>> election day is here november 3rd. stay with c-span to learn who the voters elect to be the country as president and which parties will control congress. our coverage starts at 9 eastern, at 7 am eastern. join the conversation, share your experience as a result come in and hear from the candidates, watch live on c-span, c-span.org or listen live on the c-span radio apps. election night on c-span, your place for unfiltered view of politics. >> use your laptop or phone to follow the result of the historic 2020 election. go to c-span.org/election for interactive tools giving you real-time voting results. national map to track the president's race. the popular vote tally.

electoral college count map as well as the balance of power for the u.s. house and senate. stream live or on demand anytime on election night, c-span.org/election. >> good evening. i am alan price, director of the john f. kennedy presidential library and museum. on behalf of my library and foundation colleagues i am delighted to welcome all of you who are watching tonight's program online, thank you for joining us this evening. i would like to acknowledge the generous support of our underwriters. lead sponsors, but bank of america and media spots. a robust question and answer period, you will see full instruction on screen for somebody your questions via email or in the comments on are youtube page. we are grateful to have this opportunity to explore president kennedy's earlier years "in depth" protesting the speakers this evening. this is our first major work

about president kennedy and many years. much of frederik logevall's research took place in the kennedy archives and we are pleased to learn more about the comprehensive new look at president kennedy's formative years. let's introduce tonight's speakers. so glad to welcome frederik logevall back to the kennedy library. and and and modern international history, not her of my books including embers of war. jfk, coming-of-age in the american century, to 1956.

and george packer, our nonfiction books, our man richard holbrook and the end of the american century. the unwinding, 30 years of american decline which won a national book award. and blood of the liberals. he is the author ten also the play and editor of the two volume edition of the essays of george orwell. please join me in welcoming our special guests. >> welcome, everybody, there's a couple hundred of you which is fantastic. it is a privilege and the pleasure to talk to frederik logevall and get our heads up the present and out of the news for an hour and a half, the great refuge as we try to

navigate the storm used years. i know you as the author of two essential book from the vietnam war. people who farted vietnam war served in vietnam when i ask what books i have to read on the war, and and and i know you as a vietnam expert. as an america expert and someone who shares a lot with me in american history and foreign policy. we talk about your completely engrossing, the word david kennedy used, new biography of

jfk. welcome, fred, welcome to the audience. the first question is inevitable but why another biography? there hasn't been a major one in some time but there are dozens. takes a little bit of puts the -- chutzpah to wait and what is where this is gone and we thought we knew what there was to know so why did you take this on? >> tremendous to be with you and have this opportunity to talk about all this stuff, in a way our most recent books are kind of bookends because mine is the beginning of the american century and yours is the latter part of the american century. we can talk about that but great to be on with you. i have been fascinated by john f. kennedy and the kennedys for

a long time, and and the vietnam question. and starting to get attention. partly interest in the kennedy, and and use kennedy's life to tell the story not just of his role but in america's rise, the rise of the united states to great power status to superpower status, on jack kennedy's life, born in 17, the us entering world war i, dies

in 63 which is the zenith of american power in some ways prior to vietnam so those two things and maybe a third, the materials in the library are so phenomenal and i news this, the levy hosting tonight's event. i thought a lot of them hadn't been tapped by a lot of people. so there is something fresh about them. the kind of comprehensive life and times i'm trying to do here. >> you know about the material in the library with your vietnam research. >> i knew about it from the work on vietnam and other

researchers, incredible folders, some of them, having been used that much. that is what becomes available. it is part of my prior research. >> so you zeroed in on documents you knew were there once you committed your self to this project, box 291 of 173 because i know what is there and no one has ever used it. >> guest: some of this in terms of specific folders, i had to see them myself once i had the sense. david nassar's terrific biography of joe seeing year, as historians we all do this, we look to see what other

people have done and i can see what david and a few other people have done in terms of particular corrections some of which were open and available prior to that work. and one of the marvelous things about the library has been digitized. nevertheless some great stuff. anybody can access from their couch, their stuff available that means you can see without having to darken the doors of this library and it's a great collection. >> how did you approach the genre of biography since i don't think you've written one and it is not the same thing as the history of two years decision-making about a war. it is more i would say closer

to the problems that confront a novelist because you have to sell your book with characters, especially one character and bring that character to light. all the harder is they know that character so how did you approach the genre, the unknown genre of biography and what models do you use and what guidance do you give yourself as you research and write it? >> it is so interesting given you yourself authored novel so you have a sense of what you are describing here, that is fascinating to me and you are crazy right, history and biography are not the same thing. i've come to realize how different they are in some ways. of course it is about finding

evidence, trying to figure out what happened. in this case a particular life but there are similarities between this work and the work i've done previously but also different. i think i had been fascinated by the kennedys, the great american story. this family is an extraordinary one beginning, i begin the book with the arrival of the kennedys and fitzgeralds in the nineteenth century and then joe's rise in particular, joe seeing year, and a sickly child emerges from this. i won't say the story would write itself, this has great potential for me as a

historian, someone interested, would like to see how this would work. and hands can i pop this back to you, how would you answer your own question, to our man. >> by the time my book came out. of fading figure in american foreign policy, dominated many news events in his lifetime or not on the scale of jfk, went into the foreign service under jfk, if called to service that inspired him to join the foreign service.

i felt i needed to grab the reader with the first paragraph and never let the reader go or else they would abandon the project because who cares? that is my great fear, who cares? you didn't have that problem. people care about jfk. i began with the voice of a novelist even though the book has 35 pages of notes, it begins, i knew him as if you were about to hear a long yarn by a restaurant or, the voice that carries the entire book and it gave me a ton of freedom to do things traditional biographies don't do, and it has to be true. i tried to make it sound like a great yarn you would want to sit down and here through a long night of storytelling.

