>> good evening. i'm allen price director of the john of kennedy presidential library and museum. on behalf of my library foundation and colleagues i'm delighted to welcome all of you who are watching tonight's program on line. thank you for joining us this evening. i would also like to acknowledge the generous support of our underwriters public library forms. lead sponsors bank of america and the lowlands at a dinner media sponsors the "boston globe" and wp you are. we look forward to a robust question-and-answer. met this evening. you'll see full instructions on the screen for submitting your questions via e-mail or in the comments on their page during

the program. we are so grateful to have this opportunity to explore president kennedy's earlier years in-depth with their distinguished speakers this evening. this is the first major work of president kennedy in many years. we have been anticipating this for some time. much of professor frederik logevall's research to lace in the library archives and we are very pleased to learn more about this conference if they look at president kennedy's formative years. i'm now delighted to introduce tonight speakers. we are so glad to welcome frederik logevall back to the kennedy library virtually. he is professor of international affairs and professor of history at harvard university, specialist on u.s. foreign relations history and modern international history and the author and editor of nine books including members of four which one of holser prize for history and the francis parkman.

"jfk" coming-of-age in american century 1917-1956 as his newest book. i'm also pleased to extend a warm welcome to george packer our moderator for this evening a staff writer for the atlantic. his nonfiction books include our man, richard holbrooke and the end of the american century, finalist for the pulitzer prize. the unwinding, 30 years of american decline which won the national book award, the assassin's game, america and iraq and love of the liberals. he's also the author of two novels in a play in the editor of the 2-volume edition of the essay of george orwell. please join me in welcoming our special guests. >> welcome everybody. i see a couple hundred of you which is fantastic and it would be a privilege and a pleasure to talk to frederik logevall tonight and to get our heads out of the present and out of the

news for an hour or an hour and a half and into the past as a guide for us as we try to navigate one of the stormy as tiers in our lives. .. so i knew you as a vietnam expert. but now i know you something broader as an american expert and someone who just shares a lot of interest with me in american history and foreign policy. so it is great to get to talk

to you about your completely engrossing, and source languages the word david kennedy using the times book review, the biography of jfk. so, welcome fred and welcome to our audience. and i guess the first question is in evitable. but why another biography? it's true there hasn't been a major one in some time but there are dozens. it takes a little bit to wade into those waters were so many other writers have gone without we knew everything there was to know. so why did you take this on? >> first off george tremendous to be with you and have this opportunity to talk with you about all this stuff. it occurred to me now listening to and aware to most recent books, might in our man are kind of book ends here. mine is really the beginning of the american century and yours is about the latter part,

but great to be on with you. i think i have been fascinated by john f. kennedy in the kennedys for a long time. i've written about kennedy in other contexts and relating to the cold war in particular vietnam. and volume two which is still to come the vietnam question which i call the mother of all counterfactual what would he have done in vietnam had he survived, it's part of this interest in the kennedys, partly a sense of this hit me one day and walking that i wanted to write a book that was a biography. i also wanted to use my training as a historian and use a kennedy to use the kennedy story notice of his rights but america's ris rise. you can map the rise of the united states to great power

status register entered world war i, hugely important to the conflict of course. prior to the mass of vietnam those two things may be a third george, which is that the materials in the library are just so phenomenal. and i knew this, the levy that is hosting tonight's event. they are so good i thought a lot of them had not been tapped by a lot of people and nobody has really done the kind of comprehensive life and times we knew about the materials in the library from your i knew that from extent

from other researchers, graduate students of mine and others who said you know, incredible folders, files, documents in the library. of course stuff is come available. it was partly because of my own private research. going to find a box i know it used it. >> obviously in terms of specific collections of specific folders, bend to see them myself see them up close

david nasa's chert terrific biography of joe senior. you look at what people have really done. some had not been opened prior to that work relatively small percentage of the collections they have been digitalized. anybody can access from their couch. which means you can see without having to darken the doorways library. it is a great collection. >> how do you approach the biography since i don't think you have written one right? it is not the same thing as

the history the two years decision-making about the war. it's more of, i would say it's a little closer to the problems that confront a novelist. because you have to fill in the book with character and especially with one character and bring that character to life. i think all the harder is to get to note that character. how did you approach the genre, the unknown genre biography. and what models you use? what guidance you give yourself as you figure out how to research and write it? >> it is so interesting. especially given that you yourself authored novels. and so you have a sense of what you're describing here.

