Transcripts For CSPAN2 Book Discussion 20141103

If you look at reagan, watching politics in this period, he is as you say sort of singlemindedly focused on the Great Society. A famous moment in reagans life comes in october of 1964 where he kids a televised speech which we now call a time for choosing, and its a speech on behalf of Barry Goldwater but its a speech attacking Lyndon Johnson and saying that kennedyjohnson and vision of a government led utopia is a path to ruin for this country in the country needs to choose another path. We dont think about that but thats who reagan was speaking about there. And then in the coming years he begins his political career in california, he is someone who is much more interested in national and global issues than local politics. He finds a way to connect with people by nationalizing the race. What that means, starting in his First Political campaign to run against the Great Society. What he finds is governor pat brown who associate with lbj in california. Right. And reagan uses him as a standin for lbj. So the book tells the story up to landslides, lbjs famous landslide in 1964 which is the largest popular vote, margin in american history, and reagans landslide in his First Political race as governo governor in 196n which he won california by 1 million votes, just two years after johnson iconic little president had won the state by over a million votes himself. William buckley told me once when reagan was first emerging and nixon was looking at his run in 1968, nixon said to him, because he liked reagan, Barry Goldwater and people thought of at that point as a kind of belief on the Second String Barry Goldwater or a more polished Barry Goldwater. And buckley said to nixon, can this actor possibly win . And nixon said, any man, anyone who wins the governorship of california by a million votes is a National Political figure, and thats it. Answers the question. The are a couple of other things i want to get at, which is something you all enjoy in the book, a very difficult thing, it tells two different stories and weaves them together. And you show us lbj and reagan at these very early Interesting Times in their career. I think a lot of us will be familiar with the general history of Lyndon Johnson of 1963. He is the Vice President who was stripped of all power. The study of the god who is powerless. What was fascinating to me was where Ronald Reagan won in 1963, what he was doing and where his career was. So if you ask the famous question of Ronald Reagan, where were you the day of the john f. Kennedy was shot, and my book begins the day after kennedy was shot, you find you somewhere hes not supposed to be. In the store that i knew before start working on this about reagan, he had an early in life movie an acting career, which in the 30s and 40s, which then turned into his position in the Screen Actors Guild and then through his work with the ge theater really became more alike about his passion for politics and his sort of removal from the hollywood scene. What i found when you ask that question, where were you a day that jfk was shot is that reagan is not what is supposed to be. He is back working as an actor. He had lost his job as a host of ge theater two years before, and he was 53 and looking toward middle age it wasnt at all clear what the next step for reagan was, if you want to be someone whos going to be a national star. Speak he was kind of washed up at that point. So what hes doing at that point is appearing in the kind of role that he frankly hated as the villain, a very dark remake of the artist hemingways the killers. Hes not evening particularly exciting or daring villain. Is a conniving and cowardice villain. Its the kind of part reagan hates but its the only work he can get and he takes the support of what makes his story in this period sort of remarkable is the rapidity of the turnaround. He goes from that place at the beginning to not just governor of california at the end, but really the face of conservatism and a National Figure who is getting tons of attention in the press and to some of people talk about as the president of the training and that happens in just three years time. Dimension that famous speech he gave her Barry Goldwater. Some people think it was made at the convention. It was not. It was reported later, having at the same this speech . Some people call it the speech as well. Reagan speaks with his tremendous rapidity which you dont identify in later years, very quickly, very forcefully thats a version of the speech he had been given for years when he toured the ge plant. But talk about the impact that he made on just an act of american politics and the funds that were raised, discovery by the right that this was a real megastar. To kind of walk us through the. What did he do that was so impressive . Well, if its okay i would like to go back even further, the beginning of reagans political emergence, which in a lot of ways is impossible i think is separate from his act in career. You look at reagans career in the 30s as a hollywood actor, and one of the things that he learned from that is to have a reference for public mood and public taste. An idea that public taste changes quickly. So reagan was a product of the scada system and he was in a lot of ways literally a product. They would churn out movies very quickly, and the i. T. Was you found a hit and replicated it again and again and again until the public decided it didnt like it anymore and then you have to become something else. When youre an actor, that is an incredibly sort of humbling experience because one moment you can be on the path to mega stardom, and the next you were done. So you really have a firm respect for what is the public thinking, thats a question you are