is kind of exception. He treats her so differently from some of the other women and respects her intelligence. In fact, sort of is envious that see speaks so many languages and been to so many places and shes clearly super sharp and they have some of these conversations, some of them picked up by the fbi, interesting story, because shes under surveillance in which you see the two of them go at it intellectually and other ways, too, but implant intellectually that you dont see. There are some exceptions, ultimately jackie, though there are lots of rocky moments and i deal with these. Shes very formidable. He comes so see how intelligent she is and she, too, has this kind of cultured quality that he really admires in part because he doesnt possess it the same way himself. But, yeah, there may be a certain, how did you put it, loathing or distan. Disdain. Something problematic. So he becomes a member of the house from cambridge. The 11th district. The 11th district. Waterstown, a bunch of places and then he gets elected to the senate and all of it leads to this wonderful set piece that book ends with when the Convention Jack comes within a whisker of becoming adelaide stevens partner, and what did you learn about him and what struck you as he doesnt seem president ial material in the early going. He seems hard working, curious, all that, but there isnt that quality that you that you just immediately say this guys going to go to the top and yet, obviously, hes going to get to the top. So how do you describe him as a politician who saw domestic politics as what was the word, sewer contracts . Hes mainly interested in World Affairs . I think thats right. I think its pretty clear from the time he enters the house in 47 is that Foreign Policy is where hes most interested and also where i think he feels the most comfortable, during the campaign in 46, this skinny 29yearold who has to get the nomination, once he gets the nomination, hes home free. But the nomination is a ferocious one and you see even then, he is comfortable talking about the emerging cold war. Not yet reality, but its emerging and other International Issues and by the way, quite already penetrating insightful in seeing things from the soviet perspective and what they might want. Theres a certain empathetic understanding that he has with respect to policy that is present, but again then it doesnt have the same with all domestic issues. I think hes i think hes fundamental ly liberal on most issues, not so much fiscal issues where hes more conservative. Hes quite conservative on Foreign Policy. As i suggest in the book that hes an early cold warrior. That he does not see an opportunity for accommodation when Henry Wallace sees the need to smooth things over with the soviets. Jfk is pretty caustic in swatting down that notion. Interesting here, just a side note, joe kennedy, sr. And i think that david nassau brings this out on his biography and maybe slessinger, more than a few cold war authors bring out, theyre not going to we can take a handsoff approach here. Thats joe kennedy, sr. , his son felt different. Interesting to that, he goes to vietnam as you say in 1951, this is the opening of your wonderful book embers of war and asks the right questions and what he sees is that the french are fighting a losing colonialist war and why should that be our war is this what is why are we defending a colonial empire . Were the worlds hope for democracy, but by the mid 50s hes taking a more hawkish view about vietnam giving speeches in which we have to hold the line againsts communism right there at the parallel between north and south vietnam. So what happened . How did its the great paradox about jfk and indo china, and i think this will be the thread in volume two as well. I dont think his skepticism, george, about a military solution in vietnam ever goes away. I think its there from 51, there until november of 63. In fact, we have lots of evidence of him in the white house rejecting hawkish advice from his aides when they want to send Ground Troops and so on. And its one of the reasons why in terms of the whatifs, though we can never know, i believe he would have, if he had survived, he would have avoided, most likely that he would have avoid the openended that johnson thats a passage in choosing war that i read carefully because you had earned the right to say that, but ill be curious to see if you think think it after writing volume two, but anyway, go ahead. I reserve the right to shift. No, but the paradox, thats part of the paradox is, as you say, this same jack kennedy as we get into the mid 50s, but especially the late 50s, is much more aggressive. Hes careful because hes a very careful politician. Hes careful in terms of his language, a reasoned approach to all policies. But as you say, he now sings a different tune on indo china and that the United States must do all to preserve a nonhigh pressure communist vietnam and figuring out how this guy who figured out so early, western powers, whether it be france or the United States, and he said that, any western power is probably not going to be able to put down ho chi minhs revolution. Is this the same guy maybe thats the explanation he seeks the white house now and he knows that the democrats cant be targeted with the soft on communism slogan. Maybe thats the explanation of the paradox, but however its there, its there. Its a major tension in volume two. Even though you convinced me that if kennedy had lived we would not have had 200,000 troops in vietnam within two years of his you know, of 63, nonetheless he got us in deep. He brought in 15,000 advisors and overthrew the government