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

and i won't say i thought the story would write themselves but it's turns out it never does. but this has great potential for me as a historian. but also as someone who is interested in biography. anna wants to see if i can make this a work. kind of as a said telling two narratives at the same time. both kennedys story. can i just briefly toss us back to you because you have this experience, george, how would you answer your own question in terms of how you approach this with respect to our man? >> i had a different problem. by the time my book came out was a fading figure in american foreign policy. he kind of dominated on any news events it was lifetime.

but he was not on the scale of jfk, not close. he went into the foreign service under jfk. if the call to service called him to join the foreign service. i felt i need to grab the reader with the first paragraph and never let that go. or else they would abandon the project. because who cares that's my great fear. we did not have that problem. so i began my book about holbrook and the voice of a novelist. even though the book has 35 pages of notes, it is as accurate as i can positively make it. but holbrook yes i knew them. you're about to hear by who knew holbrook. that's the voice that carries the entire book. he gave me a time of freedom to do things that traditional biographies don't do.

but only within the guidelines of the contract of the reader, it is it all has to be true. i try to make it sound like a great yarn you want to sit down with a lot of storytelling. >> unite talk a little but about it before. in the early pages which i thought about which should be fun to talk about a little bit. i am paraphrasing i did not have a chance to look before he came on. you say something like only in fiction we get to know the person deep inside. we thought about that because jack kenny, many people thought about this is elusive, some people warned me early on your not going to be able to get close to the sky because of the nature he had. hit some of his mother's

emotional attachments. i think you are so right in this. and yet i hope, my leader readers want to tell if i'm right about this. i think i can get, given your parameters that only in fiction can we ever really know, i hope i get fairly close. >> of think you do. read this you personally and i think it sitting on the book jacket now. it brings us so close to jfk, it is really an intimate picture. and we should talk about how you achieve that. i think readers would find its a page turner, and that is because you are always right there in the middle of the scene or very close to the characters. and of course he's ironic, detached in observing his own

life and everyone else. that is his character. but the things that created that character, i did not understand very well until i read your book. so let's talk about that. your book doesn't begin but his story begins the month before we enter world war i. this is an interesting paramount to mine. he's doing in 1841 is that other american century began booming entered world war ii. to tell me about your decision to frame jfk's life is the life of the american century and what that means for our understanding of america's rise to global power. >> it might have been ernest made the late great historian, the department i am now in. it might have been earning who

wrote, this struck me at the time i was a graduate student, something like this to think of the american century beginning in 1940 or 41. or maybe the late 30s. some might say 1945 which would not be correct. but ernie said no. in fact, america's contribution to the war in 1917 and 1918 was a formidable. because the way they were decimated by that great configuration that was not fully evident at the time, sagacious, farsighted europeans understood 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 in the 20s and 30s.

the leaders were not sure they wanted to do. i write about this in the book. do they want the responsibilities of leadership? maybe not. but i still feel comfortable in saying that in 1917 is absolutely critical to the american century for two reasons. u.s. entry into the war the bolshevik resolution which became crucial later on and to check kennedys life. >> basically the cold war that defined kennedys public life began in 1917. the true powers of the cold war, their trajectory in the collision with each other began in 1917. >> you can surly make that argument. i often ask them a question when did the cold war begin? if you look at the characteristics of the cold war which i also have them do say how many of those characteristics are present in 1917. but turns out the maybe two or three of them were.

one might be a deep ideological schism. but some of the things associated with the cold war which of the great arms race for example, suppression of dissidents. right after world war i in the united states and also the soviet union, a bipolar world structure and opposed to a multi- structure. some of those things might not be present in 1917. but i've had very smart students, interesting students make a pretty compelling case for 1917 as the start date of the superpower confrontation. >> give a preconception about jfk going into this, you have a picture of him, what did you begin relatively agnostic.

>> even with what i began my work in indochina and the fact that he had visited in 1951. >> the beginnings of war he goes and asks 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 is a kind of playboy had everything handed to him, was not very serious about anything. and only later became a auteur striving politician. i have a sense that maybe that was not correct. and i think the research that i did, again materials in the library 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 is sort of a half answer. it is suggesting that i had an inkling that i wanted to revise what was common view. i think the research actually supports. >> some of the most riveting pages are jack's trip to europe in 1939 when europe is moving rapidly toward war. having a mix of kind of rich boys vacation along with access to the most important counsel in government all across the continent. churchill, chamberlain, hitler. doesn't he sit see hitler give a speech? >> to his regrets he never saw he was there when 37 they had an opportunity to hear hitler

at nuremberg when they decided they should and then they decided they should've gone. and 39, nevertheless as you say there's almost like a selling quality by which he shows up in these places that become hot spots. open the book, open the preface with him in berlin in late august of 39. he even carries a message from the u.s. counselor, the bass it up at the senior diplomat in berlin gives him a message to carry back to his father was ambassador of britain, joe kennedy senior. and the message says the germans are going to attack poland within a week. >> so here you have this intrepid guy, he is certainly benefiting from his father's connections. he would not be able to travel to these places and see these people if joe senior who was

already ambitious for his two sons in particular the two eldest sons, but it is also jfk's own early striving and motivation. >> let's talk about his parents and relation to. when i said earlier i felt i understood his character much better from your book it was really because especially the relationship with his father. the relationship with his mother's distance. and i would not be the first to say may be the source of some of his misogyny. because his mother let him down perch she not around for a lot of his childhood. courses father wasn't either. but the mother was expected to be the father was not. but his father comes across, joe kennedy comes across. let's say he made me feel like a mean father. he was constantly arranging

activities and events and everyday's going to scheduled and were going yachting and play football the afternoon will discuss current events at dinner and reading, he is incredibly, for men of that generation incredibly involved in his many children's lives. and incredibly devoted to them. that seems to me the relationship project kennedy growing up. is that right? >> i think ultimately it is and he described it very well. it's an externally aspect of joe kennedy seniors persona. miserably it interesting example of this. joe kennedy and say 1934, 35, is heading up the fcc in washingto washington. he's heading up an important new government entity. and yet he penned these long handwritten letters to jack within his last year at the prep school.