thinking about a lot. In a lot of ways its better training for reagan as a politician, a National Politician in the 1950s when politics are changing so much, then is johnsons great as a legislator. Because johnson, a master legislator who we all know so much about and this sort of legislation with the legislative process inks uphold existing relationships and the legislative maneuvering. He is not nearly as attuned in his Prior Experience to the presidency asked about public mood shifts and that you Pay Attention to. Also the mastery of television, of the great communicator. Roosevelt had done it on the radio and reagan thought he could do it visually. And poor johnson is at least aware that there is this moment where you really do see television taking control of the country. One of the first things i did in researching this story with the go back, like i said i begin the day after the kennedy assassination and watch that footage from the days after the kennedy assassination but try to keep my eye and affect the camera on johnson. Its impossible to do. Hes the president of the united states, but the pictures of the kennedy family, the kennedy funeral procession, and the country grieving are so much more compelling than anything you see a johnson, that he really even though he is the leader of the free world at that point is for a while in my figure. And to me that was really enlightening to understand about johnson because it creates in him this real challenge of how do you refocus the story so that you as the president are the league and you are the center of attention, while honoring this incredible event that the country has gone through. Thats a remarkable accomplishment of his in the early days of the presidency to be able to pull that off by positioning itself as the steward of john f. Kennedys legacy. But the problem that is exposed their of television having its own mind in a lot of ways is a recurring one for johnson, and hes aware of the. He knows that jfk was much better at television, that its this new powerful force in our politics, and he struggled to keep up with it. Hes constantly getting advice from his aides about how to do better, and you really feel sorry for him when you read some of these memos that were written to me about it because its always speak more quickly. No, no, no. Speak slower, you know . Where different classes, try a podium. No, no, no. No podium. And then always its but dont think about it after hes been given 20 different views of what he should do. It mustve been frustrating because in person he was an extraordinary charismatic figure, probably more than the others. You know when you see celebrity in real life, the reaction is he so much more than i thought . With the johnson its opposite. People who had seen him only on television were consistently surprised when they saw him in person because he was tall and than they thought, he was better looking, more intelligent, and do so much more captivating. He did have that ability, as others have written about really, look at someone and see their soul. And i think one of the reasons that television doesnt work for johnson is johnson interpersonal relationships are so much about control. When he looks at you he is in essence trying to understand you and control you. And in television when you are appearing there and the people who are out there are anonymous and unseen. You cant have that kind of control. So someone like reagan whos been doing this his whole life, essentially stranding himself in front of the camera is much more powerful in the emerging media, and you really do see that shift in politics were some with johnsons skill set is not an inherent disadvantage to someone like reagan. What about, you mentioned in the old studio, during world war ii, they were all profitable. This is a great intimate of the day. That when someone like Ronald Reagan was a contract actor gets script how quickly . How good is he taking the scripts and absorbing it anyway a professional actor doesnt . You never heard complaints about Ronald Reagan professionalism. I think he was very good at it. He is frustrated in his career because he thinks his career is constantly being mismanaged in relation to this force he reveres, which is publicly. He thinks the studio bosses taken out of the limelight and they put them back when the countrys tastes have changed. Thats so important for reagan as hes looking at this rapidly changing Political Landscape of the 1960s. He doesnt just put himself forward and say, these are my ideas about limiting government and this is what the country should follow me right now. He waits for the right moment Wayne Johnson and the democrats in washington have essentially overpromised for government and loss of credibility. And thats the moment you see reagan finally willing to enter the arena as a politician himself. Thats not an accident. Reagan is incredibly practical when it comes to his own selfinterest and the sort of care of his own future. He really does wait for a moment when its plausible the country would give them a chance as a conservative candidate. Lets talk to reagans ideology. Lbjs i think we did. Hes been in washington in early days reaction is a favorite of Lyndon Johnson and gives a target of rayburn, came to the old buddhist osha through the house of representatives and that goes to the senate. Hes a new deal liberal. Reagan began as a new deal liberal and then became Something Different to how did that happen . And when did it start . Theres a couple things. Reaganesque, has a famous phrase. I didnt leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me which really resonates he said that would . When he was running in the 70s and 80s. That begin to resonate with the people we begin to think