of south vietnam. So in some ways, he may well have corrected his own mistakes because the mistakes were already being made and how many domestic politics have to do with that, the fear of a democratic president faced with hawks in his own government and the opposition party. Ill be really interested to learn what you learned in volume two. We are going to take questions in about five minutes. I have one or two more things to ask you. The only points in your book that i stumbled at all were the same two that David Kennedy mentioned in his glowing, wonderful review in this weeks New York Times book review. And those are the mccarthy period and the question of authorship of profiles in colonel. Youve profiles in courage. Tell me why i might be wrong in thinking that jfk deserves more a harder spanking for his punting essentially the mccarthy era and trying his hardest not to have to make a difficult call on that. And why we shouldnt think that he may have written some notes for profiles in courage, but he didnt write the book page for page. So take each of those, please. Yeah, i dont know whether the first part of this is something i should be admitting before a live audience, as it were, but when you read this, george, in more than in draft, i guess in galley form. In galleyments galley and you pointed out the mccarthy bit, i need to tweak this, i need to address this, is there time . The people at random house were marvellous up and down the line. I have such a wonderful publisher. They said, yeah, we can do this. And in response to, not to your satisfaction i havent gotten the finished book and you may well have its because of how late we were, i could only do a few words, change a few sentences. Right. But suffice it to say i think you were right. I think that even before your intervention i suggested that he was overly careful on mccarthy. I think it had something to do with the close family ties with mccarthy, especially with joe, sr. Who loved but bobby, we havent talked about bobby yet and bobby was also close with mccarthy and would remain clothe. Flew to wisconsin for mccarthys funeral and remained devoted to him i think in some ways to the end. Its something about the politics, and interesting comparison to our own day, right through to the end. Beyond the censure, at least through the censure in 54 of joe mccarthy, Public Opinion survey after Public Opinion survey showed he had the support of roughly 40 of the electorate. I dont want to draw the comparison too closely, its interesting even how after the Senate Begins to move and even after his attack on the army, mccarthy, a lot of americans stay with him to the end. But i think jack kennedy would have spared himself a lot of grief if he had instructed sorenson. He was in the hospital for legitimate reasons so those authors who say well, he went into the hospital to dodge the mccarthy vote, i think thats not true. But he could have through a procedure called pairing, he could have instructed sorenson to vote and he should have done so. And why he didnt, is interesting. Here is a quick thing about this. In 56 at the aforementioned democrat Democratic Convention meeting, he had a meeting with mrs. Roosevelt and im paraphrasing, what gives, why didnt you come out against mccarthy and what i puzzle over, george, maybe you have an explanation about this. I didnt write about it in the book and i had a paragraph and i then erased it, i thought, why would he not in the summer of 56 when attacking joe mccarthy, when hes spent and gone, why didnt he say to mrs. Roosevelt, i dont like the guy, didnt in political terms, and even then, however, he didnt want to criticize mccarthy and i cant quite figure that out. Let me quickly respond i dont know, i dont know. I can only imagine that he was loyal to his family and this was one that didnt mean enough to him as going against his fathers appeasement did, to reject his father that way. I think. Thats as good of an explanation as any of them. My parents were a little younger than jfk and the mccarthy period was the litmus test for them as liberal democrats, of whether a politician could be trusted, whether they could really respect a politician and they ended up, as stevenson people largely because, i think, stevenson was much more outspoken about he was, he was. Go ahead. And so when it came to 1960 they celebrated kennedys election, but they he was not their man and he never was their man and it was really because with of the mccarthy period. I think for a lot of liberals that remained true so i think it had a decisive effect not so much on the politics of that time, but on how democrats saw him and how they divided on him. I think its a really good point. Ill just say one other thing there quickly and talk for a minute and that is that its worth noting that the Democratic Party as a whole, including liberal stallwarts like hubert humphrey, for a very long time were unwilling to criticize mccarthy. Youd have to go pretty far into 54 to see broad parts of the party begin to go after him in any serious way. So kennedy is not alone in this record and in fact, saltenstall, a senior senator from massachusetts, republican, is just as cautious, if not more so than jack kennedy. So hes not alone in this. The center vote in profiles in courage, quickly so we can open it up for others. I guess here you and i differ a little bit. I think that the evidence is pretty powerful that the broad architecture of the book, the themes of the book, the argument, which by the way i think has salience in our own day, for discourse, bargaining in good faith, the need ultimately for compromise in a democracy which we