along letters written to joe junior who is already at harvard. the younger children, it strikes me this is a guy that somehow, managing important government policy is nevertheless constructing his children, trying to mold his children. in particular the sounds he's more concerned it's quite clear about them. especially the two older ones. so what everyone might say about joe kennedy as a businessman, as a diplomat 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, in some ways credit for jack's upbringing and she is sometimes given. he gets his historical

sensibility more from her than her father pretty sexually more like his mother in many ways, the like his father. his international sense comes from her i suggest in the book. but as you say she is emotionally withdrawn, she leads a kind of separate life through all of the illnesses, post prep school that at choate spreadsheet never pays a visit. think she comes once to canterbury, she never comes to choate. minal she takes extended vacations by yourself including to europe. it is, i think that was hard for him as you suggested. >> you also said at one point that you expect from a woman whose husband has flagrantly cheating on her throughout his marriage and humiliating her by bringing mistresses home for dinner. of course she's going to withdraw. the alternative is fighting all the time and may believe

and those are not alternatives that she was a put upon herself and her family. so the way out is emotional withdrawal. >> think that is exactly right. and i think, i suggest in the book they have kind of an arrangement, which is he is going to be more discreet in his affairs then maybe he was early on. and she's going to kind of look the other way. i think that is what happens. he has a notorious affair with gloria swanson in hollywood. and i think on some level he comes to realize i can't continue to do this. but you are so right, george. we think about what she has to endure. and when you think about his view, his object defying women , seeing them as objects to be conquered, it is just a hard

environment for her. stay back where did jack's ambition come from? one thing your book makes very clear is that it wasn't simply handed to him like instructions on how to be a man by his father. he is his own man in a way that is extremely attractive. he does not seemed like a pampered, spoiled son of privilege when his father's way because that was the path of least resistance. in other words he is not donald trump junior. he fights for his own path. without ever causing too much trouble. he never openly is defiant and rebellious in a way that could

deeply hurt his father. but he nonetheless manages to come against a great deal of magnetism coming from his overbearing father, find himself. so how did that happen? how did create a political ambition and jack? >> yes i thought a lot about that. going through the materials that are so rich, but all materials, archival materials, the oral history collection of the library which is magnificent. they can't reveal everything. i think what we see is somebody, because he was bedridden a lot with his various ailments, and continuous. he became the family reader. he 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 maternal grandfather honey fitzgerald which is a legendary boston politician. the two are extremely close. they're quite different as politicians, jack is much more reserved. sort of scholarly in his approach that his grandfather. i think there's also that. grandpa fits, i can aspire to do something similar. and then finally, think this is in our specially in our own day and age, made such an appealing quality, he likes politics. and i think he likes politics precisely because politics matter. politics is important. and i think from a pretty early age before he's killed and awards thinking to himself

in a particular girlfriend who's close to, that you know, maybe i want to pursue a political career. it is those things at least in part bring in the series quality to him early on. >> yes. it's not as though when joe junior is killed over england or the channel, that suddenly it's up to jack to carry on his father's dreams, jack was headed that way already. >> he would have been, joe junior would not have had what jack brought to that career, which is that incredibly intelligent, but also the quality of being his own man. it is essential when you're in the over office and the generals are telling you you need to start world war iii with the soviet union.

>> no i think it is right. hen i do think joe junior who was the golden child and 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, do not say in the book that even if joe junior survives, comes back from the war that we would have seen the same kind of trajectory from his younger brother. but he had his own reasons for running part as you suggest i think he had a better claimant. he'd already offered a book which was a likely revised version of his senior thesis. i think joe junior the wrong way. he was used to being in the family, he already had these attributes before joe junior's tragic death.

and he is making his own decisions for 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. >> tell us how his mind is a practitioner statecraft. somebody thanks about and eventually practices foreign policy developed, who crucially is from the late 30s to early cold war when he first ran for office. how did he become the jack kennedy we now know as president, those are the key years. so tell us what happened and how they affected him. bring in his father too because that is 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, i would talk about again but the materials in the library elsewhere show about processing this. i think what happened is begins in 1936. it effectively have a gap year. so he is a year older than most of his classmates in the class of 1940. student bodies pretty heavily isolationist and it continues to be so right up until the end. and i think he buys and that commas father becomes ambassador to britain and 38. and as you know a kind of arts appeaser even more than chamberlain himself. and i think initially, jack inclined to agree with this position. but, this is the distinction between him and his brother. joe junior i think is never comfortable outside of his father's shadow.