of as reagan democrats. In reagans case it is somewhat misplaced because what that implies is they said exactly the same place and the party to go large to the left. Thats not really reagan. Ranking is i think someone who is drawn to extremes. In his youth the new deal and roosevelt are appealing to them because it is, it stands for something. It is a compelling cause, a cause of the little man, and he identifies with that. In the postwar period as he for a number of personal and political reasons becomes interested in what he sees as a perilous threat to the communist conspiracy, the Democratic Party is no longer a natural place for him. Theres too much contradiction and complexity. The right with its pretty unified anticommunism is a much more clear place for someone with reagans dramatic sensibility. Anthat i think really thats wht draws them there. What about the impact of his hollywood days, not as an actor, but as a leader at one point of the Screen Actors Guild, union strike and also ideological divisions that emerge in what was raking in all of the . So reagan is in a lot of ways you see the reagan who emerges as a candidate and as a governor and a president. He is someone who is pretty good in those days at finding exactly where the metal is an intimate up there. As Screen Actors Guild president , he is concerned about the infiltration of communists in hollywood, which pushes him more to the right and to become more compassionately anti passionately anticommunist but at the same time a strong defender of factors. I think there is that combination of high principle and tactical pragmatism in reagan which makes him so effective as a politician in the 60s, when he actually decides to run for governor of california, something i spend a lot of time talking about, hes so conscious of being different from goldwater as some of because goldwater had lost right, which for reagan was a horrible thing to do. For others, to go out and take a short stint of principle would be a noble thing to do. For reagan who is again focused on what does the public want and how do i connect to the public, the whole point is winning. So in goldwaters campaign in 1960 for reagan is a strong supporter. He appears on goldwaters behalf in california and in the bloody primary with nelson rockefeller, and after goldwater got a victory there, reagan said to the crowd, we need to make love to democrats because we dont want to win a convention. We want to win an election and thats exactly what the crowd didnt want to hear. They booed him for saying that but that same idea is what he takes them after the goldwater dispute with his position himself as the candidate. He goes and presents himself as a unity candidate to the Republican Party of california and he says he will only accept their nomination if he is convinced that they can accept them as a unity candidate. And what that does is in a certain sense say to the conservatives, dont force me to prove myself to you. Because otherwise i just wont run. That means he can spend a lot of time when hes running for the nomination thinking about how he can connect. Its an interesting lesson as we think about the Republican Party of the day were Ronald Reagan is consistently held up as this sort of ideal that no one can live up to because of his perfect conservative record. Reagan in that period was quite focused on winning. And how much did Richard Nixons loss, when he ran for governor of california against pat brown in 1962, thats the one that seems to have ended his career. He came to new york as a lawyer and thats what he said you wont have nixon to kick around anymore. How closely did reagan followed nixons campaign and what lessons might have drawn from the . If you were to look in 1964, which is where spent a lot of time in the book you would think that pat brown whos run for governor for an unprecedented third term as a democrat had a good shot. He had an easy victory over nixon who was a figure he was far more as we move to the center at the point then was reagan. And hugely National Figure. So pat brown can defeat that guy, but what are his chances against this actor was never held any kind of office whose associate with what brown himself called the crowd in the united states. You would think pat brown has a pretty good shot, and the book actually begins with the johnson and brown talking the day after johnsons landslide victory in 1964, and johnson and brown are sort of reviewing the results. And johnson is saying, and brown makes some noise but i dont from going to run from it might be hard. And johnson that i dont want you anything about that. Youre going to be a run and its going to be a shoe in, is the implication. The other thing to talk about in passing that day, at browns instigation is the three counties in california that johnson happen to lose in this otherwise landslide national election, at browns has to johnson, you lost san diego which he knows johnson will understand the san diego is associate with hardline conservatism. And you lost the smallest town in the state and then he says, and you lost Orange County. I dont know whats going on there but ive got the Orange County publisher coming in and well figure it out and ill report back to you. Johnson does any tension to that, which is understandable. He just won this huge victory, but actually its that little piece of information that probably has more importance for the future of johnsons legacy in this country than anything. Because what we see now in the defection of voters in places like Orange County who are white, suburban, middleclass, children of democrats and probably a lot of them former democrats themselves, toward a conservative like goldwater shows them by billy of the concert movement in the later part of