can discuss, those arguments, those themes are Jack Kennedys. Ted sorenson is way too young to have at 25 or 26, hes not going to be able it articulate those things and didnt. Moreover the introduction and conclusion, those are interesting part of the book, i think its more than kennedys notes. I think those are his books. In he never won the pulitzer, i come back to this, how he should have responded to the awarding of the pulitzer, its a fair question. It was one of the proudest moments of his life he later said. Is it reasonable for him to expect to turn down the award . I dont know. I dont know what that would have meant to an aspiring politician. Theres no question that the middle chapters were drafted by others, not just sorenson, but they had some professors who helped them and i write about this. And i guess im suggesting theres more jack kennedy book than perhaps you are allowing. Yes, well, before we go to questions, i dont want to end on that minor disagreement because i want our audience to know that we havent even really talked about the way the book ends, but its a marvellous account of a convention that hasnt gone down in history as one of the great conventions, but its the 56 Democratic Convention and you see jack kennedy at his best because hes maneuvering and showing he knows how to play the game, but detached enough to be able to recognize that he can take a loss now and it wont be the end of him and in fact, it might actually help him when the big turn comes four years. I think thats right and ill just say here to folks and i have this in one of the end notes, you can go on youtube, which i guess is where were on now, and you can see the concession speech that he gives at that convention. And its done without notes. I think its a remarkable moment captured that we can all see it on youtube. Its an amazing clip, so if folks are interested in it and he comes so close, just minutes before, to getting this nomination. By the way, his father thinks its a disaster to even seek the nomination. He comes this close and then he says to ted sorenson when it becomes clear the tide has turned. He says lets go and they leave their hotel room and go to the podium and gives this speech and its an amazing moment. Yeah. And a great ending and it makes you eager to for fred lodge logevall to get to volume two. How does this touch on todays world challenges. Youve touched on that briefly, fred. I think its leadership style characterized by absolute insistence on his part that he himself and his aides need to be well informed on the issues. He had very little patience for advisors and others who did nt know their stuff down to the details. So its a its a leadership style that hes about becoming informed on an issue and then acting accordingly, which leads me to the second point. I think he is and this is something i find admirable. He is he doesnt want yesmen and yeswomen around him. He wants people to have different views. He wants to hear peoples opinions about which path to take and hell act accordingly. And ill also say theres much more to be said about this, but the final piece of this is maybe that, you know, when he needs to make a decision, even though hes overly cautious on issues like civil rights which we can discuss, his legislative record overall is fairly meager by the time hes killed. The cuban missile crisis, when virtually all of his advisors are counseling a military response, they are aggressive, almost to a person, kennedy is seeking a political solution. He shows in that capacity to look at things from khrunichevs perspective. And this question, why did you end in 56 . Are you able to get all of the late 50s and all into volume two. And that one will be seared in my memory. Im committed to doing it, i can do it, its seven years in his life and so many happens in those seven years, but the first volume, theres a lot also that happens. Its an extraordinarily varied life that he leads which helps me as a biographer, the story is remarkable and theres so much in the early volume also on his father. Hes himself a huge figure in the book and several others. But i think that the subtext of your question is a good one. Ive got to deal with the Amazing Campaign which really begins by the way in 57. The secret to Jack Kennedys success is that he starts earlier than the competition and works harder than the competition. I have to deal with this flying around the country with ted sorenson speaking to tiny audiences on airport tarmacs for eight people, 12 people and ultimately culminates in the primary battle in 60 and race against nixon and we havent got ten to the presidency. And by the fact, terrible to say, it ends suddenly in november of 1963 and i dont think, george my present plan is not to get deep into the conspiracies or deep into the obviously, i have to give the reader my view of what happened in dallas, but maybe ive saved some space, but keeping that pretty limited. Yeah. Well, i mean, i have the same fear for robert caro except that hes older than you and he has in some ways, hes even more between 64 and 68 Lyndon Johnsons presidency went to the stars and then crashed back to earth. I dont know how hes going to do it, but i hope it happens soon. We all do. So, a viewer asks, what legends about young jfk do you early unwind or upend from the biography . Are there any stories that you either could prove wrong or that you learned and included that we dont know . Or what is there hidden deep in the archives that might raise our eyebrows or teach us something about young jfk . I think part of it is is what weve already discussed and maybe the viewers wanted something more