>> we talked about this before but it fits marvelously, it was great fun to talk about. one thing you say in early pages which i thought about. i am paraphrasing. didn't have a chance to look before we came on. only in fiction can we ever really get to know a person deep inside. i have thought about that because jack kennedy, many people think, maybe this is truly somewhat elusive. some people worn merely on you are never going to get close to this guy because of the nature that he has. because of his mother's emotional attachment. readers have to tell me if i'm right about this.

i think i can get, given your parameters that only in fiction can we ever really, i hope i get fairly close. >> i think you do. i wrote this to you personally but sitting there on the book jacket, that brings us so close to jfk, it is an intimate picture, talk about how you achieve that, readers will find it is a page turner, always rate there in the middle of the scene or close to the characters, ironic and detached and observing his own life and everyone else, that is his character but the things that created that character i didn't understand very well until i read this book.

your book doesn't begin, when i enter world war i, and holbrook was born in 1941, the other year the american century began, tell me about your decision to frame jfk's life as the life of the american century beginning in 1917 and what that means for our understanding of america's rise to global power. >> the late great harvard historian, a member of the department i am now in, might have been ernie who wrote, this struck me at the time, i was a graduate student, something like this, we think of the american century beginning in 40 or 41 or the late 30s or

1945. in fact america's contribution to the war in 1917-18 was formidable, because of the degree to which the european powers were decimated by the great conflagration though it wasn't fully evident at the time, europeans understood it was only a matter of time, dominance on the world stage and in a sense it was a delay in the 20s and 30s. i write about this in the book. do they want the responsibility of leadership, maybe not.

i feel comfortable saying 1917 is critical to the american century, us entry into the war and the bolshevik revolution which is so crucial later on and crucial to jack kennedy. >> the cold war that defines kennedy's public life began in 1917, the true powers of the cold war, their trajectory in collision with each other. >> you could make that argument. i say to my students i ask a question about when the cold war begin and if you look at the characteristics of the cold war, the greatest characteristics were present in 1917. 2 or 3 more, one of them might be deep ideological schism but some of the things we associate with the cold war, the great arms race, suppression of

internal dissidence after world war i in the united states and in the soviet union. a bipolar structure, some of those things may not be present in 1917 but i have had very smart students, interesting students make a pretty compelling case for 1917 as the start date. >> host: did you have a preconception about jfk going into this? did you have a picture of him that you were going to then draw or did you begin relatively agnostic and do the research? >> guest: i think i had a sense, interesting question, when i began for my work on

indochina and the fact he visited in 1951. >> the beginning members of war and asks all these penetrating questions what the french are trying to achieve. i had a sense the common view of young jack kennedy, playboy, wasn't very serious about anything and only later became a mature striving politician. i had a sense that was not correct. the research i did so marvelous they shall be on a doubt that this is a guy who from an early age was serious about policy, deeply curious about the world. that is a half answer. it is suggesting i had an inkling that i wanted to revise

and the research actually supports - >> the most riveting pages for the trip to europe, when europe is moving rapidly toward war. is having a mix of a kind of a rich boy's vacation with access, all across the continent, churchill, chamberlain, hitler, does he give a speech? >> he was a with the first in 37, he decided - in 39 nevertheless, almost the degree

to which he shows up in a place that becomes a hotspot. i open the premise with him in late august of 39 and carries a message to the us consular official, the senior diplomat in berlin to give him a message to carry back to britain, joe kennedy senior. the message says the germans will attack poland within a week. you have this kind of intrepid guy, benefiting from his father's connection, he would not see these people if joe senior, the two eldest sons. it is also jfk's own early

striving. >> host: let's talk about his parents and relation to them. i felt i understood the character much better from your book, it was really especially his relationship with his father, i wouldn't be the first to say may be the source of his misogyny because his mother let him down. she wasn't around for much of his childhood, his father wasn't either but the mother was expected to be in the father was not. joe kennedy comes across, made me feel like a lane father. he was constantly the ranging activities and every day schedules, we will play football in the afternoon and discuss current events at dinner and reading at night and for a man of that generation in

credibly involved in many children's lives and devoted to them. that seems to me to be the core relationship for jack kennedy growing up. >> it is an extraordinary aspect of joe kennedy senior's persona and there's an interesting example of this. joe kennedy in 1934-35, is heading the sec in washington, heading up an important new government entity and yet he pens the long handwritten letters to jack who is in his last year at prep school, long letters handwritten to joe junior who is at harvard. the younger children, strikes me that this is a guy who

somehow managing important government policies nevertheless instructing his children, trying to mold his children, particularly -- quite clear about them. what everyone might say, joe kennedy, the business man, diplomat, disaster is turn as ambassador to britain, this devotion to his kids is something. i will also think, deserves more credit for jack's upbringing within given, he gets his historical sensibility more from her or his father. is international sensibility

comes from her, she is emotionally withdrawn, and at canterbury, the first prep school, he comes once to canterbury, takes extended vacations including to europe. that is hard for him. >> what you expect from a woman whose husband is flagrantly cheating on her throughout her marriage and humiliating her by bringing mistresses home for dinner and of course, the alternative is fighting all the time, those are not alternative she wants for herself and her family.

