>> listen to c-span's podcast the weekly, talking to purdue university political scientist robert browning who directs the c-span archives about congress's increasing use of lame-duck sessions tackle big-ticket undulation. on c-span's the weekly where you get your podcasts. >> good evening. i'm alan price, director of the presidential library and museum is on behalf of my library and foundation colleagues i am delighted to welcome all of you to tonight's program online. thank you for joining us this evening. i like to acknowledge generous support for our underwriter for the committee library, these sponsors, bank of america and our media sponsors, boston globe, we look forward to a robust question and answer period. you will see full instructions on screen, first bidding your questions via email or comments

on are youtube page during the program. we are grateful to have this opportunity to explore president kennedy's earlier years "in depth" without distinguished speakers this evening. this is the first major work about president kennedy and many years. we've been anticipating this for some time. much of frederik logevall's research took place in the kennedy library archives and we are pleased to learn more about this comprehensive new look at president kennedy's formative years. i'm delighted introduce tonight's speaker. so glad to welcome frederik logevall back to the kennedy library. he was professor of international affairs and professor of history at harvard university, a specialist on us foreign relations, modern international history, the author and editor of nine books including embers of war which won the pulitzer prize for history and the francis parker product. "jfk," coming of age in the

american century 1917-1956 is frederik logevall's newest book. i'm pleased to extend a warm welcome to simon sebag montefiore 11 -- george packer, our moderator, his nonfiction books include our man and the end of the american century, a finalist for the pulitzer prize. the unwinding, 30 years of american decline which won a national book award. the assassin's gate, america in iraq. and blood of the liberals. he is the author two novel that apply and editor of the 2 volume edition, the essays of george orwell. please join me in welcoming our special guest. >> welcome, everybody. i hear there's at least a couple hundred of you which is fantastic. it would be a privilege and a pleasure to talk to frederik logevall tonight.

an hour and a half and in the past, a refuge in the guide for us who try to navigate the stormy us years in our lives. i know you as the author of two books on the vietnam war, not just the people i know who fought in vietnam and one of the books i have to read on the war when researching my are biography of richard holbrook, that is easy. choosing war and embers of war by the same guy, frederik logevall. i knew you as a vietnam expert. as an america expert and someone who shares a lot of interests with me, to talk

about completely engrossing sourcing which is the word david kennedy used in the new york times book review, new biography of jfk. welcome, fred, welcome to our audience. the first question is inevitable. why another biography? it is true there's haven't been a major one in some time but there are a dozen. it takes a little bit of chutzpah to wait into those waters where so many others have gone and we thought there was everything there was to know. why did you take this on? >> guest: it is tremendous to be with you and to talk about all this stuff. our most recent books are kind of bookends because mine is the beginning and yours is the latter part is in fact maybe we

could 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. i about kennedy in other contextss, and in volume 2 which is still to come, the vietnam question, the mother of all counterfactuals, how he survived. it is partly this interest in the kennedys, partly a sense, that one could write a book that is a biography that i could also use my training as a historian and use kennedy's life to tell the story not just of his rise but america's rise, that you could map the rise of the united states to great power status and superpower status on jack kennedy's life,

right as the us is entering world war i to the conflict, dies and 63, which is the the net of american power, prior to vietnam. and maybe a third, which is the materials in the library are so phenomenal and i knew this, the library hosting tonight's event. they are so good i thought a lot of them hadn't been tapped by a lot of people, there was something fresh and a sense the biography, nobody has really done a kind of comprehensive life and times i am doing here. >> host: you knew about the materialism library from your vietnam research.

and i knew about her from other researchers, graduate students of mine who said incredible folders, files, documents, some of them used, a lot of them have not been used that much. it was partly because of my private research, no question. >> host: you actually zeroed in on documents you knew were there once you committed yourself to this project like box 291 over 73 because i know what is there and no one has ever used. >> guest: some of this in terms of specific folders i had to see them myself and see them up close before i had this sense

but i knew david nassar's biography of joe senior. as historians we all do this and you do it yourself, you look in the end notes to see what other people have done. i could see david's hands and a few other people had done in terms of particular collections, something that hadn't been open or available prior to that work. and one of the marvelous things about the library, relatively small percentage of the library's collections have been digitized. nevertheless, some great stuff you or anybody can access from their couch that you can see without having to darken the doorways of this library and this collection. >> host: how did you approach the genre of biography since i don't think you have what it is not the same thing as the

history of a or two years decision-making about a war. it is more a little closer to the problems that confront a novelist because you have to fill your book with characters. .. what guidance did you give yourself as she figured out how to research and write it? >> it so interesting especially given that you yourself authored novels and so you have since of what you are describing. that's totally fascinating to me. you're quite right history and

part of your not the same thing. i've come to realize just at how different they are in some ways. of course there are important similarities. it's about finding evidence. it's about trying to figure out what happened. in this case it said on a particular life, but similarities here between this work and the work i've done previously but as you say they are also different. i think i have been fascinated by the kennedy's. it is in some ways the great american story, this family, just an extraordinary one beginning and the begin the book with the arrival of both the kennedy's and the fitzgerald in the middle part of the 19th century and then of course joe's rise in particular, joe, sr., and then this huge family, marriage to rose, jack who was a sickly child emerges from this. i won't say i thought the story

would write itself. it turns out they never do but it did think this has great potential for me as a historian, but also somebody who's interested in biography and wants to see if i can make this work, as i said both telling two narratives at the same time, the kennedy story and america's story. can i just briefly tossed his back to you because you this experience, george? how would you answer your own question in terms of how you approached this with respect to our man? >> i had a different problem, which was richard holbrooke, by the time i book came out, was a fading figure in american foreign policy. he kind of dominated many rooms in many news events in his lifetime but he was not on the scale of jfk, not close.

