i think he cuts back from the war affirmed in that belief but he also comes back skeptical about i think the military is

an instrument of policy. you see in his letters home that military leadership may not be a contradiction in terms. and if it is developed, it is those two. >> maybe he was lieutenant, a young officer but he was not someone for whom the warriors in any way abstract, he was out there getting shot up because the whole generation of officers became the overconfident generals of vietnam who felt america had

nothing to worry about with peasants in black john is because we had followed the nazi war machine, japanese war machine, this is going to 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 an american example to the world but not to impose our will. and and and the flaws, all of that seems to be there, i'm sure you can trace it. breakthroughs crucial years in the white house. >> that as well put.

partly because of his ailment, partly because of the tragedies he suffered. losing, he effectively lost rosemary to a horrible lobotomy in late 41. the sister who is closest to him in age, 15 months apart, later loses his closest, kathleen. it goes to your point. you have a sense that life is fraught, a sense of irony, combined with as you say, came

back there are limits in military terms to american power even though in 45, absolutely colossal to what you can do and achieve but you are right that he didn't fall prey to what later generals fell prey to and that is evidence early on. >> before we get to the political chapters at the end of the book, let's talk about men and women. there are a lot of women in this book who come and go quickly. he is a hound dog, constantly writing letters to his friend about failing to bed this nurse and a ton of girlfriends come and go, seems really smitten

with and others are clearly instruments for pleasure and a bit of narcissism. as a biographer, you don't spare him, you definitely don't spare him but treatment of women, when his wife jackie has a miscarriage and he is off, sailing in the french riviera, a week or two later, pretty unforgivable, hard to want to stay with him. how did you handle that material, you make it possible to go on and to know the next chapter. it will be a bigger challenge.

as a first response, i don't think, through 1956, predatory if that is the right term, the position of power, there is a power differential but i suspect not having researched this fully in volume 2, it will be more problematic and it is already problematic and some of it clearly comes from his father. we have ample evidence, instructed his sons to proceed in the way he did and to view as objects conquered. he was unfaithful to jackie before the wedding and after

and i can't have it both ways. he does not follow his father in terms of political positions for which office to seek or which career to choose or whether to support isolationism versus interventionism before pearl harbor. if you make that argument with respect to political stuff and career stuff, the ability to not fall oh his father's dictates, it doesn't have as far as i can see more problematic, with joe senior who sometimes asks about jack's girlfriends. >> nor can we see it was a different time back then.

i would even use the word pathological attitude toward women and at times i got a wisp of if not hatred at least to stain, dehumanizing - i don't need to treat you the way i would treat my gay friends to whom jack after rejecting his advances is a loyal friend, an honorary guy, there is something darker about being a scanned role -- scoundrel about it. >> it is the exception that tweets are so differently from

so many other women. respect her intelligence. sort of envious, she has been so many places and supersharp and conversations picked up by the fbi, under surveillance in which you see the two of them go at it intellectually in other ways too and intellectually in a way that you don't see very often. there are other exceptions. ultimately jackie, although there are lots that deal with these. wants to see how intelligent she is and she too has this cultured quality he really admires in part because he doesn't possess it the same way himself.

there may be a certain loathing. there is something there no question. >> he becomes a member of the house from cambridge. >> a bunch of places. then elected to the senate and all of it leads to this wonderful set piece the book ends with, 56 convention when jack comes with a whisper of being at by stevenson's price presidential candidates which may have been a bullet dodged a rather than an opportunity missed. what you make of kennedy the politician in those years, what you learn about him and he

doesn't seem presidential material in the early going. seems hard-working, curious, all that but there isn't that quality that this guy will go to the top, going to get to the top. how do you describe him as a politician who saw domestic politics, sewer contracts and mainly interested in world affairs. >> enters the house in 47, foreign-policy is the most interested, during the campaign, the 29-year-old who got the nomination, the nomination, ferocious, the

emerging cold war, it is emerging, and quite already penetrating, insightful, seeing things from the soviet perspective, certain empathetic understanding, it doesn't have the same engagement with domestic issues, fundamentally liberal on most issues, he is quite conservative, he's an old -- early cold warrior, who does not see an opportunity for accommodation, henry wallace arguing for the need to smooth things over with the soviets,