>> i think i suggest in the book they have the kind of arrangement that he will be more discreet in his affairs than he was early on and she will look the other way and that is what happens. he has a notorious affair with lori swanson in hollywood and on some level comes to realize this but you are so right. when you think about what she has to indoor -- indoor and when you think about his objectifying women, seeing them as women -- as objects to be conquered, it is a hard environment for her. >> where did jack's ambition come from. one thing your book makes very clear is it wasn't simply

handed to him like instructions on how to be a man by his father. in a way that isn't extremely attractive, he's not seen like a pampered, spoiled son of privilege, who went his father's way because that was the path of least resistance. in other words he is not donald trump junior. he fights for his own path, even when never causing too much trouble. he never openly is defiant and rebellious in a way that deeply hurt his father but he nonetheless manages against a great deal of magnetism coming from his overbearing father.

how will that create a political ambition in jack? >> i have thought a lot about that in going through the materials that are so rich, archival materials and other kinds of evidence, the library is magnificent, they can't reveal everything. ..

and to particular girlfriend he was close to. they don't want to pursue a political career. it's those things at least in part that if they bring in this series auto due to have early on.

>> as a status that when joe, jr. is killed over england or over the channel suddenly it's up to jack to carry on his fathers dreams. jack was headed that way already. >> i think he was. >> and would've been joe, jr. would not have had what jack brought to that career, which is incredible intelligence and broad learning but also that quality of being his own man which is essential when you're in the oval office and your generals are all telling you you need to start world war iii with the soviet union. >> over cuba in 62. >> i went to volume two. >> i think it's right and i do think joe, jr. i was the golden child and who brought a lot to the table. he was straight from central

casting entrance of being incredibly handsome, healthy as an ox, extremely ambitious. i'm not going to suggest, i don't say in the book that even if joe, jr. survives, comes back from the war, that we would seem the same kind of trajectory from his younger brother. what he had his own reasons for running and as you suggest he had a better claim, he already authored a book which was a lightly revised version of his senior thesis. that really rubbed joe, jr. the wrong way because he was used to being primus inter pares in the family and he already had these attributes before joe juniors tragic death. he's making his own decisions. even in terms of which office to seek in 1946. it's not his fathers decision to seek a house secret that is ultimately jfk's honor.

>> tell us how his mind as a practitioner of statecraft, as someone who about and eventually practices foreign policy, developed in the crucial years from the late 30s to the early cold war when he first ran for office. how did he become the jack kennedy we now know as president? those are the key years. tell us what happened and how they affected him. bring in his father because that's a crucial parting of the ways. >> this is such a fun part of the whole writing experience for me, and my wife will tell you that i would talk about again with the materials in the library and elsewhere show about precisely this period. i think what happens is he gets

to harvard. he begins in 1936. he's had effectively a kind of gap year, so use your older than most of his classmates in the class of 1940. student body is pretty heavily isolationist and it 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 it's a kind of arch appeaser, even more so than chamberlain himself. i think initially jack is inclined to agree with this position. but, and this is the distinction between him and his brother, joe, jr. i think is never comfortable outside his fathers shadow and so we parrots his father right to be in. what's fascinating to me is to observe little by little jack kennedy begin to see a more complex and crowded world than

either his father or his older brother, to see the problems with the kind of narrow parochial nationalism that both of them endorsed, to see the threat posed by both the japanese and the germans. and by, hard to say exactly when but certainly before pearl harbor, so let's say by the early part of 41 i think he is a confirmed internationalist. that shift for that growth in his view i think is totally interesting. finally i will just say his own war excrete the south pacific and 43 is important in affirming for him, it's kind of next. it affirms for young jack kennedy that the united states has to play a leading role in world affairs. that question for him has been settled, and for his mates. debbie small discussions in the

solomons about with the u.s. role should be. i think he comes back from the war affirmed 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, i sense that military leadership, and may not be a contradiction in terms but i think he skeptical of that. i'll see if i can develop this or if it should be developed into a ball into but you see it really in some ways at the end of his life. it's those two. >> it's interesting because it may be, he was a lieutenant, right? >> correct. >> so he was a young officer but he was not someone from whom was anyway abstract because at headquarters he was out there obviously getting shot at.

it does a whole generation of officers became the overconfident generals of vietnam, who thought that america had nothing to worry about these peasants and black pajamas because we had fought the japanese war machine. this will be nothing. we are the united states. jack kennedy didn't come back from the second world war with that kind of confidence in the american military. maybe in the american example to the world but not at our ability to impose our will. i have a feeling it may been the experience in the south pacific that it's also his nature to be skeptical, to sort of have an eye on the darkness and on human frailty, and the flaws in our

nature, our blind spots, our ability to deceive ourselves. all of that seems to be there at a very young age, and it sure you will be able to trace it right through to the crucial years in the white house. >> yeah, i think that so well put. partly because of his ailment, partly because of the tragedies that he suffered, losing -- well, he effectively lost rosemary through a botched, horrible lobotomy in late 41. the sister who is closest to him at age. they were only about 18 months apart. loses his brother and 44. later loses his closest sibling, kathleen, or kit. but a think he has, , goes to yr point, he had a sense that life was fraught. he had a well-developed sense of irony, i kind of

self-replicating humor. i think then combined with, as you say, the experience in the south pacific. he came back i think with a sense that there were limits to what, certainly in military terms there are limits to american power, even though in 45 the united states is absolutely colossal and what it can do and achieve. yeah, so i think you're absolutely right. he didn't fall prey to it so many later generals fell prey to, come and that is evident he early on. >> before we get to the political chapters at the end of the book, let's talk about jfk and women. because there are a lot of women in this book. they come and go quickly, most of them. he is a hound dog. he is just constantly writing

