6:00 p.m. eastern. tonight former fbi deputy assistant peter discusses his career in the work he did on the russian investigation find more information on your program guide or online @booktv.org. back good evening i am alan price director of the library and museum. on behalf of my library and colleagues i'm welcome all of you are watching tonight's program online. thank you for joining us this evening. i would also like to acknowledge the generous support of our underwriters of the kennedy library forms. lead sponsors bank of america on the lowell institute intermediate sponsors, the boston globe and wbur. look forward to a robust question and answer. this evening, but you will see full instructions on the screen for submitting your questions during the youtube pay during the program.

we are so grateful to explore resident candies earlier years in depth with our distinguished speakers this evening. this is the first major work about president kennedy and many years. we have been anticipating this for some time. much of professor frederik logevall took place in the kennedy archives. we are very pleased to learn more about this comprehensive new look at president kennedy's formative years. i'm now delighted to introduce tonight speakers, were so glad to welcome frederik logevall back to the kennedy library virtually. he is the professor for international affairs and professor of history at harvard university. a specialist on u.s. foreign relation history and modern international history pre-he is the author or editor of nine books including jfk, coming of age and the american century, 1917 -- 1956 is

fred's newest book. i am also pleased to extend a warm welcome to george our moderator for this evening. his nonfiction books include our men, richard holbrook in the end of the american century. a finalist for the pulitzer prize. the unwinding, 30 years of american decline, which won eight national book award. the assassin's gate, america and iraq. and the liberal spirit is also the author of two novels in a play. an editor of a two-volume edition of the essays of george orwell. please join me in welcoming our special guests. >> welcome everybody. i see there's at least a couple hundred of you which is fantastic. it would be a privilege and a pleasure to talk to frederik logevall tonight and get our heads out of the present and in out of the news for an hour

or an hour and a half into the past which is a great refuge as well as a guide for us as we try to navigate one of the stormy and steers in our lives. , i know you as the author of two essential books on the vietnam war. and it is not just me saying that. people i knew who fought in vietnam when asked but of the books i have to read on the wor work, when i was researching my biography of richard holbrook who served in vietnam said, oh that's easy, choosing war and embers of war by the same guy, frederik logevall. so i knew you as a vietnam expert. but now i really know you as something broader as an american expert and someone who shares a lot of interest with me in american history and foreign policy. it's great to get to talk to but completely engrossing --

which is a word kennedy is in his book review, with the biography of jfk, so welcome. and welcome to our audience why another biography there are dozens without their words to know everything we would know first of all georgia's tremendous to be with you. to have the opportunity to talk about all this stuff. it occurred to me just now as i was listening and away our two most recent books, mind and our man are bookends

here. mine is really the beginning of the american century endurance is more about the latter part of the century so maybe we can talk about that. but it's great to be on i think i've been fastening by john f. kennedy in the kennedys for a long time particular vietnam and volume two that vietnam question what i call the mother of all factual's what he would have done in vietnam patties should survive would get attention. partial interest in the kennedys, partly a sense that hidden one day in the yard is writing a book that was a biography. he could also use my training as a historic to tell the story not just of his rise, but of america's rise to superpower status huge comic

of course died in 63 which is arguably prior to the mass of vietnam. with those two things may be a third george, which is that the materials in the library and i knew this the toasting tonight's events are so big. i thought a lot of them had not been tapped by a lot of people. there's something kinda fresh about them. and in a sense the biographies are out there. but nobody is really done, i think the kind of comprehensive life and times that i am trying to do here. even though you knew about the libra because of your vietnam research?

speed it yes i about it from the work of vietnam. i knew it from the extent of some other researchers, graduate students of mine and others who said you know, credible folders, files, documents in the library. some of them used, a lot have not been used all that much. then those things come availabl available. so yes it was partly because of my own private research, no question. >> host: 's you actually zeroed in on documents that you knew they were there what you committed yourself to this project. like you said i'm going to box 291 out of the 73 because i know what is they are no one's ever it. >> guest: obviously some of this in terms of specific collections of specific folders i had to see them myself. see them up close. but i knew for example david

nasa's terrific biography of joe senior, i was able -- as historians we all do this and you do it yourself. we look to see what other people have done. to see what david and a few other people have done in particular collections. some which had not been open and available prior to work. and then, one of the marvelous things about the library even a relatively small percentage of the collections have been digitized, nevertheless, some great stuff, george. you can -- anybody can access from their couch. there is stuff available that you can see without having to darken the doorways of this library. it is a great collection. >> host: so how did you approach these long genre of biography since i don't think you had written one. it's not the same thing as the

history of war. or the history of even two years decision-making about a war. it is more of a -- i would say it's a little closer to the problems it in front a novelist. you have to fill the book with characters. especially with one character and bring that character to lif life. i think all the harder's people think they know that character. so how did you approach the genre, the un- known genre biography. what models did you use? what guidance that you give yourself as you figured out how to research and write it? >> guest: it is so interesting. given that you yourself is authored novels you have a sense of what you are describing here. that is totally fascinating to me for your quite right

history and biography are not the same thing. i've come to realize just how different they are in some ways. of course there are some important similarities. it's about finding evidence. it is about trying to figure out what happened. in this case centered on a particular life. but there are similarities here between this work and the work that i've done previously. but as you say they are also different. i think i had been fascinated by the kennedys. it is in some ways the great american story. this family is just an extraordinary one. i begin the book with the arrival of both the kennedys and the fitzgeralds and middle part of the 19th century. then of course, joe's rise in particular i would say joe senior chris huge family this marriage to rose, jack is a sickly child emerges from this.

i won't say the story would write itself as it turns out they never do. i thought this had great potential for me as a historian. but also someone who is interested in biography and wants to see if i can make this work. both killing two narratives at the same time. both kennedy story. in america's story. can i just ruefully toss this back to you because you have this experience, george, how would you answer your own question? consider how you approach this with respect to our man? stu and i had a different problem. by the time my book came out, it was a fading figure in american foreign policy. he kind of dominated many news events in his lifetime. but he was not on the scale of jfk, not close.