pretty caustic in that notion. interestingly here, a side note, joe kennedy senior and david nassau brings this out in his biography and arthur solicitor, joe kennedy articulated a position more than a few cold war historians, not going to invade anybody, the soviets are not a threat to the united states in terms of existential, we can take a hands-off approach here as joe kennedy senior felt differently at the time which is fascinating. >> an instance of that, he goes to vietnam in 1951, this is the opening of your wonderful book members of war and asks all the right questions and wants what he sees if the french are fighting a losing colonialists

war, why are we defending a colonial empire, the world's hope for democracy. and outside communism right there, the parallel between north and south vietnam. >> the great paradox about jfk, and china, is the threat in volume 2 as well, i don't think his skepticism about a military solution in vietnam ever goes away. it is there from 51 until november of 63. we have lots of evidence of him in the white house rejecting

advice from his aides sending ground troops and so on. in terms of the what ifs though we can never know. he would have avoided the kind of open-ended escalation johnson filed. >> that is a passage in choosing war that i read, i will be curious to see if you think after writing volume 2, go ahead. >> the current part of this, the paradox as you say, jack kennedy as we get into the mid-50s, much more aggressive, he is careful in terms of his

language, very recent approach but as you say he now sings a different tune on vietnam and indochina and is supportive of the government in the south, he believes the united states must preserve, do all in its power to preserve, figuring out how this person who understood so early that western powers whether france or the united states, any western power will not put down ho chi minh's solution, in domestic political terms, he seeks the white house, he knows democrats cannot be targeted with soft on communism slogan, maybe that is the explanation of paradox but

however we explain. >> it will be a major tension involving two because even though you convinced me that if kennedy had lived we would not have had 200,000 troops in vietnam within two years of 63. nonetheless, he brought in 15,000 advisors and overthrew the government of south vietnam. he may well have corrected his own mistakes but the mistakes already being made and how much domestic politics have to do with that, a democratic president faced with his own government and opposition party. i will be interested to see what he learned in volume 2. we will take questions in 5 minutes but i have one or 2 more things. the only points in your book i stumbled at all or the same the

david kennedy mentions in his glowing wonderful review in this week's new york times book review, those are the mccarthy period and the question of authorship, looks at both of them carefully. tell us why i might be wrong in thinking jfk deserves more of a harder spanking for his punting in the mccarthy era and trying hardest not to make a difficult call and why we shouldn't think, may have written some notes for profiles in courage that he didn't write the book page for page. take each of those please. >> i don't know if the first part of this was something i

should be admitting before a live audience but it was in galilee form you pointed out i said i need to tweak this a little bit, need to address this. people at random house who are marvelous, i had such a wonderful publisher. in response, you will see - >> i haven't gotten the finished book. >> because of how late we were, change a few sentences but you were right. even before your intervention.

overly careful on mccarthy, close family ties with mccarthy especially joe senior, but haven't talked about bobby. we remained close. flew to wisconsin for mccarthy's funeral, remain devoted to the end. it is partly massachusetts politics. irish catholics constitute a large part of the electorate. interesting comparison, right through to the end beyond, in 54 of joe mccarthy. public opinion surveyed, have the support of roughly 40% of the electorate. after the senate begins to

move, a lot of americans stay with him to the end. a lot of grief as he instructed sorenson. he was in the hospital for legitimate reasons, went into the hospital to dodge the mccarthy vote, he could have through a procedure called pairing, could ever instructed sorenson to vote and should have done so and why he doesn't is interesting. here's a quick thing about this which is in 56 at the aforementioned democratic national convention he had a meeting with eleanor roosevelt and mrs. roosevelt said, i am paraphrasing, why didn't you come out against the current -- what i puzzle over, maybe you have an explanation.