letters to his friends about having just bedded this nurse or failed to bed this nurse, and then there's a ton of girlfriends that come and go, and some of them he seems really smitten with, especially in our blood. others are just clearly instruments for pleasure and maybe a bit of narcissism. how do you, as a biographer, so you don't spare him. you definitely don't spirit but his treatment of women in the worst moment is when his wife, jackie, has a miscarriage and he's off sailing around off the french riviera if i'm not mistaken, and finally gets back maybe a week or two later. it's pretty unforgivable. it's hard to want to stay with him. how did you handle that fraught

material, which you doubt hold back, but how do you make it possible for us to go on, want to know the next chapter? >> yeah, i think it's a challenge, george, and it will be a bigger challenge frankly in volume two. i don't think as a first response. i don't think that the behavior in the period of 301956 is predatory, if that's the right word here. there isn't a position of power. i guess there already is a power differential in the latter part of this. he's a a senator and so forth. i suspect not have researched this folding or written volume two i think this is going to become more problematic in volume two but it's already problematic. some of this clearly comes from his father. we have ample evidence that he expected, indeed, instructed his

sons to proceed in the way that he did interview women as objects to be conquered. there's no question about that. he was unfaithful to jackie before the wedding and after. and i think, i can't have it both ways. i can't, on the one hand, say he's his own man in politics. he does not follow his fathers dictates in terms of his political positions in which office to see which career teachers. he's his own man. or to support isolationism versus interventionism before pearl harbor. if i'm going to make that argument with respect to the political stuff and career stuff, then he should show the ability to not follow his fathers dictates when it comes to women, and he doesn't. it doesn't have at least i get as far as i can see some of the more problematic elements that

we see with joe, sr., who sometimes asks out, if you can imagine, jack's girlfriends himself. >> right. >> but -- >> nor can we say it was a different kind back in because this is i think i would even use the word pathological attitude toward women. i wonder, at times i got a little with, if not hatred, at least disdain, dehumanizing eye towards them, as if i don't mean to treat you the way i would treat my gay friend to whom jack, after rejecting his advances is a loyal friend for the rest of their lives. other than his sister is different. she's like an honorary guy but the others don't get that get te treatment and i wonder if

there's something darker than just being a bit of a scoundrel about it. >> it may be. i think that inge who we've talked about this kind of exception because he treats are so differently from some of the other women, and respect her intelligence. in fact, sort of his interest of the fact that she speaks in many languages. she's been to so many places and she's clearly supersharp and they have these conversations, some of them picked up by the fbi, interestingly, because she's under surveillance, in which you see two of them go at it intellectually. and in other ways, too. but intellectually in a way that i think quite right, you don't see very often. there some other exceptions. ultimately, jackie, though there are lots of rocky moments and i deal with these, she is very

formidable, and he comes to see how intelligent she is, and she, too, has this kind of culture quality that he really admires in part because he doesn't possess it the same way himself. but yeah, there may be a certain -- how did you put it? loading? there's something there that is problematic, no question. >> he becomes a member of the house from cambridge. >> yes. or the 11th district. >> yes. watertown i guess. and then he gets elected to the senate, and all of it leads to this wonderful set piece that the book ends with, which is the 56 convention when jack comes within a whisker of being adlai stevenson vice presidential candidate, which may been a

bullet dodged rather than an opportunity missed, but what do you make of kennedy the politician in those years? what did you learn about him and what struck you as -- he 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 guys going to go to the top, get obviously he's going to get to the top. how do you describe him as a politician who sought domestic politics as -- what was the word? sewer contracts? mainly interested in world affairs. >> i think it's pretty clear from the time he enters the house in 47 that foreign policy is where he's most interested. it's also where i think he feels the most comfortable.

during the campaign in 46 is skinny 29-year-old who has got to get the nomination, once he gets the nomination he is home free but that nomination is a ferocious one. and you see even then that he's comfortable talking about the emerging cold war, that is not yet really a reality but it is emerging, and other international issues. and by the way, quite already penetrating insightful insane things from the soviet perspective, what they might want to there's a certain empathetic understanding he had with respect to politics but it doesn't have the same kind of engagement with all domestic issues. i think he's fundamentally liberal on most issues, not so much fiscal issues where he's more conservative. he's quite conservative on foreign policy.

as i suggest in the book he's an early cold warrior, that he does not see an opportunity for accommodation when henry wallace argues for the need to try to smooth things over with the soviets. jfk is ready caustic in swatting down that notion. interestingly here, just a side note, joe kennedy senior, and david nassau nasa brings this n his biography, and maybe arthur schlesinger junior back back ie day process outcome but joe kennedy articulate the position that more than a few cold war historians would articulate which is the soviets were not going to invade anybody. the soviets are not a threat to the united states in terms of its existential distance. we can take the sort of hands-off approach. that's joe kennedy senior come his son felt very different at e time in 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, embers of four and ask all the right questions and what he sees is the french are fighting a losing war and why should that be our war? why are we defending a colonial empire? we are the world hope for democracy. but by the mid- mid-\50{l1}s{l0}\'50{l1}s{l0} he is taking a more hawkish about vietnam as a threat giving speeches in which he thinks we would have to hold the line against communism of the parallel between north and south vietnam. what happened? >> its the great paradox about jfk and indochina i think, which is, and a think this will be the thread in volume two as well, that i don't think his

skepticism, george, about a military solution in vietnam ever goes away. i think it's a bear from 51, it's there until november of 53 -- gets there. we have lots of evidence of him in the white house rejecting hawkish advice from his aides when you want to send ground troops and so what. on. it's one of the reasons why in terms of the what-ifs, though we can never know, i do believe he would have if the had survived he would've avoided most likely that he would've avoided the kind of huge open-ended escalation with johnson. >> that's a passage in choosing or that i read really carefully because you had earned the right to say that, and i'll be curious if you still think it at the right of volume two. but anyway, go ahead. >> i reserve the right to ship. no, but the paradox, that part of this, the paradox is that, as