he actually first went into the foreign service under jfk, he was called to service that inspired hobart to join the service. i felt that i 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 didn't have that problem, people care about jfk. i began my book about holbrook in the voice of a novelist. even though the book has 35 pages of notes and it is as accurate as i could possibly make it, beginning holbrook yes i knew him as if you're about to hear a long yarn by racketeer who knew holbrook. that is the voice that carries the entire book. he gave me a ton of freedom to do things that traditional biographies don't do. but always within the guidelines of the contract

with the reader is that all has to be true. so i tried to make it sound like just a great yarn that you would want to sit down and hear through storytelling. >> united talked about this a little bit before. i think it just succeeds marvelously but we were on the show together is great fun to talk about this. just one thing i may come of eisai think in the early pages which i thought about it would be fun to talk about a little bit, i am paraphrasing i did not have a chance to read this before he came on. you say something like only infection can we ever get to know a person, deep inside. i've thought about that because jack kennedy, many people so this is truly elusive. some people warned to be early on, you're never going to be able to get close to this guy because of that nature of the parents. he has some of his mother's emotional patterns.

you are so right in this nettie hope, readers will have to tell me if i'm right about this. i do think i can get, given your parameters that only infection can we ever really know, i hope i get fairly close. >> i think you do. i wrote this to you personally and i think it is sitting on the book jacket now, this brings us close to jfk. it is really an intimate pictur picture. should talk about how you should achieve that. i think we will find this is engrossing, it is a page turner and that is because you are always right there in the middle of the scene or very close to the characters. and yes, that he is ironic attached and observing his own life and everyone else. that is his character.

but the things that created that character, i did not understand very well until i read your boo book. so let's talk about that. but two things at once. your book does not begin but history begins the month before we enter. this is an interesting parallel to mine because holbrook was born in 1941 which is that other year the american century began we entered world war ii. so tell me about your decision to frame jfk's life is the life of the american century beginning in 1917 what that means for our understanding of america's rise to global power. i think it may have been ernest may delete great historian, member of this department than i am now in. : : :

but earnie said, noing. in fact, america's contribution the war in 1917 and 1918 was formidable, and because of the degree to which the european powers were decimated by that great conflagration so wasn't fully evident at the time, segue gracious, far-sited europeans in other words it was only a time before the americans would be dominant on the world stage and in a sense, there was a delay in the '20s in and '0s, american leaders were not sure what they wanted to. do i write about is in the

poock. want the responsibility on leadership. man not itch still feel comfortable in saying that 1917 is absolutely critical to the american century for two reasons. u.s. entry into the war and then the bolshevik revolution and is crucial to jack kennedy's life. >> the cold war that defined kennedy's public life began in 1917. the true powers of the cold war, their trajectory in collision with each other bannin' 1917. >> you could make that argument and i sometimes stay to students, ask them when did the cold war' given you look at the characteristics of the cold war, i a how many of those characteristics were present in 1917? it turns out that maybe only two or three of them with. one might be a deep ideological

schism but some thing wiz associate with the cold war, which is great arms race, for example, suppression of internal dissidence and we see that after world warring 1 in the out and the soviet union. a bipolar world structure. some may not be present in 1917 but i've had very smart students make a compelling case for 1917 as the start date of this power confrontation. >> you have a preconception but jfk going into this? did you have a picture of him that we were going to then draw or did you begin relatively agnostic? >> i think i had a sense -- a

really interesting question. i think i had a sense even when i began for my work on indo-china and the fact he had visited in 1951 and -- >> the binges of embers of wars. >> and did he asks penetrating questions what the french are trying to achieve issue think i had a sense that the common view of the young jack kennedy as a callow, kind of playboy, who had everything handed to him, who wasn't very serious but anything, and only later became mature striving politician. had a sense that was maybe not correct. and i think that the research that i did -- again, the materials materials in the library are so marvelous, i think show beyond a doubt this ailes guy who from an early age is serious about policy, deeply curious about the

world. so that sort of a half answer. i guess suggesting i haded a inclining i wanted to revise what was common view and i think that the research supports this. >> i think some of the most riveting pages are young jack's trip to europe in 1939, when europe is moving rapidly toward war and he is having a mix of a kind of rich boy's vacation along with access to the most important counsels of government across the continent, churchill, chamberlain, hitler doesn't he see hitler give a speech? >> no. to his regret he never did. he was there with limb billings, and they decided not to and then

say shied we should have gone. but in '39 as you say, almost like a -- the degree to which he shows up in these places that become hot spots and i open the book, i open the preface with him in berlin in late august of '39 and he even carries a message from in the u.s. -- from the u.s. consular official, the ambassador left but the senior diplomat in berlin gives him message to carry back to this father, the ambassador in britain, joe kennedy sr., and the message says the germans are going attack poland within a week. so, you have this kind of intrepid guy. benefiting from the father's connects and wouldn't be able to travel to these places and see these people if joe sr., who was already ambitious for his two sons in particular, the two eldest sons, but it's also

joe's -- i'm sorry -- jfk's own early striving and motivation. >> let's talk but his parents and his relation to them because when i said earlier i felt i understood his character much better from your book, it was really because of especially his relationship with his father. the relationship with his mother is distant and i wouldn't be the first to say maybe the source of some of his misogyny because his mother let him down. wasn't round for a lot of his childhood himself father wasn't either but the mother was expected to be and the father was not. but his father comps across -- joe ken comes across -- he made my feel like a lame father pause he is just constantly arranging activities and events and every day is scheduled, going yachting