he actually first went into the foreign service under jfk. >> that's right. it was his call to service that inspired holbrooke to join the foreign service. i felt i needed to grab the reader with this first paragraph and never let that reader go or else they would abandon the project because who cares? that was my great fear, who cares? you didn't have that problem. people care about jfk. i begin my book about holbrooke in the voice of a novelist even though the book as 35 pages of notes and it's as accurate as i could possibly make it, it begins holbrooke, yes, i knew him, as if you're about to hear a long yarn by -- and that is a voice the carries the entire book. it gave me a ton of freedom to do things the traditional biographies don't do but always within the guidelines of the

contract that the reader, that all has to be true. i tried to make it sound like just a great yarn you would want to sit down and here to a long night storytelling. >> you and i talked about this before but i think it succeeds just marvelously when we were on the show together, is great fun to talk about this. one thing if in a you say i think in the early pages which i thought about and what would be fun to talk about a little bit, i am paraphrasing, i didn't have a chance to look at this before we came on but use something like only infection can you ever really get to know a person deep inside. i have thought about that because jack kennedy many people think, maybe this is true, somewhat elusive. some people warmed me early on you will never be able to really get close to this guy because of that nature that he had. he had some of his mothers emotional detachment. i think you are so right in this

and yet i hope readers have determined to tell me whether i'm right about this, i think we do get, i think i can get, given your parameters that only infection can we ever really know, i hope i get fairly close. >> i think you do. i wrote this to you personally and he think it is sitting there on the book jacket now. this brings us so close to jfk. it is really an intimate picture and we should talk about how yoe achieved that. but i think readers will find this is engrossing, it's a page turner, and this because you are always right there in the middle of a scene was very close to the characters, and he is, yeah, of course he's ironically detached and always observing his own life and everyone else. that's his character but the

things that created that character i didn't understand very well until i read your book. let's talk about that but two things at once. your book begins or doesn't begin but his story begins the month before we enter world war i. this is an interesting parallel to mine the because holbrooke s born in 1941 which isn't that of the year the american century began when we entered world war ii. tell me about your decision to frame jfk's life as a life of the american century beginning in 1917 and what that means for understanding of america's rise to global power. >> yeah, i mean i think it might've been promised me the great, late great harvard historian member of this department that i am not in. i think it might've been earning who wrote, and just struck me at the time of the graduate

student, something like this, which is we think of the american century beginning in 194441 or conceivably you could say maybe the late 30s. some might say 1945 which i think would not be correct, but ernie said no in fact, america's contribution to the war in 1917 and 1918 was formidable and because of the degree to which the european powers were decimated by that great consternation, though it was a fully evident at the time, sagacious, farsighted europeans understood it was only a matter of time before the americans were going to be dominant on the world stage, and in a sense there was a delay i think in the '20s and 30s. american statesman, leaders were not quite sure what you want to do. i write about this in the book.

if they want the responsibility of leadership? maybe not but i still feel comfortable in saying that 1917 is absolutely critical to the american century particularly u.s. victory in the war and, of course, the bolshevik revolution which become so crucial later on and crucial to jack kennedy's life. >> basically the cold war that defined kennedy's public life began in 1917. the true powers of the cold war, their trajectory in collision with each other began in 1917. >> you could make the argument. i sometimes had to mr. pai often asked them a question about went when to the cold war began? if you look at the characteristics of the cold war which i also have them do then i say how characteristics were present in 1917? it turns out the maybe only two or three of them were. one of them might be a deep ideological schism, but some the

things we associate with the cold war which is a great arms race, for example, suppression of internal dissidents, someone that we see right after world war i also in the united states and also in the soviet union. a bipolar world structure as opposed to a multi polar world structure. some of those things thinks mae present in 1917 what i said very smart students, interesting students make a pretty compelling case for 1917 as the start date of the superpower confrontation. >> did you have preconception about jfk going into this? did you have a picture of him that you are going to then draw, or did you begin relatively agnostic and come to your pictures to the research? >> i think i had the sense,

that's a really interesting question, i think i do since even when i began from my work on indochina and effect he had visited it in 1951 -- >> which was the beginning of embers of war. >> he goes and ask all these penetrating questions about what the french are trying to achieve. i think i had a sense that the common view of young jack kennedy as a callow, kind of playboy, put everything had to do in the was a very serious about anything, and only later became a mature, striding politician. i had a sense maybe that was not correct. i think the research i did, again the materials in the library are so marvelous, i think show beyond a doubt that this is a guy who from an early age is serious about policy, deeply curious about the world.

so that's sort of a half answer. i guess it is suggesting i had an inkling that i wanted to revise what was common view anything to research actually supports this. >> some of the most riveting pages are young jack's trip to europe in 1939 when europe is moving rapidly toward war, and he's having a mix of the kind of rich boys of vacation along with access to the most important councils of government across the continent, , churchill, chamberlain, hitler. doesn't he see hitler give a speech? >> no. to his regret and never did see him. he was at their and had an opportunity to hear hitler at nuremberg and he decided let's not do it and they said we