you say, this same jack unity as we get into even the mid-'50s but especially the late '50s. there's much more aggressive. he's careful because he's a very careful politician, careful in terms of his language, a very reasoned approach to all policy issues here but as you say, he now seems a different tune on vietnam and indochina, and he is supportive of the government of the south picky believes that the united states must preserve, do all in its power to reserve a non-communist south vietnam. so figuring out how this guy who understood so early that western powers, whether it be france, or the united states, and he said that come he said any western power is probably not going to be put down ho chi minh revolution. is this the same guy who is in domestic political terms, and maybe that's the explanation, he

seeks the white house now and he knows that democrats cannot be targeted with being soft on communism, slogan. maybe that's the explanation of the paradox but how whether we explain it, it's there on vietnam. >> it's going to be a major tension of volume two 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, you know, of 63. nonetheless, he got this indeed. he brought in 15,000 15,000 add overthrew the government of south vietnam, so in some ways he may well have corrected his own mistakes but the mistakes are already being made, and much domestic politics has to do with that, the fear of a democratic president faced with hawks in his own government and the opposition party.

i'll be really interested to see what you learn in volume two. we are going to take questions about five minutes but it just had one or two more things over to ask you. the only point in your book that i stumbled at all with the same two that david kennedy mentioned in his low income wonderful review in this weeks "new york times" book review. and those are the mccarthy period and the question of authorship of "profiles in courage." you looked at both of them carefully, so tell us why i may be wrong in thinking that jfk deserves more, a harder spanking for his hunting essentially the mccarthy era and trying his hardest not to have to make it difficult call on that. and why we shouldn't go

wonderful and they've written some notes for profiles encourage but he didn't write a book page for page. so take me to those, please. >> yeah, i don't know whether the first part of this is something i should be admitting before a live audience as it were, but when you read this, george, more than interest, i guess in galley form, and you pointed out the mccarthy bit, i said i need to tweak this little bit, try to somehow address this. is there time? the people at random house were absolutely marvelous up and down the line. i have such a wonderful publisher but they said yeah, we can do this. so in response not i think your satisfaction -- >> no, because i haven't got to finish the book.

>> it's because of how late we were i can only do a few words, change a few sentences. but suffice to say i think you were right. i do think even before your intervention i suggested that he was overly careful on mccarthy. i think it had something to do with the close family ties with mccarthy, especially joe, sr. who loved, but become we haven't talked about on the connector body was also close with mccarthy and would remain close. flew to wisconsin for mccarthy's you know. remained devoted to them too toe in. it's part about massachusetts politics, irish catholics constitute a large part of the electorate. and by the way, interesting comparison to her own day. right to to the end beyond the center, at least through the center, in 54 of joe mccarthy,

public opinion survey after a look opinion survey showed that he had the support of roughly 40% of the electorate. i do want to draw the comparison to closely but it's interesting how even after the senate begins to move come even after his attack on the army, mccarthy, a lot of americans stay with him to the end. but i think jack kennedy would've spared himself a lot of grief if he had instructed sorenson, he was in the hospital for legitimate reasons, so those authors is a he went into the hospital to dodge the mccarthy vote. i think that's not true. he could have to a procedural called pairing he could've instructed sorenson to vote and he should have done so. and why he didn't is interesting. here's another quick little thing about this, which is that in 56 at the aforementioned democratic national convention

he had a meeting with eleanor roosevelt. mrs. roosevelt basically said, and i'm paraphrasing, what gives? why didn't you come out against mccarthy? and what i puzzled over, george, maybe have an expedition for this. i thought about it, i think had a paragraph and i erased it but i thought, why we do not in the summer of 56 when attacking joe mccarthy is easy, a guy is gone, why would jack kennedy not safety mrs. roosevelt, you know what? i didn't like the guy come just to come i don't think you like mccarthy and 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 don't know, i can only imagine that he was loyal to his family, and this was one that didn't

mean enough to him as going against his fathers appeasement did. to reject his father that way. >> as good an explanation as any of them. >> my parents were a little younger than jfk, and the mccarthy period was a litmus test for them as liberal democrats of whether a politician could be trusted, whether they could really respect a politician. they ended up as stephenson people, largely because i think stephenson was much more outspoken about -- >> he was. go ahead, site. >> so when it came to 1960, they celebrated kennedy's election, but he was not their man and he never was there man, individually because of the mccarthy period. i think a lot of liberals that may be true. it had a decisive effect not so

much on the politics of the time but on how democrats saw him and how they divided on. >> it's a really good point. i will say one other thing quickly and then talk for a minute about -- and that is, it is worth noting that the democrat, 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 go after them in any serious way. so kennedy is not alone in this regard. and, in fact, senior senator from massachusetts, republican, is just as cautious if not more so than jack kennedy. he's not alone in this. on "profiles in courage" frequently so we can open this up for others, i guess you you and i differ a little bit. i think the evidence is pretty

powerful that the broad architecture of the book, the scenes of the book, the argument which by the way i think is salience in her own day in part about the need for evidence-based discourse -- our own day -- for bargaining in good faith, they need ultimately for compromised in in a democry which we can discuss. those arguments, those things are jack kennedy's. ted sorenson is way too young to have, 25 or 26 come he's going to said going to be able to articulate those kinds of things. >> right. >> moreover, the introduction at the conclusion i think for me the most interesting and important parts of the book, i think those are more than kennedy's notes. that's basically his work. had he not won the pulitzer i don't think this would have been an issue. the question which i'm going to deal with so i can come back to this, how he should have