in the morning and football in the afternoon and current events at dinner and reading at night. for a man of that generation, incredibly involved in his many children's lives and devoted to them. so that seems to me to be the core relationship for jack kennedy growing up. is that right? >> i think it ultimately and is you described it really well and it's an interesting -- joe kent's persona, joe kennedy in 1934-'35, is heading up the sec in washington, an important new government entity, and yet he pens these long letters, handwritten letters to jack, who is in his last year at choate, the prep schools. seasons long letters hand wherein to joe jr. who is at

harvard. the younger children. just it strikes me this is a guy who somehow managing important government policy is nevertheless instructing his children, trying to mold his children in particular the sons, more concerned, it's quite clear, about them and especially the two older ones -- so what everyone might say about joe kennedy as a businessman, as a diplomat, ultimately disastrous turn as ambassador to britain. this devotion to his kids is something. also say that i think rose kennedy, the mother, deserves more in some ways credit for jack's upbringing than than she is sometimes given he gets his putticcal sensibility more from her than from his father. actually more like his mother in

many ways than like his father. his international sensibility comes in part from her i suggest in the book, but she is emotionally withdrawn, she leads a kind of separate life through all of hill illnesses at choate, first prep school and then at choate, she never pays a visit. i think she comes once to canterbury and never comps to choate and take extended vacation biz herself, including to europe. it's -- i thing that was hard for him. >> you say at one point what do you expect from a woman whose husband is flagrantly cheating on her throughout their marriage, and humiliating her by bringing mistresses home for dinner and of course she will withdraw. the alternative is tofight all the time' maybe to leave and those are not alternatives she wants to inflict on herself or

her family and two against her religion. so the way out is emotional withdrawal. >> i think that's exactly right and i think they -- i suggest in the book they have a kind of arrangement which is that he is going to be more dissecrete in his affairs than maybe he was early on. and she is going to kind of look the other way and that's what happens here. has a notorious affair with gloria swanson in hollywood and i think on some level he comes to realize i can't continue to do this. but you're so right, when you think about what he has so endure and think but his view of his object fying women and seeing them as objects to conquer it's a hard environment for her.

>> where does jack's am mission comes from -- ambition come from? your book makes its clear it wasn't simply handed to him like an instructions on how to be a man by his father. he is his own boy and map in a way that is extremely attractive. he does not seem like a pampered, spoiled, son of privilege who went his father's way because that was the path of least resistance. he is not donald trump jr. he fights for his own path, even while never causing too much trouble. he never openly is defiant and rebellious in a way that could deeply hurt his father but nonetheless manages to, again a great deal of magnetism from his

father. hough did it create a political ambition in jab. >> i thought about that. going through awe the material, archival materials and other evidence, the oral history collection of the library which is mag never sent. they can't -- magnificent that it can't reveal everything. think what we see is somebody who, because he was bed-ridden a 0 lot i've various ailments. >> continuous. >> continuous. he became the family reader. he devoured especially european history and statecraft and diplomacy, an early fan to say the least of winston churchill, and i think the ambition at least comes in part from him realizing, hey, maybe i can do

something similar here. also got his maternal grandfather, honey fitz fitzgerald, a legendary boston politician and they're extremely close, quite different as politicians, jack is more reserves, more urban, scholarly in his approach than his grandfather but also that, that grandpa fitz is -- i can aspire to do something similar and then finally, and i think this is especially in our own day and age, for me such an appealing quality, george, he likes politics. and i think he likes politics precisely because he thinks politics matters. politics is important, and i think from a pretty early age, before joe jr. is killed in the war, he is already thinking to himself and a particular girlfriend he was close to her, inga, that maybe i want to

pursue a political career. so it's those things at least in part that i think bring in this serious quality to him early on. >> yes. and it's not as though when joe jr. is killed over england or over the channel, suddenly it's up to jack to carry on his father's dreams. jack was headed that way already. >> i think that he was. >> and would have been joe jr. would not have had what jack brought to that career, which is that incredible intelligence' that quality of being his own man which is essential when you're in the oval office and your generals are telling you, you need to start world war iii with the soviet union over cuba. >> i think it's right and i do

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, put not going to suggest i don't say in the book that even if joe jr. survived, comes back from the war, that we would have soon the same kind of trajectory from his younger brother. but he had his own reasons for running and as you suggest i think he had a better claim -- already authored a book, while england slept, a new version of his senior thesis. joe jr. was used to be -- primary in the family and already that this at triabouts were joe jr.'s tragic death and is making his own decisions, even in terms of which office to

seek in 1946. it's not his father's decision to seek a house seat. that is jfk's open. >> tell us how his mind as a practitioner of statecraft, who think about and eventually practices foreign policy, developed in the crucial areas from the late '30s to the early cold war when he fir ran for office. hough did he become the jack kennedy we now know as president. those are the key years seems to me. tell us what happened and how they affected him and bring in his father, too. that's a crucial parting of the ways. >> this was such a fun part of the whole writing experience for me and my wife will tell you that i would talk about mat at

the materials in the library and elsewhere show about precisely that period. think what happens is that he gets to harvard -- begins in 1936. he has had effectively a kind of gap year, year older than some of -- than most of his classmates in the class of 1940. the student body is isolationist and continues to be so right up to the end, and i think he buys into that. his father becomes ambassador to britain in '38 and as you know a kind of arch apiecer. even more so than chamberlin himself and i think initially jack is incline to agree with this position. this is the discussion between him and his brother. joe jr. i-icinesses comfort able outside of this father's shad to and parrots his father to the

en. what is fascinating to observe jack kennedy, little by little, begin to see a more comeplex and crowded world than his father or old are brother and tee she problems that narrow parochial nationalism that they endorse to see the threat polessed by the japanese and the germans, and by -- hard to say exactly when but before pearl harbor, by the early part of '41, a confirmed speier -- internationalist and that growth in his view is totally interesting. then finallile'll say his open war experience in the south pacific in '43 is important for him in affirming him -- kind of mixed. affirms for young jack kennedy that the out has to play a