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

it's also jfk's own early striving and motivation. >> let's talk about his parents and his relation to them because when i i said earlier i felt i understood his character much better from your book, it was really because, especially his relationship with his father. the relationship with his mother is distant, and i wouldn't be the first to say maybe the source of some of his misogyny because his mother let him down. she wasn't around for a lot of his childhood. his father was in either but the mother was expected. his father comes across, joe kennedy comes across, let's just say he made me feel like a lame father because he is just constantly arranging activities and events and everyday is scheduled and we are going to go

yachting in the morning and play football in afternoon event will discuss current events at dinner and you will be reading at night. he's incredibly come for a man of that generation, incredibly involved in as many children's lives and incredibly devoted to them. that seems to me to be the core relationship for jack kennedy rowing up. is that right? >> i think it ultimately is and i think you described it really well and i think it is an extraordinary aspect of joe kennedy, sr.'s personification really interesting example of this, george, which is that joe kennedy in 1934-35 is heading up the sec in washington, heading up an important new government entity, and yet he pens at of e long letters, handwritten letters to jack is in its last year at choate, the prep school. he sends long letters handwritten and

written to joe, jr. who's already at harvard. the younger children, it strikes me that this is a guy who somehow managing important government policy is nevertheless, instructing his children, trying to mold his children, in particular the sons. he's more concerned, it's quite clear about them and especially the two older ones. so whatever one might say about joe kennedy as a businessman, as a diplomat, yes, it ultimately disastrous term as ambassador to britain. we can talk about that. this devotion to his kids is something. i will also say that i think rose kennedy the mother, she deserves more and some ways credit for jack's upbringing then she is sometimes given. i think he gets his historical sensibility more from her van from his father.

he is actually more like his mother in many ways than he is like his father. his international sensibility comes in part from her i suggest in the book, but as you say, george, she is emotionally withdrawn. she leads kind of separate life through all of these illnesses at choate, canterbury, his first prep school and then it showed. she never pays a visit. i think she comes once to canterbury. she never comes to choate. meanwhile, she takes extended vacations by herself including to europe. i think that was hard for him as i think you suggested. >> you also said that what do you expect from a woman whose husband is flagrantly cheating on her throughout their marriage and is humiliating her by bringing mistresses home for dinner. of course she's going to withdraw the alternative is to to be fighting all the time and maybe to leave and those are not alternatives that she wants to

inflict on yourself or family and they go against religion. the way out is emotional withdrawal. >> i think that's exactly right. and i think that i suggest in aa book that the kind of arrangement which is he's going to be more discreet in his affairs and maybe was early on. and she's going to kind of look the other way and i think that's what happens. he has an notorious affair with gloria swanson in hollywood, and that i think on some level he come to realize i can continue to do this here but you are so right, george, would you think about what she has to endure and what you think about his view of, his objectifying women, seeing them as objects to be conquered. it's just a hard environment for

her. >> where did jack's ambition come from? one thing your book makes very clear is that it wasn't simply handed to him like and instructions on how to be a man, by his father. he is his own boy and man in a way that is extremely attractive. he does not seem like a pampered, spoiled son of privilege who with his father's way because that was the path of least resistance. in other words, he is not don trump, jr. he fights for his own path, even while never causing too much trouble. he never openly is defined and rebellious in a way that could deeply hurt his father, but nonetheless manages to against a

great deal of magnetism coming from his overbearing father, find himself. how did that happen and how did it create a political ambition in jack? >> i have thought a lot about that. of course in going to the materials which were so rich but all materials, all archival materials, all of the kinds of evidence, the oral history collection of the library which is magnificent, they can't reveal everything. i think what we see is somebody who, , because he was bedriddena lot with his various ailments -- >> continuous. >> continuous. he became the family reader picky devoured especially european history and statecraft and diplomacy, was an early fan to say the least of winston churchill. i think the ambition at least comes in part from him

realizing, hey, maybe i can do something similar here. he also has his got his maternal grandfather, honey fitz fitz was a legendary austin politician and their extreme the close, quite different politicians. jack is much more reserved, much more urbain did, sort of scholarly in his approach and his grandfather that i think there's also that, that grandpa fits is, i can aspire to do something similar. vitally and this is this is a n her own day and age, for me such an appealing quality, george. he likes politics, and he think he likes politics precisely because he thinks politics matters. politics is important. i think from a pretty early age before joe, jr. is killed in the war he is already thinking to himself and to a particular girlfriend he was close to, that

maybe i wanted to sue -- personal political career. it's those things at least in part i think bring in this series wants to him early on. >> yes, and status so when joe, jr. is killed over england all over the channel that subtly it's up to jack to carry on his father's dream. jack was headed that way already. >> i think he was. >> and would've been come joe, jr. would not have had what jack brought to that career which is that incredible intelligence and broad learning but also that quality of being his own band which is essential when you're in the oval office and your genitals are all telling you that you need to start world war iii with the soviet union over cuba.

>> no, i think it's right and did you think joe, jr. who was the golden child and who brought a lot to the table. he was straight from central casting in terms of being incredibly handsome, healthy as an ox, extremely ambitious. i am 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've seen the same kind of trajectory from his younger brother. but he had his own reasons running and as you suggest i think he had a better claim, yet already authored the book which was a slightly revised version of his senior thesis that really rubbed i think joe, jr. the wrong way because he was used to being primus inter pares in the family and already had these attributes before joe, jr.'s tragic death. and he's making his own

decisions. even in terms of which office to seek in 1946. it's not his father's decision to seek a house seat. that is ultimately jfk's own. >> tellis how his mind as a practitioner of statecraft as someone who thinks about it eventually practices foreign policy developed in crucial years from the late 30s to the early cold war when he first ran for office. how did he become the jack kennedy that we now know who was president? seems to be those are the key years. the less what happened and how that affected him and bring in his father because that's a crucial parting of the ways. >> this was such a fun part of the whole writing experience for me, and my wife will tell you that i would talk about again

what the materials in the library and elsewhere show about precisely this period i think what happens is he gets to harvard with a student him he begins in 1936. he's had effectively a kind of the gap. so he is year older than some of the most of his classmates in a class of 194040. student body is pretty heavily isolationist and they continue to be so right up to the end, and a think he buys into that. his father becomes ambassador to britain in 38 and as you know he's kind of an arch accuser even more so than chamberlain himself and he think initially jack is inclined to agree with this position. but and this is a distinction between him and his brother, joe, jr. i think is never comfortable outside his father's shadow and so we parents his father really right to the end.