i thought why would he not in summer of 56 when attacking joe mccarthy, the guy's assistance force was gone, why would jack kennedy not say to mrs. roosevelt, don't think he liked mccarthy in personal terms, doesn't want to criticize mccarthy and i can't quite figure that. >> i can only imagine he was loyal to his family and this wouldn't mean enough to him as going against his father's appeasement did -- >> as good an explanation. >> my parents were a little

younger than jfk and the mccarthy period was the litmus test to them as liberal democrats, whether a politician could be trusted, whether they could respect a politician and they ended up as stevenson people largely because they were unspoken, when it came to 1960 they celebrated kennedy's election but he was not there man and never was there man and it was the mccarthy period. for a lot of liberals that remains true. he had a decisive effect not so much on the politics of the time but how democrats saw him and divided on him. >> one other thing, it is worth

noting the democratic party as a whole including liberal stalwarts like hubert humphrey, were unwilling to criticize mccarthy. you have to go pretty far into 54 to see broad parts of the party begin to go after him in a serious way. kennedy is not alone in this regard and a senior senator from massachusetts, republican, is just as cautious if not more so than jack kennedy so he's not alone. censure vote is the proper -- and profiles encourage, you and i for a little bit i think the evidence is pretty powerful, the brought architecture of the book, the themes of the book that has salience, the need for

evidence-based discourse for bargaining in good faith and ultimately compromise which we can discuss but those arguments, those themes are jack kennedy's. ted sorensen is too young, 25 or 26, he will not be able to articulate those things. the introduction and the conclusion, those are more than kennedy's, that is basically his work. had he not won the pulitzer i don't think this would ever have been an issue. if i could come back to this. how he should have responded to the awarding of the pulitzer is a fair question. one of the proudest moments of his life he later said. is it reasonable to expect him to turn down the award?

i don't know what that would have meant to an aspiring politician. there is no question the middle chapters were drafted by others, not just sorenson but professors who helped. this is more jack kennedy's book then perhaps you are allowing. >> i don't want to end on that minor disagreement. i want my audience to know we haven't talked about how the book ends but it is a marvelous account of the convention that came down in history, the 56 democratic convention and, you see jack kennedy at his best, knows how they play the game, detached enough, that he can take a loss now and it won't be the end of him and might

actually help him -- >> i have this in one of the end notes. you can go on youtube which is where we are now and you can see the concession speech that he gives it that convention. it is done without notes. a remarkable moment captured the we can see on youtube, folks are interested in this, he has come so close just minutes before getting this nomination, it is a disaster to seek the nomination, comes this close, then says to ted sorensen when it is clear the tide has turned, let's go, they go to the podium, he gives his speech. it is an amazing moment.

>> in a great ending that makes you eager for frederik logevall to get the volume 2 and finish volume 2. let's get to a few questions. some of them are questions i wanted to ask so i will allow others to ask them. this comes from someone in colombia. how would you define his leadership style and how does it apply to today's challenges. you touched on it briefly. what more do you have to say about that? >> the 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. it is a leadership style that is about becoming informed on

an issue and act accordingly which leads to the second point. this is something i find admirable. he doesn't want yes men and yes women around. he is somebody who wants people who have different views. he wants to hear people's opinions what path to take and i will also say there is much more to be said. the final piece of this is when he needs to make a decision, he is openly cautious on civil rights, his legislative record, by the time he is killed, the cuban missile crisis, all of his advisers or councilman, military response are aggressive, almost to a person.

kennedy is seeking a political solution, he shows capacity to look at things from khrushchev's perspective which is really important and that is an element of his leadership style. >> this question, why did you end in 56? are you going to get the late 50s and his entire presidency into volume 2? or worried about the next book? >> whoever posed it, that one will be seared in -- i am committed to doing this. there is a lot that happens. extraordinarily - it is remarkable and it means so much

in the early volume, he is himself a huge figure in the book and several others. the subtext of your question is a good one. got to deal with the amazing campaign which begins in 57. the secret of jack kennedy's success at all levels of politics, he starts earlier than the competition, and earlier, speaking before tiny audiences on airport tarmac's for 8 people, 12 people and ultimately culminates, the primary battling 60 and a race against nixon and we haven't gotten to the present. i am helped by the fact, terrible thing to say, it all ends in november of 1963 and i

don't -- my present plan, to get deep into seeing what happened in dallas but save some space by keeping that pretty loose. >> the same fear for robert caro, except he is older than you between 64-68 lyndon johnson's presidency crashed back to earth. >> we all do. >> a viewer asks what legends about young jfk do you unwind or append, any stories that you could prove wrong and included