leading role in world affairs. that question for him has been settled and for his mates. they have long discussions in his tent in the solomons what the u.s. role should be and comes back from the war affirm in that belief. but he also comes back skeptical about i think the military as an instrument of policy. i think you see in his letters home, which are really interesting, a sense that military leadership -- by a not be a contradiction in terms but i think he is skeptical of that. i think we see -- i'll see if i can develop this or should dedeveloped into volume 2 put you see this at the end of his life. it's those two. >> what is interesting because it may be -- he is lieutenant, right? he -- >> correct. >> he young officer but he was

not someone for whom the war was abstract because at headquarters he was out there obviously getting shot up, because whole generation of officers became the overconfident, generals of the vietnam, who thought that america had nothing to worry but with these pest sans in pa jams because we fought the nazi war machine and the japanese war machine. jack ken did not come back from the second world war with that kind of confidence in the american military. maybe in american example to the world but not in our basketball 0? impose our will and i have a feeling that it have been the experience south pacific but also his nature to be skeptical

to have an eye on the darkness and on human frailty and the flaws in our nature, our bottom line spots and ability to deceive ourselves. all of that steams so be very at a very young page and i'm sure be able to trace it through to the crucial years in the white house. >> that's well put. think partly because of his ailment, because of the tragedies he suffered, losing -- well, he effectively loss rosemary through a botched horrible lobotomy in late '41, the sister close toast him in aim. only 18 months apart. loses his brother in '44. later loses his closest sibling, kathleen, or kit, but i think it

goes to your point, sense that life was fraught. he had -- well-developed sense of irony, self-deprecating humor and combined with as you'll say the experience in the south pacific, came back i think with the sense that there were limits to what certainly in military terms limits to american power, even though in '45 the united states is absolutely colassal not n what i can do and achieve. so i think you're absolutely right. he didn't fall prey to what so many later generals fell prey to and that is evident here early on. >> before we get to the political chapters let's talk about jfk and women because

there are a lot of women in this book. they come and good quickly. most of them. he is a hounding to -- hound dog. constantly writing letters to his friends about having just bedded this nurse or failed to bed this nurse and then this just a ton of girlfriends that come and go and some of them he seems really smitten with and especially inga. others are just clearly instruments for explore maybe a little narcissism. how too you as a biographer, you don't spare him. you definitely don't spare him but his treatment of women and the worst moment is when his wife, jackie, has a miscarriage and he is off sailing around the

french riviera and gets back a week or two later, pretty unforgivable. hough did you handle that fraught material which you don't hold back but trying to make it possible for us to go on wanting to know the next chapter. >> it's a challenge. a bigger challenge in volume 2. i don't think as a first response, i don't think that the behavior in the period up through 1956 is predatores that's the right word here. there isn't the position of power -- i guess there already is a power differential in the latter part another this, he's a senator. suspect not having researched this fully or written volume 2 i think this is going to become more problematic in volume 2 and

already problematic and some of this clearly comes from his father. i think we have ample evidence he expected, indeed instructs his sons to proceed in the way the did and view women as objects to be conquered. there's no question about that. he was unfaithful to jackie before thed withing and after. -- the wedding and after and i can't have it both ways. i. i can't on the one hand say he is his own man in politics. he does not follow his father's dictates in terms of his political positions or which office to seek or which career to choose. he is his own man. or whether to support isolationism verse interventionism before pearl harbor. want to make that argue. with suspect to the political stuff and career stuff, then obviously he should show the ability to not follow his father's dictates when it comes

to women and he doesn't. it opportunity have at least again as far as i can see some of the more problematic elements we see with joe sr. who asks out jack's girlfriends himself. but -- >> nor can we say it was different time back then because this is i think a more -- i would use the word pathological attitude toward women and i wonder at times i got a little wisp if if not hatred at least disdain, dehumanizing eye toward them, as if i don't need to treed treat you the way i would treat my gay friend lem to whom jack after rejecting his advance is a loyal friend for the rest of their lives.

his sister is different. she's like an honorary guy but don't get that treatment, and i wonder if there's something darker than just to being a bitf a scoundrel about it. >> it may be. i think that inga is the kind of exception because he treats her so differently from so many of the other women, and in the respects her spill generals and in fact, sort of is envious of the fact she speaks to many languages, been to so many places and clearly super sharp and they have these conversations, some of them picked up by the fbi, interestingly, because she is under surveillance, in which you see the two of them go at it intellectually, and in other ways, too, but intellectually in a way i think you're quite right

you depth see very often. there's some other exceptions. ultimately jackie, though there are lots of rocky moments when i deal with these -- she is very formidable. and he comes to see how intelligent she is, and she, too has this kind of cultured quality that he really admires in part because he doesn't possess it the same way himself. there me a be a certain loathing or -- >> disdain. >> something that is problematic, no question. >> he becomes a member of the house from cambridge. >> the 11th district. >> and then he gets elected to the senate, and all of it leads to this wonderful set piece which is the '56 convention when

jack comes when it a withster of beinged ally stevenson's vice presidential candidate which may befana bullet dodged rather than an opportunity missed but what do you make of kennedy the politician in those years? what did you learn but him and what struck you as -- doesn't seem presidential material in the early going. he seems hard working, curious, all that, but there isn't that quality that you just immediately say this is guy is going to the top and yet obviously going to get to the top. how do you describe him as a politician who saw domestic politics as what was the wore -- sewer contracts -- mainly interested in world affairs. >> i think that's right. think it's clear from the time he enters the house in '47 that

foreign policy is where he is most interested. it's also where i think he feels the most comfortable. during the campaign in '46, this skinny 29-year-old, who has to get the nomination and the nomination battle is ferocious and you see then then he is comfortable talk little about the emerging cold war that he is not really a reality but is emerging, and other international issues, and by the way, quite already penetrating insightful in see things from the soviet perspective. a certain. he pathetic understanding he has with respect to politic but doesn't have the same engagement with all domestic issues. think he is fundamentally