the 20th century which is what does so much to sort of abuse johnsons legacy. Briefly, what argument are they making when they in effect abandoned the Democratic Party that listed the parents lifted their parents and middleclass, why are they turning towards the republican . I think you have to look in a lot of ways that johnsons culpability there. Because johnson has this opportunity in the mid 60s to do all these, he has this enormous electoral landslide and a mandate there, and he not only pursues an aggressive agenda which is again in the mold of roosevelt and described briefly what was in that agenda. Landmark legislation in the civil rights, housing, health care, medicare and medicaid, education, poverty, and start. All these fundamental programs programs that we associate with an active engage federal government in our modern life. He not only pursues all those programs and brings them legislatively, at the same time he changes the rhetoric about the expectation of government, from the liberals then come before them. Really this is why think theres a major change in progressivism from the earlier form of fdr and john f. Kennedy. To me one of these sort of essentially noble things about fdrs vision of government, is its not just this aspiration for what government can do. Its realism about what our expectations of government should be. It is an idea that government is a human pursuit and, therefore, is inhabit oz going to fall short of our expectations. Theres this tension between grand aspirations for government and limited expectations for our ability to do. We have to believe that these problems are worth solving and we also have to understand that it is in a lot of ways are a beyond our ability to solve them. Jfk had that. Johnson i think departed from that any major way as he is passing all these programs he communicates to the country as though these problems that affect humankind throughout its history are within reach of solving. He wins his landslide election in 1964 and he goes before the country and he says, these are the most hopeful times since christ was born in bethlehem. Tonight that reagan gives the speech, the time for choosing speech in october of 1964, johnson is on the other side of the country and he says its a time of peace on earth and goodwill among men, the place is here and the time is now. Thats a pretty remarkable expectation for government. And it is inevitably going to fail to meet the. And when it does, not only fails to meet that expectation, but then create a great climate of anxiety with conflict in vietnam, the apparent disintegration of the cities. That undermines peoples faith in government altogether and i think that is in a lot of ways what gives the legitimacy to the reagan counter argument which is government essential is not the solution to all of our problems. In many ways government is the problem. And i think over time politics in this country have become a choice between those two visions, one in which government can solve all our problems, one of which government is a problem we need to solve. And that any and i think is gottegonethis way from the noblt of roosevelt and is part of the thing that, the reason that its hard for us to govern the country at all today. Thats great. Lets get some questions. Dont be shy. You may even up on television. Heres a job in over here with the question. While the microphone is coming around, our host Jack Rosenthal was involved in some the speech writing for Lyndon Johnson, including the Howard University speech but isnt that the one that begins in june of 19 success, the earth is home of revolution or Something Like that . This is advocating the Great Society and if you have a different political persuasion of you think the man is a commons or something, a revolutionary or something. In his defense on that speech thats actually a good speech in terms of what i was just talking about realism because there is a sense in that speech, another take way from that period is the idea that freedom is not enough. That johnson has done all this work to achieve the constitutional equality for and americans in this country but that you need to actually didnt think about the problems that are confronting the black economic justice. And as he talked about but he says this is going to be hard work but its work worth doing. Thats a line of thinking i see that is in line with the kennedyroosevelt thinking. Its different from some of that other utopian rhetoric i was talking about before. This argument which is frequently made today that we have been living the last 35 or 40 years in the age of reagan, the age of conservatism, i just wonder how you square with just a very quick list if youll indulge me, these are things that happened since lbj left the presence. Environmental protection act, constitutional session of abortion rights, the earned income tax credit, americans with disabilities act, Medicare Part d, the Affordable Care act and the constitutional session of gayrights. So are we really living in a page of conservatism . Thats not exactly what im saying, and thats a great list and another one is the electoral scorecard as the last six president ial elections were republicans have won a majority of the popular vote once. I think actually part of the problem that the Republican Party has faced is that this divide that i describe as created a sort of false reality for that. Reagan, and i know the difference is one between rhetoric and actual work. Reagan was someone who did appreciate that government had a role. When hes elected governor of california he talks about trimming and cutting and shrinking government but he really doesnt do much of it. The same thing happened in his presidency, but his presidency is quite successful and he