responded to the awarding of the pulitzer is a fair question. it was one of the proudest moments of his life, he later said. is it reasonable to expect them to turn down the award? i don't know. i don't know what that would've been 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 of income and i write about this. i guess i'm suggesting this is more jack kennedy's book then perhaps you are allowing. >> before we go to questions i don't want you in on that minor disagreement because i want our audience to know that we haven't even really talked about the way the book ends but it's a marvelous account of the convention that hasn't gone down in history as one of the great conventions, but the 56 democratic convention, and you

see jack kennedy at his absolute best because he is maneuvering and showing that he knows how to play the game, and he is also detached enough to be able to recognize that he can take a loss now and it won't be the end of it. and, in fact, it might actually help him win the big turn comes for years from that. >> i will just say here to folks that come and have this in one of the endnotes, you can go on youtube, which i guess is where we are on now, and you can see the concession speech that it gives at that convention. and it's done without notes. i think it's a remarkable moment captured of dash that we can all see it on youtube. it's in the clip, so if folks are interested in this and he has come so close, just minutes before, to getting this nomination by the way, his

father thinks it's a disaster to even seek the nomination. he comes this close and then he says to ted sorenson when it becomes clear the tide has turned come he says let's go. they leave their hotel, go to the podium and he gives his speech and it's an amazing moment. >> and a great painting and it makes you eager for fred logo ball to get to volume two and finished volume two. let's get to a few questions. some of them are questions i would've wanted to ask so i will not others to ask them. what were -- this come from somewhere in columbia. how would you define his leadership style and now does it apply to today's world challenges? you touch on that briefly, fred. what more do you have to say about that? >> well i think it's a leadership style characterized by an absolute insistence on his part, that he himself and his aides need to be well informed

on the issues. he had very little patience for advisors and others who didn't know their stuff, down to the details. so it's a leadership style that is about becoming informed on an issue, and acting accordingly, which leads me to the second point. this is something i find admirable. he doesn't want yes-men and yes women arrested to keep it somebody who wants people -- around him. he wants people of different views. he wants to bear people's opinions about which path to take competent people act accordingly. and i will also save maybe it's just much more to be said about this but the final piece of this may be that when he needs to make a decision, even though he is overly cautious on issues like civil rights which we can discuss, his legislative record

overall is fairly meager by the time he is killed but 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 capacity to look at things from khrushchev perspective which is really important. that's an element of his leadership style, too. >> this question is, why did you end in 56? are really going to be able to get all of the late '50s, his entire presidency into volume two? that the worried reader about your next book. >> i'm going to remember that question, and whoever posted, that when will be seared in my memory. no, i am committed to doing this. i think i can do it. it's seven years of his life

and, of course, so much happens in those seven years. but the first volume, there's a lot also that happens. it's an extraordinarily varied life that he leaves which helps me as a part of the come the story is remarkable and are so much in the early fall you also on his father. he is himself a huge figure in the book, and several others. but i think the subtext of the question is a good one. i have to deal with the increasing campaign which will he begins by the way and 57, the secret of jack kennedy's success has all levels of politics is he starts order than the competition and he works harder than the competition. so a hefty have to early involving two deal with this flying around the country with ted sorenson, speaking before tiny audiences on airport tarmacs for eight people, 12 people, and then of course ultimately it culminates in the primary battle in 60, then in

the race against nixon, and we haven't even gotten yet to the presidency. i guess i am helped by the fact, a a terrible thing to say, but this all into really suddenly in november of 1963. i don't think, george, my present plan is not to get deep into the conspiracies or two deep into -- i have to give the reader my view of what happened in dallas but maybe i save some space by keeping that pretty limited. >> i have the same fear for robert caro, except he's older than you and he in some ways, between 64-16 lyndon johnson's presidency went to the stars and then crashed back to earth so i do and how he's going to do but hope it happens soon. >> we all do. >> of viewer asks, what legends

about young jfk do you either unwind or at the end from biography? are there any stores you either could prove wrong or that you learn and included that we don't know? what is their hidden deep in the archives that my raise eyebrows or teach us something about young jfk? >> part of it is what we've already discussed, and maybe the viewer is wanting something more specific but i do think that this is young jfk who is, this is one of his best qualities by the way, and jackie talked about this after his death, his curiosity, his interest in the world and what made people tick. so the young jfk is a think a more serious, or engage individual and we have come to believe. we've already talked about this.

i will also say i think maybe i upend a which is that the illnesses which were real, some of them ill diagnosed but nevertheless, he felt them, i think i upend the notion that they were actually debilitating. let me put it this way. this is a guy who despite these premises from a young age was extraordinarily active and he served in the war. he had to sort of fudge to get into combat but with his father's help you did. who runs this bruising campaign and 46 where he outwits everybody. he often sleeps only three or four or five hours a metric this guy who supposed to be at death store all the time and is supposed to be so feel that he can barely function -- deaths door -- maybe i suggest that you

shouldn't exaggerate the scope, the importance of those illnesses. i'm not sure if that's quite with the question was going but those are a couple things that come to my mind. >> this is a question not what he knew about his own country. he seemed to know europe and the south pacific deeply from personal experience. but as far as america goes he knew brookline, he knew riverdale, he knew harvard, he knew palm beach. did he know much about the country? the question is, what can you tell us about how much jfk knew about the fascination that was the united states? and is it possible to know some of his views on our diversity on the american people in all the diversity at the stage of his life? >> i think it's really good question. it's pretty limited, his knowledge. maybe even its his interest toe extent. he had not traveled much in the south before he became even a