liberal on most issues, not so much fiscal issues which he is more conservative. he is quite conservative on foreign policy. this is -- as i suggest in the book he's an early cold warrior. he does not see an opportunity for accommodation when henry wallace argues for the need to try to smooth things of with the soviets. jfk is caustic in swatting town the notion. just a side note, joe kennedy sr. -- and david brings this out in his biography -- maybe arthur schlessinger jr. brought this out by joe kennedy articulated a position that more than a few cold war historians would articulate, which is the soviets aren't going to invade anybody. there's not a threat to the out in terms of its resistance. we can take a hands off approach

here. that's joe kennedy sr., his son felt very differently at the time, which is fascinating between the two of them. >> interesting incident of that he goes to vietnam in 1951 and this is the opening of your wonderful book and asks all the right questions questions and w- what she see is the french are fighting a losing endless war and why should that be our war? why are we defending a colonial empire? we're the world's hope for democracy but by the mid-'50s he is talking a more hawkish view but vietnam as a threat, giving speeches in which he thinks we have to hold the line against communism right there at the parallel between north and south vietnam. what happened? how did -- >> it's the great paradox about jfk and indo-china, which is --

i think this will be the thread in volume 2 as well -- that i don't think his skepticism about a military solution in vietnam ever goes away. i think it's there from '51, it's there until november of '63 ask we haven't evidence of him in the white house rejecting hawkish advice from his aides when they want to send ground troops and so on and one of the reasons why in terms of the what-ifs, that we can never know, i do believe he would have -- if he had survived would have avoided most like the that he would eave avoided the kind of huge open-ended escalation that johnson -- >> that is a passage in choosing war i read because you earned the right to say that and i'll be curious to see if you still think it writing volume 2.

anyway, go ahead. >> i reserve the right to shift. the paradox, that part of this, the paradox is that as you say, this same jack kennedy as get into the late 50s is much more aggressive. he is counseled because he is a very careful politician -- careful in terms of his language, very reasoned approach to all policy issues but as you say, he now sings a different tune on vietnam and indo-china and supportive of the government in the south and believes the united states must preserve, do all in its power to reserve a noncommunist south vietnam, and so figuring out how this guy who understand so early that 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 minh's revolution. is this the same guy in domestic political terms -- mack that's the explanation hurricane seeks the white house now and knows that democrats cannot be targeted with being soft on communism sewing began. maybe -- slogan. maybe that's the explanation of the paradox but it's there on vietnam. >> and a major tension in volume 2 because even though i think you convinced me that if kennedy had lived we would not have had 200,000 troops in vietnam within two years of his -- of '63. nonetheless he got us in deep. he drug in 15,000 advisers and overthrew the government of south vietnam, so in some ways he corrected his own mistakes

but the mistakes're being made and how much domestic politics have to do witness, the fear of a democratic president failed with hawks in the -- faced with hawks in the government and opposition party. i'll be interested to see what you learn in volume 2. he were egg going to take questions in five multiples. had one or two more things to ask you. the only points in your book that i sump -- stomach stumbled are the same two that david says and those are the mccarthy period and the question of authorship of profiles in courage, and you looked at both of them carefully. so tell us why i might be wrong in thinking that jfk deserves more of 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 shouldn't think that he may have written some notes for profiles in courage but he didn't write the book, page for page. so take me to those, please. >> i don't now bet the first part of this is something i should admit before a live audience, but when you read this, george, in more than in draft, i guess in galley form and you pointed out the mccarthy bit, i said, i need to tweak this and try to somehow address this. there is time? and the peopled a random house who were absolutely marvelous up and town the line, i have such a wonderful publisher and shay said we -- they said we can do

this. so in response i think not to your satisfaction -- >> i do. >> you're going to get -- >> i haven't gotten the finished book. >> because hough late we were i could only do a few words, change a a few sentences but suffice to save i think you were right. i think that even before your intervention, i suggested that he was overly careful on mccarthy. something to do with the close family ties with mccarthy, especially joe sr. who loved -- but bobby, bobby was close could mccarthy and would remain close. flew to wisconsin for mccarthy's funeral and remained devoted to him to the end. partly about massachusetts politics. irish catholics constitute a large pat part of the

electorate. and just like today, right through to the end, through then sure, in '54 of joe mccarthy, public opinion survey after public opinion survey showed that he had the support of roughly 40% of the electorate. and i don't want to draw the comparison too closely but it's something how even after the senate begins to move, even after his attack on the army, mccarthy, a lot of americans stay with him to the end. 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 who say he went so interest the hospital to document the mccarthy vote, that's not true but he could have through a procedure called pair could go have instructed sorenson to vote and he should have done so.

and why he didn't is interesting. here's another quick little thing pout this, which is that in '56, at the aforementioned democratic national convention, he had a meeting with eleanor roosevelt and mrs. roosevelt basically said and i'm pair paraphrasing what gives? why didn't you come out against emergency car -- against mccarthy and what i puzzle against -- i thought but is, didn't write about. i put a paragraph and then erasinged it -- i thought why would he not in the summer '56 when attacking joe mccarthy is easy, the guy is a spent force, is gone. why would jack kennedy not say to mrs. root, i at any time like the guy, which is true i don't think he ever liked mccarthy in personal or political terms -- even then, however, he doesn't want to criticize mccarthy and i can't quite figure that out. >> let me quickly respond.