what's fascinating to me is to observe a little by little jack kennedy begin to see a more complex and crowded world in either his father or his older brother, to see the problems with a kind of narrow parochial nationalism that a think both of them indoors, to see the threat posed by both the japanese and the germans. and hard to say exactly when but certainly before pearl harbor, selected by the early part of 41, i think he's a confirmed internationalist, and that shift or that growth in his view i think is totally interested. finally i will just his own work experience in the south pacific in 43 is important here in affirming for him, it is kind of makes, it affirms for young jack kennedy that the united states has to play a leading role in

world affairs. i think the question for him has been settled, and for his mates. they have these long discussions in the solomons about what 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, it may not be a contradiction in terms, but i think he is skeptical of that. i think we see -- i'll see if i can develop this or if it should be developed into volume two but you see it in some ways at the end of his life, so it is of those two. >> it's interesting because it may be, he was lieutenant,

right? >> correct. >> so he was a young officer but he was not someone for whom the war was anyway abstract because at headquarters, he was out there obviously getting shot up. he comes a whole generation of officers became the overconfident generals of vietnam who thought that america had nothing to worry about with these peasants in black pajamas because we had fought nazi war machine, , the japanese war machine. jack kennedy didn't come back from the cycle of war with the kind of confidence in the american military. may be in the american example to the world but not included nr ability to impose our will. i have a feeling it may have been the experience in the south pacific but it is also just his nature to be skeptical, to sort

of have an eye on the darkness and on human frailty and the flaws in our nature, our blind spots, our ability to deceive ourselves. all of that seems to be there at a very young age, and i'm sure we will be able to trace it right through to the crucial years in the white house. >> yeah, i think that is so well put. hardly because of his ailments -- partly -- 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 them in age, only about 18 months apart, loses his brother in 44. later loses his closest sibling,

kathleen, , but i think had and goes to your point, he had a sense that life was fraught. he had a a well developed sensf 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 military terms there were limits to american power even though in 45 the united states is absolutely colossal in what it can do and achieve. yeah, so i think you're absolutely right. he didn't fall prey to what so many later generals fell prey to come and that was evident here early on. >> before we get to the political chapters at the end of the book let's talk about jfk in

women, because man, 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 inga arvad. 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 spare him but his treatment of women, and the worst moment is when his wife, jackie, has a miscarriage and he's off sailing around off the french were the area, 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 within. how did you handle that fraught material, which you don't hold back but you make it possible for us to go on wanting to know the next chapter. >> i think it's a challenge, george. i think it would 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 up through 1956 is predatory, , if that's the right word here. there isn't a position of power. i guess there already is a position power in the latter part. he's a senator and so forth but i suspect not having researched this foley or written volume two i think this is going to become

more problematic in volume two but it's already problematic and i think some of this clearly comes from his father. i think we have ample evidence that he expected, indeed, instructed his sons to proceed in the way that he did and to view women as objects to be conquered. 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 is his own man in politics. he does not follow his father's dictates in terms of his lyrical positions of which office to seek or which career to choose. he is his own man, or to support his isolationism versus intervention is a before pearl harbor. if i'm going to make that argument with respect to the political stuff and career stuff, then obviously he should show the ability to not follow

his father's dictates when it comes to women and he doesn't. it doesn't have at least they 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. nor can we say it was a different time back then the coast this is i think anymore, i would even the word pathological attitude toward women. and i wonder, at times i a little whiff of hatred if not disdain, as if i don't need to treat you the way i would treat my gay friend len billings to whom jack come after rejecting his advances is a loyal friend

for the rest of their lives. other than come his sister different pictures like an honorary guy, but they don't get the treatment and wonder if there's something darker than just being a bit of a scoundrel. >> it may be. i think that inga who we talked but it's kind of exception because he treats her so differently from so many of the other women, and respect her intelligence. in fact, sort of is envious of the fact that she speaks a language is. she's been to so many places and she is 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 the two of them go at it intellectually, and in other ways, too, but intellectually in a way that i think you are quite

right, you don't see very often. there's 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 altered 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 lacks loathing? there's something there that is problematic, no question. >> so he becomes a member of the house from cambridge. >> yes. or the 11th district. >> watertown i guess essentially. essentially. and then he gets elected to the senate. all of it leads to this wonderful set piece that the book ends with which is this 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, and yet obviously is going to get to the top. so how would you describe him as a politician who saw domestic politics as come what was the word, sewer contracts? really mainly interested in

worldly affairs. >> i think that's right, it's clear from the time he enters the house in 47 that foreign policy is where he's most interested. it's worth i think he feels the most comfortable. during the campaign in 46 this 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 a ferocious one. you see even then that he's comfortable talking about the emerging cold war, and yet not really a reality but it is emerging. and other international issues. and by the way, quite already penetrating insightful in seeing i think from the soviet perspective and what they want. there's a understand he has with respect to policy but then as you say it doesn't have the same kind of engagement that all was domestic issues. i think he's fundamentally