that you don't know, in the archives that teach us something? >> part of it is what you already discussed and maybe viewers want something more specific, young jfks who his -- one of his best qualities, jackie talks about this after his death, his curiosity. his interest in the world and what made people tick. the young jfk, more serious, more engaged individual that we have come to believe. i will also say i will append a myth that the illnesses which were real, some of the mill

diagnosed, i upend the notion that they were acutely debilitating or let me do it this way. this is the guy who despite that, from a young age, was extraordinarily active and served in the war, had to fudge to get into combat but with his father's help he did, who runs the bruising campaign in 46 where he outworked everybody, sleeps 3 or 4 hours a night, somehow this guy who is supposed to be at death's door, so ill, he is able to suggest that we shouldn't exaggerate the scope, the importance of those illnesses. i'm not sure that is where the question was going. >> host: this is a question about what he knew about his own country.

he seemed to know europe and self specific -- south pacific from personal experience but as far as america goes, he knew riverdale, he knew harvard, he knew palm beach. did he know much about the country. it is it possible to know some of his views, and diversity at this stage of his life? >> it is a great question, pretty limited. maybe his interest. he had not traveled much in the south, in a senator. i write about the small number of african-americans he interacted with.

i don't believe he was personally prejudiced, but it is also true he wasn't really animated by the searing experience african-americans have. i also would say when he runs for president in 1960 and goes places like west virginia, he sees that to agree to which there are deep income disparities grafted before. contemporaneous evidence, made

a huge impression, what he encountered to appreciate the people to talk with them, and see if we can develop this, traveling around the country for the first time. >> host: it was a book review, that brought hidden poverty to his attention in a big way. michael harrington, the other america, dwight mcdonald's review in the new yorker, that is how it attached non-populist, he was not a populist. compare him to fdr and say they were both attrition, suffered debilitating illnesses, better

politicians, somehow maybe because his career coincided with the period of prosperity rather than the great depression jfk that wasn't what animated him. >> glad you raised that. we haven't talked about the two of them that way. i suggest somewhere in the book, what is the word? he was never engaged by the fdr -- never connected with him in the way a lot of other people did. it is extraordinary the degree to which the candies were isolated from the great depression grows. kennedy said in terms of marriage and so on in the 1930s gives you a sense how the kennedys did and you are quite right that jfk comes of political age after this in result of the war in the aftermath.

>> host: the need for public service and commitment to democracy and courage feel so great. what of young jack leaves you hopeful that today's emerging generation can rise to make an impact? >> guest: i am hopeful. i do think our younger generation, my own kids are an example of this. i do think we need desperately for americans to reengage with civic life. we need to do this. the example of jack kennedy and even young jack kennedy helped us to do this. hope it comes out in those chapters of the book. i'm struck by the degree to which in the 1936-37-38

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 a leaders who will accomplish this? even as an undergraduate, the thesis, that is the heart of the thesis. why the bridge under baldwin and chamberlain seemingly unable to prepare but it is ultimately a hopeful message because it comes back to the question that he decides democracy requires able leadership, citizens who are informed, and interest in policy issues, hold leaders accountable for people themselves to be engaged.

it seems to me the most powerful part. >> host: it is well said and connects to a question from a 20-year-old university student interested in a career in the political world, what can i learn from a young jfk with his activities and attitudes to self learning and ambition, those are two interesting terms that both apply to kennedy. >> self learning and ambition, that is perfect because he commits himself to that. hard to say what he does when he comes back after the great excursion you talked about in 1939, in some ways different. the senior year at college. we see that self motivation and determination to succeed. he becomes much more ambitious.

no question. i do think it is about to respond to the question. an excellent question from our 20-year-old friends. it is about taking an interest in policy which it sounds like you already have, public service, and seeing how we can make things better. jack kennedy says in one of his papers, he is a junior when he writes this, for democracy to survive wires dedicated and capable leaders. we should have checked before we came on. seems to be what you and others should think about because democracy is under threat. i am worried about the current state of it and it will require all of us, especially your generation to commit yourself to the hard work involved in this.