leaves the presidency as a popular president who wins the cold war in the eyes of the Republican Party in the brought the country back to a place of confidence from it sort of \70{l1}s{l0}\70{l1}s{l0} low. And overtime that i think has given consent is the idea of reagan did that by saying the government was a problem. So today you people not living in reagans spirit of actually focusing on good governance. They are just trying to live out the reagan legacy and thats why weve Government Shutdown and in a lot of ways what the Republican Party isnt able to sustain its electoral advantages, even in years that favor it like a 2010 Tea Party Election for the 1994 election. Im reminded of something that Daniel Patrick moynihan said about the time, i think this is after the nixon administration. Nixon, the last liberal president. Moynihan said that the American Public is conservative in its ideology but liberal in the programs it wants. Thats why you have a tea party that says keep government hands off my medicare, or the concern of many on the right have about immigrants is not really the labor force, but actually the social services that are made payable to them. Everybody wants a piece of the pie and all the rest. That was a ship i remember that reagan made, the early reagan opposed medicare, he opposed benefits for war veterans. It was kind of old liberty kind of conservatism and then he ran for president and he said all of that aside. He ran for governor and he set it aside as well. To me looking at reagan in the 60s, you really have to sort of separate his passionate anticommunism and his passionate about fighting communism from everything else. Because you really cares a lot less about everything. I dont mean that he doesnt believe some of these positions he takes but its just for him the gold is as he sees it stopping the policy of appeasement which is going to inevitably lead to ruin. Thats the animating part of his philosophy that he makes as a conservative. So its actually not that hard for reagan when he becomes a politician to sort of step away from those previously more extreme policies which he had when he was really speaking about politics in conservative circles because hes not as compassionate as he is. Thats the guiding principle of the reagans presidency which makes it successful in a lot of ways is you stand on your high principles and you are willing to cop a lot of the other thin things. What did the people of i know Orange County very well. What to do not like about johnson in 1964 desperate to the rest of the state a year later . Dont think i read was that this goes to california was a complete mess under pat brown and that reagan saw that they were bankrupted many ways. Many left town. Great question. I think what you see in Orange County is a hotbed of grassroots conservatism, sort of goldwater is able to win the state because he has, in 1964 primary against rockefeller because he has this Incredible Army of passionate volunteers from Orange County to go out and start make the case for him as an almost religious cause. So what theyre doing is they are on the early edge of seeing this link between the threat from International Communism which they believe is a dire one which is not being adequately addressed by the figures in washington, and the encroaching state of the federal government at home. So for them thats an easy argument to make, that through the encroaching liberalism you have a road to communism. And thats not for those passionate diehard believers, that belief is not what reagan popularized in the country at large. They are the one to go it on pipe with the country that made government isnt the solution to the problem space you probably know that Orange County was also a real said in a of the john force society. The john burke society, became kind of a unifying neighborhood caused the let me throw something out or ask you about, and that is racial anxiety. Something that reagan addressed in complex ways that was part of sort of the campaign of 1966. There have been a riot in wants. That came the more or less the same moment lbj signing some of the civilized registration civil rights legislation. What would the impact in california and went reagan was emerging as a Major Political figure . Theres a famous moment in the 1966 campaign where reagan is running in the republican primary for governor, again George Christer been a fairly liberal republican mayor of san francisco. Christopher is again using this strategy against reagan saying that reagan and goldwaters opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was what had given the Republican Party such a disgrace and given the Republican Party such a bad thing. And reagan has a real sensitivity about accusations of racism. Hes upset by this that when christopher attacks him with his life in the debate, reagan gets up and leaves the room, which immediate covering it thanks this is the end of Ronald Reagans local group its such a clear and obvious he lost his composure. And it plays right into the line that reagan supposed have been using against in the he was an actor, spiriting lines and if you put them in a situation where doesnt have the script, he totally falters. But in the Republican Party in 1966 you seek a change from what had been a sort of centrist position of 1964, where in 1964 there was a sense civil rights was an idea whose time had come to a 1966 you at twothirds of white northerners sang civil rights is moving too fast. So the idea speak what you mean by that is its moving out of the south into their backyard. Thats right. Spent was it there fair housing, a proposition speak with there was a fair housing built in 1964 which was action is something the Johnson Campaign was worried about in california in