liberal on most issues, not so much fiscal issue where he's more conservative. he's quite conservative on foreign policy. as i suggest an n early cold warrior, , that he does not seen opportunity for accommodation when henry wallace argues for the need to try to smooth things over with the soviets. jfk is pretty caustic in swatting down that notion. interestingly here, just a side note, joe kennedy, sr., had to think david nasa brings this out in his biography, and maybe arthur schlesinger junior brought this out, but joe kennedy articulated a position that more than a few cold war historians articulate, which is the soviets are not going to invade anybody. the soviets are not a threat to the united states in terms of its existential. we can take a hands-off approach

year, that is joking the senior. is sun felt very different at the time which is fast dating between the two of them. >> interesting, he goes to vietnam as you say a 1951 and this is the opening of your wonderful book embers of war and asks all the right questions and wants fashion we see is a french are fighting a losing colonialist war and why should that be our war? why are we defending a colonial empire? we are the world's hope for democracy. but i do mid-fifties he's taking a a more hawkish about vietnam as a threat, giving speeches in which he think through have to hold the line against communism right there at a parallel between north and south vietnam. so what happened? >> it's the great paradox about

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

writing volume two. but anyway go ahead. >> i reserve the right to shift. no, but the paradox, so that part of this, that paradox is that, as you say, this same jack kennedy 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 recent approach to all policy issues. but as you say he now sings a different tune on vietnam, and indochina and is supported of the government in the south turkey believes that the united states must preserve common to all and start to preserve 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, he said any western power is probably not going to able to put the ho chi minh if this is the same guy who's in domestic political terms and maybe that's the explanation, he seeks the white house now, he knows democrats cannot be targeted with this soft on communism slogan. maybe that's the explanation of the paradox, but however we explained it, it's up there on vietnam. >> and is going to be a major tension of volume because even though i think you convinced me that it kennedy had lived we would not have had 200,000 200,0 troops in vietnam within within two years of 63. nonetheless, he got us in deep. he brought in 15,000 advisor andy over to the government of south vietnam. so in some ways he may well have

corrected his own mistakes, , bt the mistakes were already been made, and how much domestic politics had to do that, the fear of a democratic president faced with hocks in his own government and the opposition party. i will be really interested to see what you learn doing volume two. we will take question in about five minutes but i just had one or two more things i wanted to ask you. the only points in your book that i stumbled at all with the same to that david kennedy mentioned in his glowing, wonderful review in this weeks "new york times" book review. and those are the mccarthy period and the question of authorship of "profiles in courage." you looked at both of them carefully, so tell us why i might be wrong in thinking that jfk deserves more, a harder spanking for his hunting

essentially the mccarthy era and trying his hardest not to -- hunting -- to make a difficult call on that. and why we shouldn't think that he may have written some notes for "profiles in courage" but he didn't write the book page for page. so take me to those, please. >> yeah, i don't know about the first part of this is something i should be admitting before a a live audience as it were, but when you read this, george, in more than interact, i guess it it was in galley form and you pointed out, i said i need to tweak this a little bit, try to somehow address this. is there time? and 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 to your satisfaction we will see -- >> i have it gotten to finish the book. you may well have -- [talking over each other] >> 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 are right. i do think that even before your intervention i suggested that he was overly careful on mccarthy. mccarthy. i think it had something to do with the close family ties with mccarthy, especially from joe, sr. who loved, but bobby, we haven't talked about bobby hit tonight. bobby would remain close, flew to wisconsin for his funeral, remained devoted to i think some ways to the end. it's partly about massachusetts politics, irish catholics constitute a large part of the electorate. and by the way interesting

comparison to our own day. right to to the end, beyond the center, or at least to the center, in 54 of joe mccarthy, public opinion survey after public 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, even after his attack on the army, mccarthy, a lot of americans stayed with him to the end. but i think jack kennedy would have spared himself a lot of grief as he had instructed sorenson. he was in the hospital for legitimate reasons ask of those authors who he went into the hospital to dodge the mccarthy vote. i think that's not true. but he could have through a procedure called pairing, he could've instructed sorenson to vote, , and he should have done

so. 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, and mrs. roosevelt basically said, i'm paraphrasing, what gives? why did you come out against mccarthy? and what i puzzle over, george, maybe kevin explanation for this, i don't write about this in the book, i thought about it, i had a paragraph and i raced it but i thought why we do not in the summer of '56 when attacking joe mccarthy is easy, the guy is gone, why would jack kennedy not say to mrs. roosevelt, yeah, you know what, i didn't like the guy, which is to come i don't think he ever liked mccarthy, 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 don't know. i can only imagine that he was loyal to his family and this is one that didn't mean enough to him as going against his father's appeasement did. to reject his father that way. i think speeders that's as good an expiration as any of them. >> my parents were a little younger than jfk, and the mccarthy read mac was the litmus test for them as liberal democrats, whether a politician could be trusted, whether they could really respect politicians. they ended up as stevenson people largely because i think stevenson was much more outspoken about -- >> he was. go ahead commissar. >> when he it came to 1960, thy celebrated kennedy's election,

but he was not their man and he never was there man and he was really because of the mccarthy period. for a lot of liberals that remained true. i think had a decisive effect not so much on the politics of the time but another democrats saw him and how they divided on him. >> i think it's a really good point or i will say one other thing quickly and finches talk for a minute about -- and that is, it is worth noting that 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 him in any serious way. kennedy is not alone in this regard and, in fact, a senior senator from massachusetts, republican, is just as cautious if not more so than jack kennedy. he's not alone.