i have no doubt that democracy has worked. it has worked in this country and other countries and i will say one other thing which is maybe controversial, it shouldn't be. i guess it is an argument if not for centrism, but it is an argument for remembering to treat political opponents as adversaries and not enemies and that is something kennedy committed himself to. seeing the merits of the argument on the other side, really hard for all of us. >> i was going to make the same point. we live in a political and media world you are rewarded for the instant victory and for 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's a connection to politics in that you always benefit from going over to people whose experiences different, whose views are different from yours and try to understand, to hear them, you don't have to like it, you have to approve a views. this is something obama, the most kennedyesque president we have had since kennedy, tried to walk around in somebody else's shoes then you will be able to be a better public servant. >> exactly right. joe biden talked in terms that

he was criticized for his primary opponents for the situation. ultimately, and you have to bargain hard and not abandon principles but it is essential. a fascinating conversation i talk about in this book, an englishman named david ormsby gore who was in the kennedy administration, becomes britain's ambassador, they are right to the end. jfk says in this conversation i don't know if i'm cut out to be a politician because i often see the merit of the argument on the other side, too often therefore become a little bit uncertain about the arguments on the other side. it is a very revealing conversation at as you say in

our day and age we don't talk in those terms. >> it will be interesting, my analogy for biden is much more lbj because he is a creature of the senate, a career paul, a centrist and yet he is coming in if he makes it at a moment history may make him a consequential president. that is my historical analogy, the election and the moments we are in. one audience member wants you to talk about his purchase sense of humor which you haven't talked about but it really runs through this book, quotes of, what kind of humor was it. >> maybe i should have it in the text, i have conan o'brien who has a marvelous essay about

jfk's sense of humor but o'brien says we have had two truly funny presidents, abraham lincoln and john f. kennedy and i think he is right about that. not to say other presidents haven't had a sense of humor but has not been as well developed as we see. it is an ironic sense of humor, especially in the white house, they honed this particular skill, there was a kind of absurdist quality to it at times, those who know more about this, have to do with these maladies that he had poking fun at them.

made sense, people liked it, it is key to understanding them. >> host: two questioners, went to jack see bobby's political talent and what did jack think of bobby's work for democracy committee alongside that? >> guest: he saw bobby's worth taking as a campaign manager to run a campaign in spades, the campaign is floundering. looks like he's going to lose or well-positioned and in part he is a lot like the old man.

right on track, how important bobby is as a manager as a true and ultimately ruthless operative. when he sees bobby's potential of a politician it is more interesting. he became devoted to his brother. the age gap, when they were young, there is a trip in 51 which i write about in the far east including vietnam in which they become much closer. he deeply admired his brother and he should run himself for office. how he felt about bobby's devotion to mccarthy, early on,

he did what he felt he should do. mccarthy became more controversial, bobby is no longer in that but he was very close, that creates more problems for jack politically. this is a very close knit family, not a family that screams and yells at each other. you don't see it in the records, any particular anger on jack's part about continued loyalty on bobby's part. >> let's end with this question. the majority of jfk's thoughts and ideas were never vocalized

or discussed by him. a lot of his thinking remains unrevealed. there's a lot about jfk that is a mystery and the we will probably never know. do you agree or disagree and this gets to the question we talked about how a biographer, a person who died 60 years ago. >> it is a very perceptive question and he does take part of himself secrets, think we all do. his mother's son, because rose, very prolific in her letter writing, there have been excellent biographies of rosa her biographer may disagree

with me. even with her letter writing, voluminous correspondence, kind of hard to penetrate in this regard and there is some of that with jfk but i still believe, maybe this is a good place to end, i think we can get to know jack kennedy. at various points in this story in volume 1 he writes a lot and i think is quite open about what he says including sometimes by himself letters to his friend and others, communication between the two of them reveals a lot. it will be interesting in volume 2. >> you will be more guarded. >> i already know letters, plain old letters written by him to others become more

scarce and so that will be a challenge, it surprised me the degree to which i felt i could get at the young jfk. >> are there people still alive who are adults when he was alive, who can tell you their first-hand experience or is that generation disappeared? >> pretty much gone. i have spoken to some of them and some of the ones i spoke with, the late richard goodwin, no longer with us. i think the magnificent jfk library oral history collection has to be used with caution as all collections must be used with caution is a great resource and some of those interviews were conducted soon