so he parrots his father really right to the end. what is fascinating to me is to observe little by little jack kennedy begin to see a more complex and crowded world than either his father or his older brother. to see the problems with a kind of narrow parochial nationalism that they endorse, to see the threat posed by both the japanese and the germans. and by come hardest exactly when but certainly before pearl harbor. so by the early part of 41. i think he is a confirmed internationalist. and that shift, that growth in his view i think is totally interested. and finally i will just say his own war experience in the south pacific is important and affirming for him, it's kind of mixed. it affirms for young jack

kennedy that the united states has to play a leading role in world affairs. i think that question for him had been settled. and for his mates. they had these long discussions about what the u.s. world 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, a sense that military leadership, and may not be a contradiction in terms, but i think he is skeptical. i think we see, see if i can develop if it should be developed, but you see it really in some ways with his life. >> it's interesting because he

was lieutenant, right? he was a young officer. but he was not someone for whom the world is anyway abstract. he was out there obviously getting shot up. which is a whole generation of officers became overconfident generals of vietnam who thought that america had nothing to worry about with these peasants in black pajamas. because we thought the nuts he war machine, this is actually going to be nothing, we are the united states. jack kennedy came back from the war in military. maybe in the american example to the world. but not in our ability to impose our will. i have a feeling it may have been the experience in the

south pacific. but it's of his nature to be skeptical. just sort of habit and i on the darkness. and on assuming frailty. the flaws in our nature. our blind spots. all of that seems to be there at a very young age. and i am sure you would be able to trace it right through to the crucial time of the white house. >> i think that is so well put. i think partly because of his ailments, partly because of the tragedies he suffered. losing, he effectively lost rosemary to a botched, horrible lobotomy in late 41. the sisters closest to him in age, they're only about 18 months apart, loses his brother and 44.

later was his closest sibling, kathleen or kit. think ghost your points, he had a sense that life was fraught. had a well developed sense of irony. kind of a self-deprecating humo humor. i think then combined with, as you say, the experience in the south pacific, he came back with a sense that there were limits certainly in military terms. limits to american power. even though in 45 the united states is absently colossal and what it can do and achieve. so i think you are absolutely right. he would fall prey to what so many later generals fall prey to. those evidence to her here early on. >> before we get to the political chapters at the end of the book, let's talk about

jfk and women. because there are a lot of women in this book. the come quickly most of them. he is a hound dog. he is constantly writing letters to his friends have bedded this nurse, failed to bed this nurse. there is just a ton of girlfriends that come and go. and some of them he seems really smitten with. especially ingo, others are just clearly instruments for pleasure and maybe a bit of narcissism. as a biographer, you don't spare him, you definitely don't spare him. but his treatment of women, the worst moment is when his wife, jackie has a miscarriage and he is off fooling off in

the french riviera if i'm not mistaken. finally gets back maybe a week or two later. it is pretty unforgivable. it's hard to stay with them. so how do you handle that soft material, which you don't hold back but try to make it possible for us to go on to the next chapter. >> yeah, i think it is a challenge pretty think it will be a bigger challenge frankly and volume two. i don't think is a first response, i don't think that the behavior in the period up to 1956 is predatory if that is the white right word here. there is not the position of power, i guess there always is a power differential because he is a senator and so forth. i suspect not having

researched this fully or written volume two, i think this is going to become more problematic and volume two. but it is already problematic. 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 he did. and took women as objects to be conquered, there is 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 camped on the once a say he's his own man in politics. he does not follow his father's had dictates with his political positions, which office to seek her career to choose but he is his own man. just before pearl harbor pretty what 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 had dictates when it comes to working and he doesn't. that doesn't have, at least again as far as i can see some of the more problematic elements that we see with joe senior who sometimes acts out if you can imagine ex-girlfriend. >> was a different time back then. i think this is more of a pathological attitude toward women. i wonder, at times i got a little if not hatred at least disdain. as if i don't need to treat the way i would treat my yea

friend after rejecting his advances as a loyal friend for the rest of their lives. his sister is different print she's like an honorary guy. but they don't get that treatment. there member the something darker than being a bit of a scoundrel about it. >> it may be, i think it might be ingo who we have talked about is kind of an exception. because he treats her so differently from so many of the other women. and respects her intelligence. in fact, sort of is envious of the fact she speaks so many languages. she has been so many places. and she's clearly super sharp. they have these conversations, some picked up by the fbi because she is under surveillance in which you see the two of them go added intellectually.

in other ways too, but intellectually in a way but i think you're quite right, you do not see very often. there are some other exceptions. though there are lots of rocky moments in a deal with these, she is very formidable. he comes to see how intelligent she is. and she too has this kind of cultured quality that he really admires in part because he does not possess it the same way himself. but yeah, there may be a certain, how'd he put it, there's something there that is problematic, no question. >> so he becomes a member of the house from cambridge. >> 11th district. >> then he gets elected to the senate.

and all of it leads to this wonderful set peace at the book ends with which is the 56 convention when jack comes within a whisker by being ex- presidential candidate which might've been a bullet dodged an opportunity missed. when you make of kennedy the politician in those years? what did you learn about him? and what struck you as, he does not seem presidential material in the early going. he seems hard-working, curious all that. there is a quality of the say this guys going to the top. so how would you describe him as a politician who saw domestic politics as?