i didn't know. i can only imagine he was loyal to his family and this was one that didn't mean enough to him as going against his father's appeasement did, to reject his father that way. i think -- >> as good an explanation as any of them. >> by parents were at younger than jfk and mccarthy period was the let muss test for them -- lit litmus test for. the as liberal democrats whether a politician could be trusted, whether they would respect a politician and they ended as as stevenson people largely because stevenson was much moreout spoken but mccarthy. >> he was. >> and so when it came to 1960, they celebrated kennedy's election but they -- he was that their man and he never was their

man it and was really because of the mccarthy period. for a lot of liberals that is true. so it had a decisive effect not on the politics of that time but how democrats saw him and how they divided on him. >> i think it's a good point. one other thing and then talk about the -- that is that it is worth noting that the democratic party as a whole, including liberal stalwarts like hubert humphrey, for very long time were unwilling to criticize mccarthy. you have to go pretty far into '54 to see broad parts of the party begin to good after him in any serious way. so kennedy is not alone in this regard, and in fact, the senior senator from massachusetts, republican is just as cautious if not more so than jack ken so

he's not alone. on profiles in courage very quickly. i guess we differ a little bit. think that the evidence is pretty powerful that the broad architecture of the book, the themes of the become, the argument which by the way i think has salens in our own day in part about the need for if evidence based discourse for bargaining in good faith, the need ultimately for compromise in a democracy which we can discuss, but those arguments, those themes, are jack kennedy's. ted sorenson is way too young to have -- at 25 or 26, he's not going to be able to articulate those kinds of things. moreover the introduction and the conclusion i think for me the most interesting and important parts of the book, more than kennedy's notes. i think that is basically his

work. had he not won the pull pulitzer prize it wouldn't have been an issue. how he should have responded to the awarding to the pulitzer is a fair question. it was one of the proudest moments of his life he later said. is it reasonable to expect him to turn down the award? no. i don't know what that would have mend to an aspiring politician. there's no question that the middle chapters were drafted by others, not just sorenson but they had some professors who helped them and i write but this. but i guess i'm suggesting thisser more jack kennedy's back than perhaps you are allowing. >> well, before we good to questions don't want to end on that minor disagreement because i want our audience to know that we haven't even really talked but the way the book ended but it's marvelous account of a

convention that hasn't gone down in history as one thereof great conventions but it is the '56 democratic convention, and you see jack kennedy at his absolute best because he is maneuvering and showing he knows how to play the game and also detached enough to be able to recognize that he can take a loss now and it won't be the end of him. and in fact it might actually help him when the big turn comes four years from then. >> i'll just say here to folks -- i have this in minute of the end notes -- you can go on youtube, which i guess is where we're on now, and you can see the concession speech that he gives at the convention, and it's done without notes, i think it's a remarkable moment. captured -- we can all see it on youtube, an amazing clip.

so if folks are interested in this and he has come so close, just minutes before to getting this nomination, bit the was his father thinks it's a disaster to even seek the nomination. it becomes this close and then he said to ted sorenson when it becomes clear he says let's good and they leave their hotel room and go to the podium and he gives this speech and it's an amazing moment. >> a great ending and makes you eager for fred logevall to get to volume 2 and finish volume 2. let's get to a few questions, and some of them are quiz would have wanted to ask. what were -- this comes from someone in columbia, how would you define this leadership style and how does it apply to today's world challenges? you touched on that briefly. what more do you have to say? >> well, i think it's a

leadership style characterizes by an absolute insistent on his part that he himself and his aides indiana to be well-informed on the issue its. he had very little patience for advisers and others who didn't know their stuff down to the details. so it's a leadership style that is about becoming informed on an issue and then acting accordingly which leads in to the second point. this is something i find admirable. he is tot -- doesn't want yes men and women around hem. he is somebody who wants people to have different views, he wants to hear people's opinions about which paths to take and then act accordingly, and also say there's much more to be said but the final piece of this maybe is that when he needs to

make a decision, heaven thoughs he is openly cautious on issue likes civil rights, his legislative record overall is fairly meager by the time he is killed. i think the cuban missile crisis when virtually all of his advisers are counseling a military response, they are aggressive, almost to a person. kennedy is seeking a political solution. he shows enough chat to look at things from khrushchev's perspective which is important and that's an element of his leadership style, too. >> this question is why tide you end in '56? are you really going to be able to get all thereof late '50s, the 1960 election and his entire presidency in volume 2? that's a worried reader about your next book.

>> i'll remember that question. and i -- whenever posed it, that one pill he seared in my memory. i am committed to doing this. think i can do it. it's seven years of his life. and so much happens but there's a lot also happens in the first volume. a varied life he leads which helps me. the story is remarkable and so much in the early volume also on his father. he is himself a huge figure in the book and several others. but thick the subtext of your question is a good onement i have to deal with the amazing campaign, which really begins in-57. a secret of jang ken's success he starts earlier than at the competition and works harder than the competition. so i have to early in the volume 2 deal with this flying around the country with ted sorenson and speaking before tiny

audiences on airport tarmacs for eight people and 12 people and then culminates in the first -- the primary battle in '60 and then the race against nixon and we haven't even gotten to the presidency. i guess i'm helped by the fact -- a terrible thing to say -- but it all ends suddenly in november of 1963. and i don't think, george, my present plan is not to get deep into the conspiracies or deach into -- deep -- obviously i have to give my view what happened in dallas but maybe i save some space by keeping that limited. >> i have the same fear for robert carrow except he's older than you and he is some ways even more -- between '64 and '68 linton joins so president went to the stars and then crashed

back to earth. >> we all hope it happens soon. >> so, a viewer asked what lemendded but young jfk do you either unwind or upend from the biography? any stories you either could prove wrong or that you learned and included that we don't know or what is there hidden deep in the archives that might raise our eye brows or teach us something but young jfk. >> part of its what we have already discussed and maybe the viewer wants something more specific. i do think that this is young jfk who is one of his best qualities and jackie talked but 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. we have already talk about this. also say i think maybe i upend a myth which is that the ill illnesses, which were real, some of them. ill diagnosed but nevertheless he felt them, i think i upend the notion that they were acutely debilitating. let me put it this way. this is a guy who despite these illnesses, from a young age, was extraordinary live active and he served in the war. he had to fudge to get interest combat but with his father's help he did. who runs this bruising campaign in '46 where he outworks everybody, often sleeps three, four, five hours a night. this guy who is suppose told be on death's door all the time,

and supposed to be so ill that he can barely function, he is able to do these things, and so maybe i suggest that he shouldn't exaggerate the scope, the importance of those illnesses. i'm not sure if theft quite where the question was going but those are couple of things that come to mind. >> this is he he 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 real new brookline, neverdale, harvard, palm beach. did he know much about the country? what can you telephone us how much jfk knew but 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 and all their diversity at this stage of his life?