after the assassination which is both a good thing and a problem but i would rely more on those than being able to talk with people. >> can't wait for the next one but meanwhile congratulations on a marvelous book, and made reach hundreds of thousands of readers. i think the audience for joining us tonight and most of all frederik logevall for being one of the great historians and writers in america today. >> thank you, to have this opportunity with you given your work and if you've not seen folks or read it you've got to get your hands on that book. georgia's recent writings are a must read. great to chat with you tonight.

i want to thank the library. many folks i thanked in my acknowledgments but we need to reopen so some of us can get back into those marvelous collections. >> host: good night, everybody. >> stay with the sand for continuing coverage of the transition of power as president-elect joe biden moves closer to the presidency. with the electoral college votes cast from states across the country join us on january 6th live at 1:00 pm eastern for the joint session of congress to count the votes and declared the winner for president and vice president and finally a noon on january 20th the inauguration of the 46 president of the united states. live coverage begins at 7 am eastern from the statehouse to congress to the white house, watch it all live on c-span, on the go on c-span.org or listen using the free c-span radio apps.

>> listen to c-span's podcast the weekly. we are talking to robert browning who directs the c-span archives about congress's increasing use of lame-duck sessions to tackle big-ticket legislation. find c-span's the weekly where you get your podcasts. you are watching booktv on c-span2. every weekend with the latest nonfiction books and authors. booktv on c-span2 created by america's cable television company. today brought to you by these television companies to provide booktv to viewers as a public service. >> during a recent program us court of appeals judge for the sixth circuit jeffrey sutton discussed the life and career of supreme court justice antonin scalia.

here he talks about the late justice's writing and influence. >> i said i wanted to work with justice kolea which if you know my past, my background and family that would not have been your best guest. why is it in 1991 i want to work for justice scalia? this is something most law students can understand. reading judicial opinions i have to admit as a judge myself, not a lot of fun. this is where lawyers acquire the habit of drinking the coffee that is good for them. these are not charles dickens knowledge and caffeine is what gets you through, how refreshing when you are doing this to come across a justice scalia majority opinion dissent or defense. they stood out for their liveliness, honesty, quest for truth. i could have cared less whether justice scalia was a textual

list, living constitutionalist, originalist, all i wanted to do was get to know him. he seemed like a lot of fun but then i wanted to learn to write like him which is unrealistic but so be it. tried to learn to write as close as you could. that is wire started working with him and it was easy to follow under his influence because his passion for getting it right, his dedication to making sure you're being honest what is going on, not being afraid to second-guess your self and his passion for the writing. no way to finish the year with him and not want to be a better writer. so much of becoming a better writer is becoming a better writer and it is interesting since then, almost 30 years,

that year and many times since he would do something. i would hear him say something, we would talk about a case and get his reaction, that can't be right, they say it so forcefully. i'm a little contrary and to have anybody say something forcefully makes me want to push back and i thought about it or sometimes a couple years would go by, that is a really good point. in writing the introduction to this book, wasn't hard to embrace original is in. it is right. it is the only answer to the federal courts. going back to the point, it has something to do with the power of his ideas and remarkable

capacity, that is not a bad thing to know that if you have good ideas, how to express them. >> host: to watch the rest of this program visit booktv donald, search for jeffrey sutton and the title of his book the essential scalia using the search box at the top of the page. >> coming up tonight, a look at the political career retiring senator lamar alexander. on c-span2 booktv's year in review, starting at 8:00 pm with brian greene and jenna live in on the origins and future of the cosmos. on c-span 3, programs marking the 4 hundredth anniversary of the mayflower's trip from plymouth, england in 1620 starting with a discussion on the mayflower compact, the set of rules for self-governing by the settlers. that is tonight starting at 8:00 pm on the c-span networks.

>> you are watching c-span2, your unfiltered view of government, c-span2 was created by america's cable television company, brought to you by the television company stupid by c-span2 as a public service. >> hello, i am co-director of the aspen ideas. ..