mainly interested in world affairs? >> i think it's pretty clear the time he enters the house and 47 that foreign policy is where he is most interested. it's also where he feels the morse entrepreneur in the campaign 46, this skinny 29-year-old who's got to get the nomination for it once got the nomination he's home free. but that number nomination is ferocious. you see even then that he is comfortable talk about the emergent cold war. not really a reality but it is emerging. and other international issues. and by the way, already penetrating and insightful and seeing things from the soviet perspective what they might want to. there's a certain empathetic understanding he has some respect to the policy buried but then it does not have the same engagement as all with domestic issues.

i think he is fundamentally a liberal on most issues. not so much fiscal issues were he's more conservative. he is quite conservative on foreign-policy. i suggest the book he's an early cold war you're pretty does not see an opportunity for accommodation when henry wallace argues for the need to try to smooth things over with the soviets, jfk is pretty caustic and swatting down that notion. interesting to hear, just a side note, joe kennedy senior on the think david out in the biograph biography, maybe slawson sure brought this up. joe kennedy articulated a position that would articulate soviets are not going to invade anybody. the soviets are not a threat to the united states in terms

of existenial distance. we can take a hands off approach here, joe kennedy senior felt very differently at the time which is fascinating between the two. sue machen interest income he goes to vietnam as you say in 1951. this is the opening of your wonderful book and asks all of the right questions. and the seasons that the french are fighting a losing war. why should that be our work? why are we defending the world's hope for democracy? that my the mid- 50s, is taking more hawkish view of vietnam as a threats, giving speeches in which we really have to hold the line against communism right there parallel to north and south vietnam. how does that happen?

>> it is the great paradox about jfk at indochina. and i think this will be the thread in volume two as well, i don't think his skepticism, george, about a military solution vietnam ever goes away. i think it is therefrom 51, there until november of 63. and in fact we have lots him in the white house rejecting advice from his aides when they want to send ground troops and so on. it is one of the reasons why in terms of the what is that we can never know. i do believe that he would've survived he would have avoided most likely he would have avoided the huge open ended escalation. >> that passage in choosing that i read importantly because you earn the right to say that.

not be curious to see if you still think it will invite him and have a go-ahead. >> i reserve the right. but the paradox meant, that par part, the paradox is as you say, this same jack kennedy as we get into the mid- 50s but especially the late 50s, is much more aggressive. he is careful because he is a very careful politician. careful in terms of his languag language, very reasoned approach to all policy issues. but as you say, he now sings a different tomb on vietnam and endo china. he supportive of the south he believes the united states must preserve to all its power 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. any western powers probably not going to build a put down the revolution. >> is this the same guy that's in domestic political terms maybe that is the explanation he seeks the white house now. he knows that democrats cannot be targeted with soft talk communism. maybe that is the explanation of the paradox. but however we explain it is there of vietnam. >> is going to be a major tension in volume two. even though it's convinced me that if kennedy would have lived we would not have had 20000 troops within certain of 63. 15000 advisors. unto the government of south vietnam.

it corrects the mistakes and mistakes are made per how much domestic policy has to do with that. but the democratic president deals with government and the opposition party. i would be really interested to see where you are up and were going to take questions in about five minutes. i just had one or two more things i wanted to ask you. their points in your book that i stumble at, the same to that david kennedy mentions in his growing wonderful review in this week's "new york times" book review. those are the mccarthy. and the question of authorship of profiles encouraged. he looked at both of these carefully. tell us why i might be wrong when thinking that jfk deserves more, a harder

spanking for his mccarthy era. entrées to not have to make a difficult call up matt. and why we should not think that we've written some notes for profiles encouraged. but he'd didn't write the book page for page. take each of those please. >> yeah i don't know the first part of this is something a should be admitting before a live audience as it were. when you read this, george, and more than a draft with think is galilee four, and you pointed out i said i need to tweak this a little i need to strike to somehow address this, it is their time. and people at random house speaker who were absolutely marvelous up and down the

line. i have such a wonderful publisher. they said yes we can do this. so in response, not listening to your satisfaction. >> i have not gotten the finished book. >> it is because of how late to be where i could only do a few words, change a few sentences. but suffice it to say you were right. i do think that even before your intervention, i suggested that he was overly careful on mccarthy. had close ties with mccarthy. especially joe senior who loves bobby. we haven't talked about bobby at he was also close to mccarthy and would remain close he flew to wisconsin for mccarthy's funeral. remain devoted in some ways to the ends. it's partly about

massachusetts politics, iris catholics constitute a large part of the electric. by the way interesting comparison to our own day, right through to the end, the on the censure or at least through the center in 54 of joe mccarthy, public opinion survey showed that he had the support of roughly 40% of the electric. i don't to draw the comparison too closely. it's interesting how even after the senate begins to move. even after his attack on the army, a lot of americans stay with him to the end. but i think jack kennedy would have spared himself a lot of grief if he had instructed sorenson, he was in the hospital for legitimate reasons. so those authors who say well he went into the hospital to dodge mccarthy but that is not true. but he could have through a

procedure called pairing, he could have instructed sorensen to vote and he should have done so. and why he didn't, is interesting. here's another quick little thing about this. in 56 at the aforementioned national convention, he had a meeting with eleanor roosevelt. mrs. roosevelt basically said and i'm paraphrasing, why didn't you come out against mccarthy? what a puzzle over george, maybe you have an explanation for this. i don't write about this book i thought about it i had a paragraph and then i raced it. i thought why would he 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, you know what, i didn't like the guy, which is troy don't think he likes mccarthy and personal terms. even then however, he doesn't want to criticize mccarthy.