specific. But i do think that this is young jfk who is this is one of his best qualities, by the way. And jackie talked about this after his death, his curiosity, his interest in the world and what made people tick. So the young jfk is, i think, a more serious, more engaged individual than we have come to believe. Weve already talked about this. Ill also say, i think maybe i upend a myth which is that the illnesses, which were real, some of them illdiagnosed, but nevertheless, you know, he felt them. I think i upend the notion that they were acutely debilitating. Or let me put it this way. This is a guy who despite these illnesses, from a young age, was extraordinarily active and he served in the war. He had to sort of fudge to get into combat, but with his fathers help he did. Who returns this Bruising Campaign in 46 where are outworks everybody. Often only sleeps three, four, five hours a night. Somehow this guy who is supposed to be on deaths door all the time and supposed to be so ill he can barely function, hes able to do these things. So maybe i suggest that we shouldnt exaggerate the scope of those illnesses, im not sure thats where the question was going. This is a question what he knew about his own country. He seemed to know europe and the South Pacific deeply from personal experience, but as far as america goes, he knew brookline, riverdale, harvard, palm beach. Did he know much about the country . The question is what can you tell us about how much jfk knew about the vast nation that was the United States . And is it possible to know some of his views on our diversity, on the American People in all of their diversity at this stage in his life . Yeah, i think its a really good question. I think its pretty limited his knowledge, and maybe his interest to some extent. He had not, for example, traveled much in the south before he became even a senator so never mind in the house. And i write about the small number of, say, africanamericans, for example, that he interacted with. I dont believe he was personally prejudiced, really. But its also true that he didnt he wasnt really animated by the searing experience that africanamericans had and there was ample evidence all around. I think that comes later and ill talk about later in volume t two. I also would say its when he runs for president in 1960 and he goes to places like West Virginia and other parts of the country that he hasnt seen before and he sees the degree to which there are deep income disparities in the country that i dont think he had fully grasped before. Thought about before. I think its clear from lots of evidence, contemporaneous evidence that West Virginia in particular made a huge impression on him, what he encountered and he came to appreciate the people that he met there and got a chance to talk with them. I dont think that was so evident before. I think when well see whether i can develop this early in volume two, again, travelling around the country for the first time, really, hes seeing lots across the city that he hadnt seen before. Its interesting that it was a book and really, a book review that brought Hidden Poverty to his attention. A big way. Michael harringtons the other american and dwight mcdonalds review in the new yorker. Thats how a cerebral attached, nonpopulist, he was not a pop list. Not a populist. You could compare him to fdr, he both suffered illnesses maybe made them better people and better politicians, but maybe because his career coincided with a period of prosperity rather than the great depression, jfk was not that wasnt what animated him. No, i think its true. Im glad you raised them because we havent talked about the two of them in that way and i think i suggest somewhere in the book that he was never, whats the word, he was never really engaged by the fdr phenomenon. He never connected with him in some way that a lot of other people did. Right. Its extraordinary how the kennedys were insulated from the great depression. And rose kennedy said her best period of time was the 30s. And jfk comes in after the war and doesnt see things in the same way that fdr did. And todays need for service to democracy and courage feels so great, what of young jack leaves you hopeful that todays emerging generation can rise to make an impact . Well, i am hopeful. I do think that our Younger Generation can my own kids are an example of this, but also others, can do this. I do think we need desperately for americans to reengage with civic life and we all need to do this and i think that the example of jack kennedy and even a Young Jack Kennedy helped us to do this. I hope this comes out in those chapters of the book. Im struck by the degree to which in the mid 19 or maybe the 193637, 38, when hes an undergraduate, hes asking large questions about the survival of democracy. Is democracy suited to this age responding to the authoritarian threats . Can we do this . Are there leaders who will accomplish this . And hes asking that even as an undergraduate and the thesis ab its in some ways, thats the heart of the thesis, why were the british under baldwin and chamberlain, seemingly unable to prepare for war, but its ultimately, i think, a hopeful message and i guess that comes back to the question that i think he decides that democracy, it requires able leadership, more than that it requires citizens who are informed, who take an interest in policy issues, who hold their leaders accountable and then for people themselves, of course, to enter Public Service and be engaged. Thats, it seems to me, the most powerful part of the legacy. Thats really wellsaid and it connects to a question that just came in from a 