on "profiles in courage" very quickly so we can open this up for others, yeah, i guess here you and and i differ a little . the evidence is pretty powerful that the broad architecture of the book, the themes of the book, the argument which by the way i think as salience and her own day in part about the need for evidence-based discourse, for bargaining in good faith. they need ultimate for compromise and democracy which we can discuss. but those arguments, those themes are jack kennedy's. ted sorenson is way too young at 25 or 26 he's not going to be able to articulate those kinds of things and didn't. moreover,, the introduction and the conclusion i think for me the most interesting and important parts of the book, i think those are more than kennedy's notes. i think that's basically his

work. had he not won the pulitzer i don't think this would've ever been an issue. the question which i'm going to deal with, if i can come back to this, how he should have responded to the wording 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 him to turn down the award? i don't know. i don't know what that would've meant to an aspiring politician. there's no question that the middle chapters were drafted by others, not just sorenson had they had some professors who helped with them and i write at this. i'm suggesting this is more jack kennedy's book than perhaps you are allowing. >> before we go to questions i do want to end on that minor disagreement because i want our audience to know that we have even when he talked about the way the book ends but it is a

marvelous account of the convention that hasn't gone down in history as one of the great inventions that it is 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 is also detached h to be able to recognize that he can take and loss now and it won't be the end of him. and, in fact, it might actually help them win the big turn comes for years. >> that's right and i will just say the folks that, and i have this in one of the endnotes, you can go on youtube which i i gus is where we are on now, and you can see the concession speech that it is at that convention. and it's done without notes. i think it's a remarkable moment captured. we can all see it on youtube. it's an amazing 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 affinity says to ted sorenson and he becomes clear the tightest turn, he said let's go. they live their hotel room, go to the podium and he gives this speech, and it's an amazing moment. >> yes, and a great ending make you eager for you to get the volume two and finished volume two. let's get to a few questions, and some of them are questions i would've wanted to ask so i will others -- allow others to ask them. this comes from some in colombia. how would you define his leadership style and how did is apply to today's world challenges? you touched on that briefly. what more do you have to say

about that? >> 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 then acting accordingly which leads me to the second point. this is something i find admirable. he doesn't want yes-men and yes women around him. he is somebody who wants people to have different views. he wants to hear people's opinions about which path to take and then he will act accordingly. and i will also say may be just much to be said about this, but the final piece of this maybe is

about when he needs to make a decision, even though he's openly cautious on issues like civil rights which we can discuss, his legislative record overall is fairly meager by the time he's killed. i think the cuban missile crisis when virtually all of his advisers are counseling a military response, they are aggressive, almost to a person, kennedy is seeking a political solution. this shows enough capacity to look at things from christians perspective which i think is really important, and that's an element of his leadership style -- khrushchev. >> this question is why did you and in 56? are you really going to be able to get all of the late 50s, in 1960 election and his entire presidency in the volume to? that is a worried reader about

your next book. >> i am going to remember that question. whoever post it, that when will be seared in my memory. no, i'm committed to doing this. i think i can do it. it's seven years of his life and, of course, so much happens in the seven years but the first volume, there's a lot also that happens. it's an extraordinarily varied life that he leads which helps me as a biography. the story is remarkable and are so much in early volume also on his father. he himself is a huge figure in the book and several others. but i think the subtext of the question is a a good one. i have got to deal with the amazing campaign which really begins by the way in 57, the secret to jack kennedy's success at all levels of politics is he starts earlier than the competition and he works harder than the competition. so we have to early in volume two of you with this blind around the country with ted

sorenson speaking before tiny audiences on airport tarmacs for eight people and 12 people, and then of course ultimately it culminates first the primary battle in 60 and then the race against nixon, and we haven't even gotten yet to the presidency. i guess i am helped by the fact, this is a terrible thing to say, this all ends very subtly in november of 1963. i don't think, george, my present plan is not to get deep into the conspiracies or too deep into -- i have to give my view of what happened in dallas but maybe i save someone space by keeping that pretty limited. >> i have the same fear for robert caro because he's older than you and he has in some ways even more, i mean between 64 and 6868 and the johnsons presidency

went to the starts and it crashed back door our site how he will do but i hope it will happen soon. >> we all do. >> yes. a viewer asks what legends about young jfk do you either unwind or upend from the biography? are there any stories you either could prove wrong or that you learned and included that we don't know, or what is there hidden deep in the archives that might raise our 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, one of his best qualities by the way, and jackie talked about this after his death, his curiosity, his interest in the world and what made people tick.

so the young jfk is i think a more serious, more engaged individual and we have come to believe. we've already talked about this. i will also say i think maybe i upend a myth which is that the illnesses, which were real, some of them ill diagnosed but nevertheless, he felt within, i think i upend the notion that they were acutely debilitating. or let me put it this way. this is a guy who, despite these illnesses from a a young age, s extraordinarily active and he served in the war. he had to sort of fudge to get into combat, but with his father's help he did. who runs this bruising campaign in 46 when he works for everybody. he often sleeps only three or four or five hours a night some

of this guy who supposed to be at death's door all the time and supposed to be so ill that he can barely function, he's able to do things. so maybe i suggest that we shouldn't exaggerate the scope, the importance of those illnesses. i'm not sure quite if that's what the question was going but those are a couple that come to mind. .. and also to know some of his views on our diversity on the

american people in all their diversity at this stage in life >> i think it's a good question and i think it's pretty limited. maybe even his interest to some extent . he has not for example travel much in the south before he became even a senator so never mindin the house . and i write about the small number of african-americans for examplethat 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 experiences that african-americans had and there was ample evidence all around him. i think that comes laterand i'll talk about this in volume 2 . i also would say that he runs for president in 1960 and he