the 64 election, that there would be a backlash. It didnt happen. Does anyone remember the democrat who also ran briefly for the nomination in 1964 . George wallace, alabama. Its very well in several primaries with the intent to he did quite well. The white backlash has begun. And johnson understands this sort of backlash as a phenomenon in 1964. In 1964 he is looking towards what should be a pretty easy reelection for him because he has so perfectly, to embody the countrys desire to feel good again and move on after that, of the kennedy assassination. Hes made his whole campaign about that. Its a remarkable piece. He is at the same time as his escalade the vietnam war, he is running a campaign of peace and prosperity. And goldwater called him out on that. You did. What johnson is trying to do, johnson is looking for pretty easy reelection but his focus in all sorts of potential threats. Its not as appealing for johnson who really needs a source of fear to come in human form as some of the working potential threats he sees amongst people he knows, chiefly the kennedys. So thats what hes been a longtime robert kennedy. Exactly. The lead up to the Democratic Convention in the summer of 1964. Hes quite focused on and spend a lot of time thinking about that. If he spent the same time thinking about the question of whats happening in this country, who are these new voters have moved out of the cities, out of the old democratic machine and into the suburbs, and what do they want and how do i come up with a message that is my progressive message on civil rights understanding Government Programs for the poor that connects with them. He might not have some the same problems he had in his presidency, although of course vietnam did overwhelm thanks. You made me realize something and the book brings it home in this very subtle, elegant way, is that in some ways although johnson was by far the more practiced politician and really a migrant of the legislative process, reagan was more worldly in many respects because it seemed more of the country. Remember, Lyndon Johnson was afraid to give a speech in the north because he thought northern voters didnt like them. He was identified with that more conservative Richard Russell lbj was afraid to give a speech in washington. That no southern had won the presidency, it depends on icac at the Woodrow Wilson or zachary taylor, and it looked like no southern or could ever win. Reagan is traveling the country. Hes a National Movie star. He hobnobs with celebrities in hollywood, and in some ways hes actually more in touch. Thats surely what the book is partly about, that reagan is more in touch with his shifting mood of the country. Yeah, at a moment when its possible to talk to the country as a whole in what it hasnt been before. And that from is why the kennedy assassination is such an important place to start because it is a shared moment that the country as a whole with you lived in california or maine, you experienced that in much the same way because youre watching it on television to johnson is an old school politician in many ways who thinks about different regions of the country as represented by their legislative. So its not just what people on this parlay conjure one. Its who is their representative and what does he want and what kind of man is that . Thats the extent of little understanding. Theres a difference between him, which what he does understand is the difference between the congress and the country. Reagan going way back to the early days of his career as a movie star views himself a sort of representing the normal middleclass, good, virtuous american. And tbillys all along that what ever tbillys all along what is right and good in it he disagreed must be because someone has been conniving to convince them otherwise indicating to skimming it with them clearly dont understand and come around to his way thinking. Thats a precipitous gateway thinking about media culture any moment with the country shifts from parochial Political Institutions chiseled what we think of now with these Massive National campaigns. Next question. This is less of a major issue, but taking up from your comment about all the way Lyndon Johnson played in the play, Lyndon Johnson was rather dismissive of Hubert Humphrey, to deal with the relationship in your book . I do. At times. Data but here the question about johnsons relationship with Hubert Humphrey. He goes through this really tortured episode in the summer of 1964, and he becomes public about whos going to be his Vice President. A lot of this sort of the media focus is on this question of, because the vice presidency is obviously empty i should say after johnson listens to the presidency. Was there any thought of pointing some of as an interim Vice President or it just never came up . I dont have ever seen any reference to that. Did they even consider doing it . Im trying to remember. I dont think that was part of the conversation. Its quite striking does not because were so focused on because of the kennedy assassination, editing a kennedy assassination does prompt us to think about this a lot more. Because its quite harrowing for the country not only that theres no vice presidency by the next in line of succession is the speaker of the house John Mccormick who at that point was an old man. So theres this idea of the country have one president , if something would happen to johnson then you would have some who was quite frail. There is this conversation in the summer of 1964 that is johnson going to pick Bobby Kennedy to be his Vice President or not. Johnson desperate did not want to bobby as his Vice President. They really hated each other, right . They did. In some ways theyre quite different from one another. New england versus