and i can't quite figure that out. i can imagine that he was loyal to his family. and this was one that did not mean enough to him going against his father's appeasement did. to reject his father that way. >> that's his good of an explanation as any. >> my parents and the mccarthy parade was re- written for them as liberal democrats and politicians could be trusted pitter whether they can respect politicians. they ended largely because i think stevenson was much more outspoken. >> he was, he was. i'm sorry. when it came to 1960 they

celebrated kennedy's election. but he was not their man. and he never was their man. it was really because of the mccarthy. there a lot of liberals who thought that to be trooper think had a decisive effects. not so much on the politics of that time but how democrats saw him. and how they divided on him. >> that's a really good points. and there going to talk for another minute. it is worth noting that the democratic party as a whole, including liberal star works like hubert humphrey were for very long time 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 the senior senator from massachusetts, republican

is just as cautious if not more so than jack kennedy. he is not alone in this. now let's open this up for others. i guess here you and i differ a little bit. i think the evidence is pretty powerful that the broad architecture of the book, the feelings of the book the argument, by which the way has salient center own day in the need for evidence-based discourse, for bargaining and good faith and ultimately for compromise and the democracy which we can discuss. those arguments, those themes are jack kennedy's. ted sorensen is way too young at 25 or 26 he's not going to be able to articulate those kinds of things. moreover the introduction and the conclusion i think for me the most important parts of the book i think those are

more than kennedy's notes. i think that is basically his work. >> 20 not won a pulitzer i don't think this would've ever been an issue. question then going to deal so i can come back to this, how we should have responded to the awarding of the pulitzer is a fair question. it was one of the proudest moments of his life he later said. as a realtor expecting to turn down the reward the award? i don't know what that would've meant to an aspiring politician. there is no question about the middle chapters were drafted by others, not just sorensen but they had some professors to help them. and i write about this. and i guess i am suggesting this is more jack kennedy's book then perhaps you are allowing. >> before go to questions i do not want to end on that minor disagreement. i would the audience know we

haven't really talked about the way the book ends but it's a marvelous account of it convention it is not gone down in history as one of the great conventions. but the 56 democratic convention and you see jack kennedy at his absolute best. he was maneuvering and showing that he knows how to play the game. but he is also detached enough to be able to recognize that he can take a loss now and it won't be the end of him. and in fact it might actually help him. >> i think that is right. i will just say here to folks, i have a someone of the end notes, you can go on youtube, just a guess where we are on now, and you can see the concession speech that he gives at that convention. and it is done without notes. i think it is a remarkable moment captured.

we could all see it on youtube. it is an amazing clip. so if folks are interested in this, he comes so close just minutes before to getting this nomination. by the way his father things at the disaster to even seek the nomination. he comes this close. he says ted sorensen when the tide his attorney says let's go. they leave their hotel room, they go to the hotel room, he gives this speech. it is an amazing moment. >> and a great ending and it makes you to get to volume two and finish volume two. [laughter] : : :

fredrik: i think it's a leadership style characterized by an absolute consistent is part. and he himself and his aides need to be well-informed on the issues. he had very little patience for others who did not know their stuff down to the details. as a leadership style that is about becoming informed on an issue. and acting accordingly. this is something i find admirable. he does not want yes-men and yes women around him. his actually somebody wants people to have different views . wants to hear people's opinions about which path to take. then he liked accordingly.

and there's much more to be said about this but the final piece to this may be that when he needs to make a decision, even those openly cautious on issues like civil rights which we can discuss, as i should latest lector overall done by the semiskilled. keeping this in places. when virtually all of his advisers are counseling military response. their aggressive. he's sinking a political solution . kennedy is rated take a look at things from another perspective which i thank you so really important. that's an element of his leadership style as well. george: waiting to end and 56. i am really going to be able to get all of the late 50s and election and everything in

volume two. sue and however post this question, someone will be seared in my memory. i'm committed to doing this. i think i can do it. it is seven years of his life. and of course so much happens in those seven years. and there's a lot that happens in the first volume . extraordinarily lifespan that he leads which helped me biographer the story and so much nearly them volume on his father as well. you and several others. i got to deal with the amazing campaign which really begins and 57. the secret of jack kennedy's success at all levels of politics is that he starts early or than the operation he worked harder than the competition.