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

way. michael harringtons the other america and then let mcdonald's review in the new yorker so that how a cerebral detached non- populist, he was not populist. and you know, you could compare the fdr and say they were both patrician . they both suffered debilitating illnesses made them better people and may be better politicians but somehow, maybe because his career comes with a tranny prosperity rather than the great depression, jfk was not , that wasn't what animated him . >> i'm glad you raised that because we had talked about the two of them in that way and i think i've addressed somewhere in the love that he was never with the word, he was never really engaged my the fdr phenomenon. he never connected withhim in some way that a lot of other

people to . >> i think it's extraordinary that degree to which the candies were insulated from the great depression, rose kennedy said later in life one of the best periods of her life was the early 1930s. that gives you a sense of how the kennedys didn't experience it and i think you're quite right, jfk becomes a political age after this as a result of the war and the aftermath that's, he doesn't see things inthe same way fdr does . >> this question is today when the need for public service and commitment to democracy and courage feels so great, what young leaves you will that today's emerging generation rise make an impact? >> i am hopeful. i do think that our younger generation can my own kids are an example of this but also others can do this.

i do think we need desperately for americans to reengage civic life and we all need to do this and i think that it's the example of jackkennedy and even a young jack kennedy . helps us to do this. i hope this comes out in the chapters of the book. i'm struck by the degree to which in the mid-19 or maybe the 1936, 37, 38 when he's in undergraduate, he's asking large questions about the survival ofdemocracy . it is democracy suited to this age. responding to the authoritarian threats , can we do this, are there leaders who will draft the metal and accomplish this and he's asking that even as an undergraduate and the thesis, it's in some ways that are of the thesis. why were the british under baldwin and chamberlain seem

seemingly unable to prepare but it's ultimately i think hopeful message and i guess this comes back to the question but i think he decides that democracy requires able leadership. more than that it requires citizens who are informed. who take an interest in policy issues. who hold their leaders accountable. and then four people themselves forced into public service and be engaged, it seems to me the most powerful part of thelegacy . >> that's really well said and it connects with question that came in from a 20-year-old university student interested in a career on in the political world, what can i learn from a young jfk andhis activities and attitudes to self learning and ambition . so those are two interesting terms that will apply to k. >> self learning and ambition, i think that's perfect because he commits

himself to that it's hard to say exactly when he does . when he comes back after this great excursion that you talk about, in 1939 he's in some ways i think different. i think that senior year of college, we see that self motivation and determination to succeed. and he becomes much more ambitious. ambition has to be a part of this, no question about that . but i do think that it's about to respond to the question,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 in one of his papers i think he's a junior when he writes this. for democracy to survive is

it requires dedicated and capable leaders. i had that slightly wrong, it's in the preface actually and i should've checked it before we came on . it seems to me is what you and others to think about. because i think democracy is under threat. i'm worried about the current state of 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 that democracy can work, it has worked for this country and for othercountries . and then i'll say one other thing which may be as controversial. it shouldn't be. and i guess it's an argument for if not maybe necessarily centrists, but it is an argument for remembering to treat political opponents as adversaries notenemies and i

think that something kennedy committed himself to . it seemed seeing the merits of the argument and the other side which is really hard for all us but don't get me wrong . >> i think it's crucial. >> i was going to make the same point cause we now live in a political and media world where you're rewarded for the instant victory and for wiping out youropponent . and for humiliating them really. on twitter and anywhere. and what is the point, what does anyone gain from that. and as a journalist, i think there is a connection to politics and that you always benefit from going out and talking to people whose experience is different from yours. and whose views are different from yours. to try to understand, you don't have to like it. you don't have to be friends, you don't have to approve of their views but you need to make that effort to understand and this is

something obama has said and probably the most kennedy asked president we kennedy. try to walk around in somebody else's shoes then you will be able to be a better public servant. >> i think that's exactly right . i think that joe biden at least has taught in similar terms. he was criticized earlier this year from his then primary opponents for this suggestion. that ultimately we are going to have to reach out and we are going to have to bargain hard, not. principles pardon heart and it's essential. i'll say a totally fascinating conversation i talk about in the book is i think in 55, between jfk and his good friend, an englishman named david gore who was in the kennedy administration becomes

ambassador to the united states so they are 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 do often see the merits of the argument on the other side . i too often therefore become a littleuncertain about the arguments on the other side . it's a very revealing conversation and as you say george , in our day and age we don't talk in those terms. >> exactly. it will be interesting to see if biden, my analogy for line is muchmore lbj . because he is a creature of the senate. he is a career politician. a revealer, he's a centrist and yet he's coming in as he makes it at a momentwhen history may actually make him a really consequential president . so next is my little historical analogy. the election the moment that

we're in right now old one obvious thing that they want you to talk about is his superb sense of humor which you haven't talked about but it runs all through this book. in his letters, in his themes" of say something about that, what kind of humorless? >> it's true, i quote in and no i maybe should have it in the text but i have conan o'brien who has a marvelous school essay about jfk's sense of humor. but o'brien says we've had exactly 2 truly funny presidents. abraham lincoln john f. kennedy. he's right about that . >> it's not to say other presidents haven't had a sense of humor is not as well-developed as we see with these two. i think it's an ironic sense of humor. it's a kind of self-deprecating sense of humor which i think he used the great effect.

and maybe especially in the white house i think he honed this particular skill. you see it to some extent earlier to add it was a kind of absurdist quality to it at times as well. maybe in part i'm sure this is important, people can know more about this than i do can explain it so it's partly i'm sure import and it may also havesomething to do with these maladies that he had . and that poking fun at them and not taking himself too seriously. made sense, was also a winning strategy, people like it. i can't fully explain where it came from there is no question that it's there. and it's key to understanding , >> we didn't talk about bobby but to questions. when did jack see bobby's political talent and what did jack think of bobby's work for the mccarthy committee alongside whitestone.