texas. Bobby wears these trade outfits and so it has the aristocratic detachment from sort of, hes above trying to show off. Johnson wears flashy suits with fine french couplings. But in another way there actually quite similar because they both have tradition and allies played the part of supporting role to a powerful man. This is one of the really interesting point of your book. On the has done in his career of course with his brother. Thats the role that he plays in his family. He really struggles for a long time in his youth to find a role in the film and finally as the attack dog who does what the dirty work that the shining star, his older brothers, cant do. Johnson actually in his early life place that similar role for a number of figures, starting with sam rayburn, the speaker of the house, and the house of representatives and his great mentor in the senate, Richard Russell. And there is that sort of common effect of suppressed ego and rage which belongs to that defender, which makes them quite common. And i think because they vote in the kennedy years play that role for jack kennedy. They put it all on to each other. They each see everything that they dont like about the world in the other. So when johnson ascends to the presidency in the wake of jfks assassination, bobby views him as embodiment of everything wrong with the world. The great injustice that not only has he lost his brother that he loved so much, but that this horrible ruthless should be there in his place. But because johnsons central political message of that year is continuity of the candy legacy, theres a strong lead a rational to make Bobby Kennedy is a Vice President. So he says early on in the spring that if he can do it without bobby, he will do without bobby, but if he needs about it he will bring bobby a long. He makes that quite clear to Bobby Kennedy who at the same time is dirty awful to johnson in return. So theres no and he wanted it, right . Bobby kennedy wanted it . Whats interesting is he talks about not wanting it and always other things he wants to do, and hes in this position of great grief and survivors guilt in the wake of his brother and he has a chance to become inspiring Bobby Kennedy of later in the 60s who really is able to put that suffering into compassion for others and make a message about really inspired political change in the country. He hasnt become the bobby hitt. He still in the place of deep grief. So talks about maybe he will go be the ambassador to vietnam or maybe move to england and write a book. All these other ideas. The last thing he wants to be his johnsons Vice President. But then he becomes aware that johnson really doesnt want him. And so all of a sudden Vice President is a job he wants for a brief period in the summer. They go through this terribly awkward public dance of johnson essentially having this problem on his hand, which is what is taught what is going to go with bobby or not. He has concluded he is not going to go with bobby. He doesnt need bobby as his Vice President but how does he make it clear to bobby that, how does he make it clear that hes going to not just bobby in a way that people wont be through discipline with the person he doesnt choose in the end. It creates an awful public break between them which is the final straw which submits anonymity between them i think. Working in the wings all this time, just to get back to question, has been Hubert Humphrey was always at the top of the list of nonbobby Vice President of prospects. And briefly, why . Because of johnson, we forget this done because johnson is the hero of civil rights and that such Amazing Things with progressive policy in the 60s, but one of johnsons other immediate political necessities in 1964 is to prove that he can be not from the south which some people some as being as a texan, but as a Credible National democrat in the Democratic Party is becoming much more little spinning he was seen as a conservative democrat spent exactly. And that was his background to the point. He had begun this ship with his national ambitions, but he still associate if you watch some of that footage on the early hours after the kennedy assassination, all commentators on television or sing of course johnson will be much more conservative than jfk. That is what people associate with him. So Hubert Humphrey was the great liberal order of the era is an obvious choice because he puts people at ease in the same way later in 1980 reagan when he chooses george h. W. Bush or after the grand dance with the gerald ford, another Vice President ial debacle who was saying that he can be a main street candidate as well. Humphry introduced that in the 1940 Democratic Convention. Wasnt he the one who stood at . And interestingly one of the people who speaks on humphrys behalf in the election of 1948 is none other than still at the point liberal Ronald Reagan. Thats the next book, reagan and Hubert Humphrey. An interesting thing about the 1966 campaign, sorry, were jumping around here, is that the johnson and brown camp has had a horrible search against break in 1966 up again as johnson puts it hang goldwater around his neck, make reagan into the reincarnations of goldwater. They tried that strategy and they tried that strategy and it doesnt work. Finally, they sent out humphrey to try and save pat brown in the fall of 1966, he makes a case against reagan once again as this man who wants to end Government Programs and really thats whats missing the point is thats not for a lot of people in california that scary of an idea. Two more questions. That was an oped piece of you days ago in the New York Times by a Boston University professor with a book coming out in early 1915, if i recall. The contending is that reagan should be returned to history