>> i think it's a really good question. it's pretty limit his knowledge. maybe even his interest to some extent hitch had not traveled much in the south. before he became even a senator. so never mind in the house. and i write about the -- [loss of audio] --ary i interacted with. don't believe he was personally prejudiced, really. but it's also true that he didn't -- wasn't really animated by the searing experience that african-americans had and there was ample evidence around him. i think that comes later and -- and i'll talk about is in volume 2 -- i would say that when he runs for president in 1960, and he guess to places like west virginia and goes to other parts

of the country he hadn't seen before and he sees the degree to which there are deep income disparities in the country i don't think he had fully grasped before, thought about before. i think it's clear from lots of evidence, contemporaneous evidence that west virginia in particular made a huge impression on him what he encountered and came to appreciate the people he met there and got a chance to talk with them. i don't think that was so evident before. we'll see whether i can develop this early in volume 2 but traveling around the country for the first time he is seeing a lot of part of the country he hadn't seen before. >> it was a book and really a back review that brought hidden poverty to his attention in a big way.

michael harrington's, the other america, and then dwight mcdonald's review in the new yorker. so that is how a cerebral, detached, nonpollist -- not a populist,. >> not a populist. >> and you could compare him to fdr and say they were beth patrician, together suffered debilitating illnesses that made them better people and maybe better politicians but somehow maybe because his career coincide with a period of prosperity rather than they great depression, jfk was not -- wasn't what animate him. >> i think it's true and i'm glad you raised that because we have not talked but the two them. i think i suggest in the book he was never -- what's the wore -- never really engaged by the fdr phenomenon. never connected with him in some way that other people did.

it's extraordinary the degree to which the kens were insulate from the great depression. roast kennedy said laider in life one of the best periods of her life in terms of marriage was the early 1930s. gives you a since how the kennedyed did not experience this and you're quite right that jfk becomes of political age after this. it's a result of the war and the aftermath and that's -- he doesn't see things in the same way that fdr does. i. >> right. this question is, today when public service and commitment to democracy and courage feels so great what of young jack leaves you hopeful that today's emerging generation can rise to make an impact? >> i am hopeful. i too think -- do think 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 sink life and -- civic life. the example of jack ken and even a young jack kennedy help us us to do this. i hope this comes out in those chapters of the poock. i'm struck by the degree to which in the mid-1936-37-38 when he is an undergraduate, he is asking large questions about the survival of democracy, is democracy suited to this age, responding to the authoritarian threats, can we too this and are there leaders who will graft and accomplish this and he is asking that as an undergraduate and the thesis that's the heart of the have to sis, why were the british under bat baldwin and

chamber loin seemingly unable to prepare for war and this comes back the question that he decides that democracy requires able leadership, more than that it requires citizens who are informed little who take an interest in policy issues who hold their leaders accountable and then for people themselves to enter public service and be be engage he. the most power poverty of the legacy. ... i think that is perfect.

he commits himself to that. it's hard to say exactly when he does. when he comes after this great excursion that you are talking about in 1939, he is in some ways different. i think that senior year of college, we see that self motivation and that determination to succeed. and he becomes much more ambitious. ambition has to be a part of this note doubt about this. i do think that it is about to respond to the question, it is an excellent question from her 20-year-old friend. it's about taking an interest in policy, which it sounds like you already have and public service and seeing how you can make things better. jack kennedy says of one of his papers i think he's a junior when he writes this, for democracy to survive but

requires dedicated and capable leaders but have it slightly wrong is in the preface i should've checked before we came on. >> that seems to me that you and others your age should think about. because i think democracy is under threat. i am worried about the current statements and i think it is going to require all of us, maybe especially your generation to commit yourself to the hard work involved in this. i have no doubt the democracy cannot work. what has worked for this country and other countries. from then i will say one other thing which may be is controversial. it shouldn't be. guess it is an argument for, not necessarily centrism, it is an argument for remembering to treat political opponents as adversaries and not enemies. i think that is something

kennedy committed himself to. adjusting the merits of the arguments on the other side. which is really hard for all of us. >> is going to make the exact same point. because we now live in a political media world for the instant victory and so wiping out your opponents and for humiliating them really on twitter and anywhere. and what was the point? what does anyone gain from that? a journalist and there's a connection to politics. he always benefit from going out and talking to people whose experiences different than yours on whose views are different than yours. and try to understand it. she don't have to like it you don't have to approve of the

trends, you just have to understand. but something obama has said and probably the most kennedy type president we had since kennedy. try to walk around in somebody else's shoes. then he will be able to be a better public servant. speak to think that is exactly right. i think joe biden has at least talked in similar terms. he was criticized by then his primary opponents for this suggestion. that ultimately we are going to have to reach out. we are going to have to bargain hard. not abandon our principles bargain. i'd say the total fascinating conversation to me that i talk about in the book is i think in 55, between jfk and his good friend and englishman made david gore who was in the kennedy administration becomes