so we deal with him flying around the country. and speaking before tiny audiences on airport term axis. three people and also only 12 people. and ultimately a company ten the primary battle and 60. then raising his next in and we haven't yet gotten yet to the president say . so this is a terrible thing to say but i'm helped by then in november of 1963. i don't think george, that plan is not to get taken to the conspiracies hard to defend to the the view of what happened in dallas. the maybe same space by keeping that limited. george: will get the same thing here for robert. in some ways, between 64 and 68,

linda johnson presidency went to respond then crashed back to earth. i would happen soon. too unwieldy parade. george: so of you are asks, what about jfk and do unwind her up and from or are there stories that you are the prevailing we learned and things of the no. what is there in deep in the archives. the contagious something that young jfk. fredrik: part of it is what we've already discussed may be them your are running but specific things. but i do think is young jfk one of his best qualities by the way. his curiosity.

his interest in the world what makes people take the young jfk think the more serious and more engaged individual and what we had come to believe we are a talk about this. and i would also say that i think i up and nest which is that the illnesses which were real, some of them ill diagnosed but nevertheless, he full them. i think they were acutely debilitating. it may but at this i bring this is a guy who despite these illnesses, at a young age was extraordinarily active. he served in the war. an offense to get into combat his father's help he did. once is bruising campaign and 46, where he outworked everybody. he often sleeps only three or

four or five hours a night. and he was always knocking on deaths door all the time is supposed be so ill we can vary and can barely function . is able to do these things. so maybe i suggest that we shouldn't exaggerate the scope and the importance of those illnesses. i'm not sure where the question was going but those of the things that comes to mind. george: this a question about what you knew about the country . seem to know more about specifics, from personal experiences. but as far as america goes, at harvard, palm beach. did you know much about the country. details so much he knew about the destination it was the united states. possibly views on adversity.

on the american people in the diversity in his life . fredrik: i thank you so a really good question but think it's limited. his knowledge. and even his interest to some extent. i not traveled much in the south before became even a senator. so nevermind the house. and i write about the small number of sake african americans for example that he interacted with. and i don't he was personally prejudiced really. but it is also true that he was not really animated by his searing experience that african-americans had. it was all around him. when it comes later not talk about this in volume two. i also would say only run for

presidency in 1960, and goes places like west virginia and other parts of the country is seen before. he sees the degree to which there are deep income disparities in the country. another carefully grass before that are thought about that before. i think it is clear months of evidence comes in the west virginia and particular any huge impression on him what he encountered. begin to appreciate the people that he met there. i don't think that was so evident before. maybe early in volume two but again crawling around country for the first time. he is saying a lot that he had not seen before. george: is really interesting there is a book review that

brought hidden property to his attention in a big way. the reviews in the new yorker. that is how cerebral real - non- populist . was on the populace. he said they would both attrition and they both suffered debilitating illnesses made them better people and better politicians but somehow maybe because his career comes out. the prosperity rather than the great depression, jfk was not, is not what animated him. fredrik: i guess i think that is true. and we've not talked about the two of them that way and thank you for bringing that up. they suggest were in the book that he was never westward. never really engaged by the fdr

phenomenon. he never connected with him and with a lot of other people dead. extraordinary to which the kennedys were insulated from the depression . but in the early 1930s you a sense of how the kennedys did not experience the time. jfk becomes a political age, after this as a result of the work in the aftermath. and he does not see things in the same way that the artists. of. george: today we need a and commitment to democracy can encourage. what into young jack leaves you hopeful to make an impact. fredrik: i am hopeful. i do think that her younger generation can come up my own

kids are an example of this but on the kids also can do this. i do think that we need desperately, for americans to reengage with civic life. we only to do this. i think that the example of jack kennedy and even the young jack kennedy, helped us to do this. i hope this comes out of those chapters of the book freedom struck by the debate to which in the mid- 19 or maybe 1936 or 37 and 38 . when he was an undergraduate. he is asking large questions about the survival of democracy. it suited to the stage. in responding to authoritarians. and threats and can we do this another leaders who will grass the middle and accomplishes. it needs asking that even as an undergraduate. in his thesis, in some ways, that is the part of the thesis. why were the british involved in

tabling seemingly unable to prepare for war. but it's ultimately hopefulness i guess it's complex the question. requires able leadership. more than that required citizens who are informed taken interest in policy issues on who hold their leaders accountable. then for people themselves forced to be in public service and engaged. it seems to me that the most powerful part of the legacy. george: that connects with this question just coming in from a 20 -year-old university student. what can i learn from a young jfk. on the attitude for self learning and ambition. they both apply.

fredrik: self learning innovation. that is perfect because he commits himself to that. when he comes back after this great journey you talk about in 1939 in georgia. in some ways different . think that senior year of college we see that self motivation. the determination to succeed . and it becomes much more ambitious. the mission has to be a part of this, there's no question about it. i do think that it's about to respond to the questions from that's an excellent question from her 20 -year-old friend. it is about taking an interest in policy . and sing how we can make things better prayed plenty rights of the he's a junior.