senator. so nevermind in the house. i write about the small number of say african-americans, for example, he interacted with. i don't believe he was personally prejudiced, really. but it's also true that he wasn't really animated by the searing experience that african-americans had, and there was ample evidence all around him. i think that comes later adult d i'll talk about this involving two. i also would say that it's when he runs for president in 1960 and he goes to places like west virginia indigos of the parts of the country that he hadn't seen before, and he sees the degree to which there are deep income disparities in the country that

it 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, when he encountered it and he came to appreciate the people that he met their and got a chance to talk with them. i don't think that was so evident for. i think and we'll see whether i can do this early involving two, but again traveling around the country for the first time really he is seen lots the parts he had not seen before. >> it's interesting that it was a book and really a book review that brought hidden poverty to his attention in a big way. michael herring tends, the other america, and dwight mcdonald reviewed in the new yorker. that's how a cerebral detached

non-populist, he was not a populist, and you could compare them to fdr and segura both, they both suffered debilitating illnesses that made them better people and maybe better politicians. but somehow it did because he is career coincided with a period of prosperity rather than the great depression, jfk, that wasn't what animated him. >> i think it's true and i'm glad you basic because we haven't really talked about the two of them in that way. i think i suggest somewhere in the book he was never -- which the word -- he was never really engaged by the fdr phenomenon. he never connected with them in some way that a lot of other people did. >> right. >> it's the extraordinary the degree to which the kennedy's were insulated from the great depression. rose kennedy said later in life when this. of life in terms of america and

so on was the early 1930s. that use gives you a sense of w the kennedy's didn't expect this, and i think you're quite right that jfk becomes of political agent after this. it's a result of the war and aftermath, and he doesn't see things in the same way that fdr does. >> right. this question is, today when we need public servant and commitment to democracy courage feels so great, what of young jack leaves you hope that today's emerging generation can rise to make an impact? >> i am hopeful. i do think that our younger generation can, my own kids are example of this but also others, can do this. i do think we need desperately for americans to reengage with civic life and we all need to do this. the example of jackie kennedy

and even a young jack kennedy helps us to do this. i hope this comes up in those chapters of the book. i am struck by the degree to which in the mid-or maybe a 1936, 37, 38 he's 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 do this? are their leaders who will grasp the hurdle and accomplished this? he's asking that even as an undergraduate and the thesis it is in some ways that's the heart of the thesis. why were the british under baldwin and chamberlain similarly unable to prepare for war? but it is ultimately a hopeful message and i guess this comes back to the question, that i think he decides that democracy company requires able

leadership. leadership. more than that it requires citizens who are informed, who take an interest in policy issues, who hold their leaders accountable, and then for people themselves of course to run for public service and be engaged. that seems to me to be the most powerful part of the legacy. >> that truly well said and it connects to a question that just came in the 20-year-old university student interested in the grid and the political world, what can i learn from a young jfk and his activities and attitude the self learning and ambition? so this art to make interesting terms that both apply to kennedy. >> self learning and ambition, that's perfect because he commits himself to that. it's hard to say exactly when he does, here when he comes back after this great excursion that you talked about in 1939, he's

in some ways i think 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 part of this, no question about this. but i do think that it's about, to respond to the question, it's an excellent question from our 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 we can make things better. jack kennedy says that one of his papers, i think he's a junior when he writes this, for democracy to survive it requires dedicated and capable leaders. i i had a slightly wrong. it's in the preface. i should've checked before we can monitor that's what you and

others her age should think about. because i think democracy is under threat. i'm worried about this current state of it and i think it's going to require all of us but maybe especially your generation to commit yourself to the hard work involved in this. i have no doubt democracy can work. it is worked for this country and for other countries. and then i will say one other thing, which maybe is controversial. it shouldn't be, and i guess it's an argument for if not maybe necessary centrism. it is an argument for remembering to treat political opponents as adversaries and not enemies. that's something that kennedy committed himself to. seeing the merits of the arguments on the other side which is really hard for all of us. don't get me wrong. that is crucial. >> i was going to make the exact

same point, fred, as we now live in a political media world where you are rewarded for the instant victory and from wiping out your opponent, and humiliating them really on twitter and anywhere. and what is the point? what does anyone gain from that? as a journalist i think there is a connection the politics in that you always benefit from going out and talking to people whose experience is different from yours, and whose views are different from yours, and to try to understand them, try to visit the you don't have to like it. you have to be friends. you don't have to approve of their views but you really do need to make the effort to understand that this is something obama has said, probably the most kennedyesque president we've had since kennedy, try to walk around in somebody else's shoes and then you will be able to be a better

public servant and a better -- >> i think that's exactly right. i think that joe biden at least has taught in similar terms, and he was criticized earlier fisher from his pen primary opponents for the suggestion, that ultimately we are going to have to reach out and we are going to have to bargain hard, not abandon our principles but we will bargain hard. i will say also a totally fastening conversation to me that i talk about in the book is i think in 55 between jfk and his good friend, an englishman named david, who in thickened administration becomes britain's ambassador to the united states so their friends right to the end. but you know jfk says in this conversation, i don't know if

i'm cut out to be a politician because i too often see the merits of the arguments on the other side. i too often therefore become little bit uncertain about the arguments on my own site. it's a very revealing conversation. and as you say, george, , in our day and age we don't talk in those terms. >> right, exactly. it will be interesting to see if biden dash to my analogy fight is much what lbj because he is the creature of the senate. he is a career politician. he's a a wheeler dealer, a centrist, yet he's come in if he makes it at a moment when history may actually make an overly consequential president. that's my little historical analogy. the election in the moment we are in right now. one audience member want you to talk about his superb sense of humor which we haven't talked about what i did but it really runs all throughout this book,