20yearold University Student interested in a career in the political world. What can i learn from a young jfk and his activities and attitudes to selflearning and ambition . So, those are two interesting terms that both apply to kennedy. Selflearning and ambition, i think thats thats perfect because he commits himself to that. Its hard to say exactly when he does, when he comes back after this great excursion that you talked about, in 1939. Hes in some ways, i think, different. I think that senior year of college, we see that selfmotivation and that determination to succeed and he becomes much more ambitious. Ambition has to be a part of this, no question about this. But i do think that its about to respond to the question. Its an excellent question from our 20yearold friend. Its about taking an interest in policy, which it sounds like you already have, in Public Service, in seeing how we can make things better. Jack kennedy says in one of his papers, i think hes a junior when he writes this, for democracy to survive, it requires dedicated and capable leaders. I have that slightly wrong, its in the preface actually, i should have checked before we came on. That seems to me what you and others your age should think about because i think that democracy is under threat. Im worried about this the current state of it and i think its going to require all of us, but maybe especially your generation to commit yourself to the hard work involved in this. I have no doubt that democracy can work. It has worked for this country and for other countries and then, ill say one other thing, which maybe is controversial. It shouldnt be. And i guess its an argument for, know the maybe necessarily centrism, it is an argument for remembering to treat political opponents as adversaries and not enemies and i think thats something that kennedy committed himself to. Its seeing the merits of the arguments on the other side, which is really hard for all of us. You know, dont get me wrong. And that was i was going to make the exact same point, fred, because we now live in a political and media world where youre rewarded for the instant victory and for wiping out your opponent and for humiliating them, really, on twitter and anywhere, and what is the point . What does anyone gain from that . And as a journalist, i think there is a c always benefit from going out and talking to people whose experience is different from yours, and whos views are different from yours and try to understand them. Try to hear them. You dont have to like it. You dont have to be friends, you dont have to approve of their views, but you really need to make that effort to understand. This is going that obama has said and probably the most kennedyesque president weve had since kennedy. Try to walk around in somebody elses shoes and then you will be able to be a better Public Servant and a better i think thats exactly right. I think that joe biden at least has talked in a similar terms and he was criticized earlier this year from his then primary opponents for this suggestion. Yeah. That ultimately we are going to have to reach out and we are going to have to bargain hard, not abandon our principles, but were going to bargain hard and i think its essential. And ill say totally fascinating conversation to me that i talk about in the book is i think in 55 between jfk and his good friend, an englishman named david ormsbygore. And becomes britains ambassador to the United States so theyre friend right to the end. But you know, jfk says in this conversation, i dont know if im cut out to be a politician. Yeah. Because i too often see the merits of the arguments on the other side. I too often thereforebecome uncertain about arguments on our side. And in our day and age we dont talk in those terms. Right, exactly. It will be interesting to see biden, by analogy for biden is more lbj, hes a creature of the senate. Hes a career pol, hes a wheeler dealer, a centrist, and could make him and one wants to talk about his superb sense of humor, we havent talked about, but it runs through his book in letters, themes, quotes, so Say Something about that. What kind of humor was it . Yeah, its true. I quote and then note, i maybe should have it in the text, but i have conan obrien who has a marvellous essay about jfks sense of humor. But obrien says, weve had exactly two truly funny president s. Abraham lincoln and john f. Kennedy. Hes right about that, actually. Its not to say that other president s havent had a sense you have humor, but not as well developed as we see with these two. I think its an ironic sense of humor. Its a kind of selfdeprecating sense of humor, which i think he used to great effect maybe especially in the white house and he honed this particular skill and you see it earlier to, and its a kind of absurdist quality to it at times as well. Maybe in part, im sure this is inborn, people can probably, who know more about this than i do, can explain it, it may be inborn and it may have something to do with the maladies that he had, poking fun at them and not taking himself too seriously made sense, was also a winning strategy. People liked it. I cant fully explain where it came from, but theres no question that its there and its key to understanding him. We didnt talk about bobby, but two questioners are interested in when did jack see bobbys political talent and what did jack think of bobbys work for the Mccarthy Committee alongside roy cohen . I think he saw bobbys worth as a political strategist, a campaign manager. Yes. Somebody to run the campaign he saw in spades in 52. The campaign find of was floundering against henry cabot lodge, like he would