britain's ambassador to the united states. their friends right to the end. jfk says in this conversation, no phone cut out to be a politician. as i too often see the merits of the argument on the other side. too often become uncertain about the arguments on my own side. it's a very revealing conversation in georgia just say in our day and age we don't talk in these terms >> right, exactl exactly. be interesting to see if bide biden -- my analogy for biden is much more lbj. because he is a creature of the senate. he is career politics. he is a wheeler, dealer, centrist and yet he is coming in, if he makes it at a moment where they could actually make him a consequential president. that is my little historical

analogy. the election any moment we are in right now. so one audience member wants you to talk about his sense of humor. which we have not talked about. it really runs all through this book. in his letters, quotes, say something about that. what kind of humor was it? >> yes it is true. i quote in an endnote, nbs should have it in the text. i have conan o'brien has a marvelous osa about jfk sense of humor. but o'brien says we have had exactly two truly funny presidents. abraham lincoln and john f. kennedy. and he is right about that actually. it's not to say the other presidents have not had the sense of humor. but it has not been as well developed as we see with these two. i think it is ironic sense of humor, it is a kind of self up or getting sense of humor which i think he used to great effect, maybe especially the

white house. i think he honed this particular skill. you see it to some extent earlier. a kind of absurdist equality at times as well. maybe in part, i'm sure this is inboard people can probably know more about this than i do can explain it it's partly i'm sure inboard. i also something to do with these maladies that he had and that poking fun of them and not taking himself too seriously, made sense, was also a winning strategy, people liked it. i cannot fully explain where it came from. but there is no question that is there. and it is key to understanding them. >> host: we didn't talk about bobby. two questioners are interested in when did jack see bobby's political talent? and what did jack think of bobby's work for the mccarthy

committee alongside? >> guest: he certainly sought bobby's worth as a political strategist, as a campaign manager, somebody to run a campaign he saw and spades and 52. the campaign counter that's floundering it looks like he's going to lose or at least not well positioned. and then this 26-year-old comes on, bobby, and in part because he is quite a lot like the old man. jesse gets the thing right on track. and might think it's hard to overstate how important bobby is as a manager and as a shrewd and ultimately kind of ruthless operative. when he sees bobby's potential as a politician is a more interesting question. i don't know that i have a good answer to that. i think he saw coming very

devoted to his brother prayed the age gap was when they were young they were not particularly close. there's a trip to the far east of vietnam which they become much closer. but i think he deeply admired his brother. and i'm sure saw that hey this is a guy who would at some point should run for office. how he felt about bobby's devotion to mccarthy, of his servers on mccarthy's committee, i think that early on he was very much inclined to let bobby do what he felt like he should do. it was a good career move for bobby. the father wanted bobby to have that position. i think as mccarthy can became more controversial and was doing more and more outrageous things i think it became a problem. by then bobby is no longer in mccarthy's employee. but he was still very close to joe mccarthy that created more problems for jack politically.

you don't at least in the records that i have seen we don't have it from that continued loyalty on bobby's part. what's and with this question, i sense the majority of the ideas were vocalizer discussed by him. his lot about jfk the real man was a mystery we will probably never know. do you agree or disagree? when this gets to what we talked about the very start about how a biographer would have access to the inter- life of a real person who died almost 60 years ago. >> guest: i think it's a very perceptive question.

and i do think he does keep a part of himself secret. i think we all do. maybe he doesn't little bit more than some. he is his mother son in this regard. because rose, very prolific in her letter writing. at least i found and of course urban excellent biographies of rose. her biographers may disagree with me. i find her even with her letter writing correspondence kind of hard to penetrate in this regard. i think there are some of that with jfk. i still believe, think we started there's a good place to have it. we think we can get to know jack kennedy. various points in this story in volume one, he writes a lot. and i think it is quite open and what he says in these letters, including sometimes

about himself letters to his friends, letters to inga, the communication between the two of them, i think it deals a lot. going to be interesting in volume two. >> host: he will be more guarde guarded. >> guest: he will be more guarded. i know george, plain old letters written by him to others become more scarce. and said that is going to be a challenge. i think it surprised me the degree i felt i could get at young jfk. >> host: for their people still live who were adults when he was live? and who can tell you their first-hand experience, or is that generation pretty much disappeared? >> guest: it's pretty much gone. there are a few. i have spoken to some of them.

some of the ones i spoke with, the late richard goodwin. , the late dan. [inaudible] are no longer with us. i don't think there are many. i do think the magnificent jfk library world history collection have to be used with caution. as all collections must be used with caution. i think it is a great resource. some of those interviews were conducted soon after the assassination which is both a good thing and a problem. but i would rely more on those sadly then being able to talk with people face-to-face. see what why can't wait for the next one. but meanwhile, congrats on a marvelous book that i wish all of the success in the world. may it reach many tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of readers. and i want to thank you jfk library and our audience for joining us tonight. most of all being one of the

great historians and writers in america today. student anchor george to have this opportunity with you, given your work. and if you have not seen folks, if you have not read our menu got to get your hands on that book. george's recent ratings are a must read. it's been great to chat with you tonight. i too want to think the library. many folks in the library thank you my acknowledgments. i could've such much more there. but we just need the doors to reopen. so some of us king back into those marvelous collections. sue and okay, good night everybody. take care. medicare some of the current best seller nonfiction books according to pal's bookstore in portland, oregon. topping the list is my own words, a collection of the late supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg's speeches

and writings breed that is followed by pulitzer prize winning author isabel wilkerson's exploration of what she calls a hidden caste system in the united states. then in rage, pulitzer prize winning journalist bob woodward examines president trump's national and foreign policy decisions. after that abram candy argues america must choose to be antiracist and build a more equitable society and how to be an racist. in repping up our book and the best-selling nonfiction books according to portland, oregon to pal's is the nickel boys, whiteheads fictionalize history of the jim crow era and the civil rights movement. all of these authors have appeared on book tv, you can watch them online booktv.org. >> hello everyone, welcome thank you so much for tuning in. my name is audrey stuart and on behalf of the bookstore am so pleased to welcome to