in his letters, in food and quotes so say something about that. what kind of humor was it? >> it's true. i quote and in no, i maybe have in the text but i've conan o'brien was a a marvelous litte essay about jfk's sense of humor. but o'brien says we had exactly two truly funny presidents. abraham lincoln and john f. kennedy. he's right about that actually. it's necessary of the president have had have had a sense of humor, but it's not been as well developed as we see with these two here it's an ironic sense of humor, it's a kind of self-replicating sense of humor which i think used to great effect. maybe especially in the white house. i think he held this particular skill. you seem to some extent earlier, and it was a kind of absurdist on the at times as well. maybe in part i'm sure this is

inborn, people can probably know more about this and i do can explain consorts partly inborn. he may have something to do with these maladies that he had and poking fun at him and not taking himself too seriously made sense, was also a winning strategy. people like it. i can fully explain where it came from but there's no question that it's there and it's to understanding him. >> we didn't talk about bobby, but two questioners are interested in, when to jack c bobby's political talents and what to jack think of bobby's work for the mccarthy committee alongside roy cohn? >> he certainly saw bobby's work as a political strategist, as a campaign manager. somebody to run a campaign he

saw in 52. the campaign was floundering, it looks like he's going to lose or is not a decision within this 26-year-old comes on, bobby, in part because he is quite a lot like the old man, just gets the thing right on track and you 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 as a politician is a more interesting question. i don't know i have a good answer. i think he saw, he was very devoted to his brother. the hf was when they were young about particularly close. there's a trip and 51 which i write about to the far east including vietnam which they become much closer. he deeply admired his brother

and i'm sure soffit hey, this is a guy who at some point should run himself for office. how we felt about bobby's devotion to mccarthy and his service 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 and it was a good career move for bobby. his father wanted bobby to have deposition. i i think as mccarthy became more controversial, start doing more and more outrageous things i think it became a problem. i've been bobby is a longer in mccarthy's employ, if we put it that way but people still very close to joe mccarthy. that creates more problems i think for jack politically but you know this is a very close-knit family. this is not the family that screams and yells at each other, and so you don't see at least in the records that i have seen any particular anger on jack's part

about the continued loyalty on bobby's part to mccarthy. >> lets in with this rather enigmatic question. i since the majority of jfk's thoughts and ideas were never vocalized or discussed by him. put another way, a lot of his thinking remained and revealed. therefore, there's a lot about jfk the real man whose thoughts and ideas that are mr. geithner will probably never know. do you agree or disagree? this gets to that question we talked about at the very start about how a biographer couldn't access to the inner life of a real person who died 60 years, almost 60 years ago. >> i think it's a very perceptive question. and i do think that he does keep a part of himself secret. i think we all do, but maybe he does it a little more than some. he is his mothers son in this

regard, because rose very prolific in her letter writing, at least i found and, of course, there've been excellent biographies of rows, so her biographers may disagree with me but i find her even with her letter writing and voluminous correspondence kind of hard to penetrate in this regard. and i think there's some of that with jfk. let us to believe as a set i think when you started, maybe this a good place to end, i think we can get to know jack kennedy. at various points in the story in volume one he writes a lot, and i think is quite open in what he says in these letters, including sometimes about himself, letters to his friends, made in particular lem but letters to inga arvad, the communication between the two of

them, i think reveals not pick is going to be interesting in volume two. he will be more guarded because -- already know, george, that letters, plain old letters written by him to others become more scarce. so that's going to be a challenge. i think it's less, it surprised me the degree to which i felt i had to get at the young jfk. >> are there people still alive who were adults when he was alive and who can tell you they are first-hand experience, or is that generation pretty much disappeared? >> it's pretty much gone. there are a few and i spoken to some of them, and some of the ones that i spoke with, the late richard goodwin, a late -- [inaudible] are no longer with us. i don't think there are many. i do think that the magnificent

jfk library world history collection, though test 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 your what i will rely more on those, sadly, none of the table to talk with people face-to-face. >> i can't wait for the next one, meanwhile, congrats on a marvelous book that i wish all the success in the world. may it reach many tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of readers. i want to thank the jfk library and our audience joining us tonight, and most of all fred logevall for being one of the really great historians and writers in america today. >> thank thank you, george, tras opportunity with you, given your

work. .. >> we are featuring book tv programs is a preview of what's available every weekend on c-span2. tuesday the topic is science, a first research seismologist susan hoff provides a by bindery biography of robert hill and the early studies of earthquake activity in southern california and then space shuttle endeavor prior

let terry burch takes it inside look at space travel and exploration and later author and producer and jury in provides a follow-up to her husband carl sagan's study ofspace at 8 pm eastern and enjoyable tv this week and every weekend on c-span2 . >> you're watching the tv on c-span2 every weekend withthe latest nonfiction books and authors . c-span2, created by america's cabletelevision companies by a public service and brought to you by your television provider . >> election day is here, november 3. stay with c-span to learn who

the voters select to leave the country in which parties will control congress. live coverage starts tonight at nine eastern and continues through washington journal at 7 am eastern. join the conversation, share your experience as the results come in and hear from the candidates. watch live at c-span and c-span.org or listen live on the free c-span radio app. your place for an unfiltered view of politics. >> user laptop or phone to follow the results of the historic 2020 election. go to c-span.org/election for interactive tools giving you real-time voting results, a national map to track the presidential race, see the popular vote tally, electoral college count map as well as the balance of power for the us house and senate . stream live on demand on election night at c-span.org/election . >> california welcomes to its distinguished forum