lose or not wellpositioned and then this 26yearold comes on and bobby, in part because hes a lot like the old man, just gets the thing right on track and i think its hard to overstate how important bobby is as a manager and as a shrewd and ultimately kind of ruthless operative. When he sees bobbys potential as a politician is a more interesting question. I dont know that i have a good answer to this. I think he saw, became very devoted to his brother. The age gap when theyre young they were not particularically close. There was a trip to vietnam where they become much closer, but i think he deeply admired his brother and im sure saw hey, this is a guy at some point should run himself for office. How he felt about bobbys devotion to mccarthy and his service on mccarthys committee, i think that early on he was very much inclined to let bobby do what he felt like he should do and it was a good career move for bobby. The father wanted bobby to have that position. I think as mccarthy became more controversial and started doing more and more outrageous things, i think it became a problem. By then bobby is no longer in mccarthys employ if we put it that way, but he was still very close to joe mccarthy, that creates more problems, i think, for jack politically, but you know, this is a very close knit family. This is not a family that screams at yells at each other apso, you dont see at least in the records that ive seen any particular anger on jacks part about the continued loyalty on bobbys part to mccarthy. And lets end with this rather enigmatic question. I sense the majority of jfks thoughts and ideas were never vocal idesed vocalized by him. Remained unrevealed. There is therefore theres a lot about jfk, the man, that well never know and remains a mystery. And thats the question at the start how a biographer can have access to the inner life of a real person who died 60 years, almost 60 years ago. Yeah, i think its a very perceptive question and i do think that he does keep a part of himself secret. I think we all do, but maybe he does it a little bit more than some. Hes his mothers son in this regard because rose very prolific had her letter writing, at least i found, and of course there have been excellent biographies of rose and her biographers may disagree with me, but her volu volu volumenou sch volumenous, and maybe this is a good place to end. I think we can get to know jack kennedy and at various points in this story in volume one, he writes a lot and i think is quite open in what he says in these letters and including sometimes what he says about himself. Letters to his friends, maybe in particular lem billings, and to inga, the communication between the two of them reveals a lot. Its going to be interesting in volume two. He will be more guarded because he will be. I think he will be more guarded. In fact, i already know, george, that you know, letters, plain old letters written by him to others become more scarce. And so, thats going to be a challenge. I think its less it surprised me the degree to which i could get at the young jfk. Are there people still alive who were adults when he was alive and who can tell you their firsthand experience or has that generation pretty much disappeared . Its pretty much gone. There are a few and ive spoken to some of them and some of the ones that i spoke with, the late richard goodwin. The late dan send, are no longer with us. I dont think there are many. I do think that the magnificent jfk oral library History Collection, though it has to be used with caution, as all collections must be used with caution i think is a great resource and some of those interviews were conducted soon after the assassination, which is both a good thing and a problem, but i will rely more on those sadly than being able to talk to people facetoface. Well, i cant wait for the next one, meanwhile, congrats on a marvellous book that i wish all the success in the world. May it reach many tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of readers. [laughter] and i want to thank the jfk library and our audience for joining us tonight and most of all, Fred Logevall for being one of the really great historyions and writers in america today. Thank you, george, to have the opportunity with you given your work and you know, if you have not seen, folks, if youve not read our man, get your hands on that book. Georges recent writings on the atlantic is a mustread. Great to chat with you tonight. I, too, want to thank the library. Many folks in the library are thanked in my acknowledgements, i could have said much more there, but now we just need the doors to reopen so that some of us can get back into those marvellous collections. The u. S. Senate is not in session today due to the veterans day holiday. Senators will meet tomorrow at 11 eastern to continue judicial confirmations. They will consider President Trumps District Court nominee for the Southern District of florida. The senate has confirmed so far 222 federal judges under President Trump and nominee ilene kann florida would be the first woman to join the court during the trump administration. Watch live coverage here on cspan2. Weeknights this month were featuring booktv programs as a preview of whats available every weekend on cspan2. This year marks the 20th anniversary of booktv monthly Author Interview program in depth. That starts at eight eastern and enjoy booktv this week and every weekend on cspan2. Booktv on cspan2 s top nonfiction books and authors in the weekend. Saturday at one p. M. Eastern from the recent virtual southern festival of books reflect on life in appalachia. Watch booktv this weekend on cspan2