>> i think he certainly saw bodies worth as apolitical strategist . as a campaign manager. somebody to run a campaign he saw in spades and 52. but the campaign had been floundering against him . he looks like he's going to lose or at least is not well positioned and then this 26-year-old comes on , bobby and in part because he's quite alot like the old man . just gets the thing right on track and i think it's hard to overstate how important bobby is as a manager and as a shrewd and ultimately kind of ruthless operative. when he sees bobby's potential as a politician is a more interestingquestion. i don't know that i have a good answer for this .

he became devoted to his brother, the age gap was such when they were young they were not going to be particularly close. there is a draft in 51 which i write about in the far east in vietnam which they become much closer i think he deeply admired his brother and i'm sure saw that hey, here's a guy let some pointcould run himself for office . how he felt about bobby's devotion to mccarthy and his service on mccarthy's committee i think early on, he was very much inclined to let bobby do what hethought he should do and it was a good commuter career move for, his father wanted body to have position . i think as mccarthy became more controversial and started doing more and more outrageous things i think it became a problem but by then always no longer in that mccarthy's employee if we put it that way but he was still very close to mccarthy. that could be a more problems i think for jack politically.

but you know, this is a very close-knit family. this is not a family that screams and yells at each other . and so you don't see at least on the records i seen any particular anger on jack's part about that continued loyalty on ali's part to mccarthy. >> went in with this rather enigmatic question. i sense that the majority of jfk's thoughts and ideas were never vocalized or discussed by him. put another way, a lot of his thinking remainedunrevealed . therefore there is a lot of jfk the real man his thoughts and ideas that are a mystery and we will probably never know. do you agree or disagree distance to that question we talked about at the very start out how biographer can have access to the inner life of a real person who died 60 years, almost 6 years ago . >> i think it's a very perceptive question .

and i do think that he does keep a part of himself secret. or i think we all do maybe he doesn't a little bit more than some reedit his mother's son in this regard. because rose, very prolific in her letter writing. at least i found and then of course there were excellent biographies of rose so i find her even with her letter writing a voluminous correspondence kind of hard to penetrate in this regard and i think there's some of that with jfkbut i still believe as i said i think when we started maybethis is a good place to end .i think we can get to know jack kennedy . at various points in the story in volume 1, 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, maybe in particular letters to and got our god, communication between the twoof them . i think it reveals a lot. it's going to beinteresting in volume 2 . >> he will be more guarded. >> i think he will be more guarded. i already know george that letters, plain old letters written by him to others become more scarce. and so that's going to be a challenge and i think it's less, it surprised me the degree to which i felt i could get a young jfk. >> are there people still alive who were adults when he was alive and who can tell you their first-hand experience or has that generation pretty much disappeared? >> it's pretty much gone, there are a few that i've spoken to some of them and some of the ones that i spoke with, a richard goodwin.

only janssen, are no longer with us. i don't think there are many. i do think that the magnificent jfk library world history collection, though it has to be used with caution also must be used with caution, i think it is a great resource and some of those interviews were conducted soon after the assassination. which is both a good thing and a problem. but i will rely more on those sadly then being able to talk to people face-to-face. >> i can't wait for the next one but meanwhile, congrats on a marvelous book that i wish all the success in the world. may it reached many tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of readers. and i want to thank the jfk library and our audience for joining us tonight most of all fred for being one of the

really great historians and writers in america today. >> i do to have this opportunity with you , given your work and you know, if you have not seen or read our man, you've got to get your hands on that book. george's recent writing for the atlantic are a must read, it's been great to chat with you tonight. i do wantto thank the library . many folks in the library artifact and i acknowledge, i could have said much more there. but now we just need the doors to reopen. so someof us , can get back intothose marvelous collections .>> good night everybody. >> weeknights this month we feature book tv programs to preview what's available every weekend on c-span2. tonight as part of our 20/20 year in review we focus on books about science.

physics professors brian greene and janelle and explore the origins andfuture of the cosmos . and author eric j dolan in a furious sky. later sonia shaw in the next great migration. it starts at 8 pm eastern. enjoyable tv this weekend every weekend on c-span2. >> 61 million americans have some form of disability but yet we are in less than three percent of tv shows and the majority of those roles are portrayed by non-disabled actors. so ultimately ask somebody with a disability we want to see ourselves represented because ultimately not only are we seeing ourselves represented but it's going to help the stigmatized disability. representation in general gets society used to everybody and ultimately

makes the more inclusive place. >> actor nick nobody founded the disability film challenge inresponse to the theme disability is unrepresented behind in front of the camera . he will talk about this year's entries winning films. novicki on c-span's to end a.>> welcome to the nationalworld war ii museum's evening presentation webinar . my name is jeremy collins and for those of you watching on zune summary housekeeping remarks . you are a common attendee of our so that tonight. that means you do not have video or audio privileges but you can interact with our moderator and guests by writing your question in the q&a box. the moderator will be reviewing those during the question and answer session which will include tonight's program. now to introduce the moderator is my pleasure to pass this program over to