democracy to survive it requires and capable leaders. but slightly wrong. seems like this with they should be thinking about because i think democracy is under threat. i do worry about this current stephen and i think when required all of us may be especially your generation to commit work involved in this. another democracy can work. they one of the thing which maybe is controversial. i guess it's an argument for

and the views are different from yours . and try to understand them. we don't have to like it's . you have to be friends. you don't have to prove . but we

really do need to make that effort understand that this is something obama had said. probably this president since kennedy. try to walk around in symbiosis shoes. and then you will be able to be a better public servant. fredrik: i think that's exactly right. i think that joe biden at least talk and similar terms. and he was criticized earlier this year. from the primary opponents for this suggestion. that ultimately we are going to have to reach out and bargain hard . not abandon our principles. but bargain hard at it. i will say also totally fascinating conversation the talked about in the book . is that i think and 65, between jfk and his good friend and englishman who works for the

kennedy administration. investor to the united states so their friends are right to the end. so jfk says this conversation, i don't know if i'm cut out to be a politician. and too often see the merits of the arguments on the other side. i too often therefore become a little bit uncertain about the arguments on my own side. two very revealing as you say george, in our day and age, we don't talk in these terms. george: that's right. exactly. it's more interesting to see and maybe for biden, well he is a creature of the senate. he's a career person. he's a centrist and yet he has coming in and makes it at a moment that he can be a really consequential president targeted

and the election at the moment that we are in right now. so he wants you to talk about the current sense of humor. we not talk about it yet but it really runs all through this book. "to say something about that. what kind of human wednesday. fredrik: it is true. "in a memo that maybe should have and the text but i've coded o'brien, talking about jfk's since of humor. but o'brien says that we have had exactly two really funny presidents. abraham lincoln and jon f. kennedy. it he brought about that actually. something other presidents haven't had a sense of humor. but it's not been as well developed that we have seen with these two. i think that it is an ironic sense of humor. it is a kind of self-deprecating some sense of humor which i

think he used to great effect. maybe especially the white house. i think he found at this particular skill. an estate to some extent earlier as well. and kind of absurd quality as well. at times. it may be in part, people can probably know more about this can explain it better. i also have something to do with these maladies that he had. in the poking fun of them and not taking it too seriously. this made sense but also people liked it. it was a winning strategy. a carefully a sling where it came from. there is no question that it is there. in his key to understanding him. george: and i have another question. so when does jack and bobby see the talent and but objecting to

bobby's work alongside them. fredrik: i think that he saw foley certainly saw bobby's work at the political strategist. it is a campaign manager. somebody to run the campaign. he saw this in spades and 52. the campaign, looks like he is going to lose . our lease not well-positioned in this 26 -year-old comes on. bobby and is it caught like the old man. he gets the thing right on track. i thank you so hard to overstate how important bobby is the manager and as a shrewd and ultimately kind of lose jail . . when he sees bobby's potential as a politician. that is a more interesting question . don't know if i have a good answer.

he was very devoted to his brother. when they were young they were not particularly close. there's a trip and 51 which i write about to the far east to vietnam which they become much closer. but i think he did i'm sure he admired his brother and i'm sure at some point he should think he should run for office himself rated and how he felt about bobby's devotion to mccarthy and his service on mccarthy's committee. i think that early on, he was very much inclined to let bobby do what he felt like he should do as a good career move for bobby. his father wanted bobby to have that position. i thank you so mccarthy became more controversial and started doing more and more outrageous things. they became a problem. by then, bobby is no longer than mccarthy's employed prayed but he was so very close to him. and that creates more problems i think for jack politically.

but you know that this is a very close knit family. this is not a family that screamed and yelled at each other. it say do not see at least in the records that i have seen, any particular anger on jack's part about that continued loyalty it on bobby's part . george: listened with his last question targeted i think the majority of jfk but the ideas were never vocalized or discussed by him . put in another way, a lot of the thinking remained unrevealed. therefore is a lot about jfk, the real man and thoughts and ideas the will probably we will never know. do you agree or disagree. and this gets to what we talked about in the very start about how a biography can have access to a life of a real person. almost 60 years ago he lived.

fredrik: i think that is very perceptive question. i think that he does keep part of himself secret. i think we all do quite a bit maybe he is a little bit more than some. he is his mother son in this regard. we are always very prolific in the letterwriting. at least i found. and of course there were excellent biographies and other biographers may disagree with me. bubut i found that even with her letterwriting, and hard to see this in this regard. and you see that with jfk. when we started, maybe this is a good place to end. i really think that we can get to know jack kennedy. in various points in this story in volume one, he writes a lot. i think it's quite open and what

he says in these letters. including sometimes about himself. letters to his friends, maybe particular inga in the communication between the two of them. i think it reveals a lot. it's going to be interesting in volume two. we are ending no george, that the letters, the plain old letters written by him to others. they become more scarce. so that's going to be a challenge. i think it is less, while it's authorized me to the degree which i felt like i could get at the young jfk. george: people who were alive who are adults when he was alive and who can tell their first-hand experiences. hasn't . much disappeared . fredrik: there are a few but is

. much gone. but i have spoken to some of them. some of the ones that i spoke to, the late richard goodwin. and another is no longer with us. and i think there are any. i do think that the magnificent jfk library world history collection would have to be used with caution as well. i think it is a great resource. and some of those were conducted soon after the assassination. i would rely more on those sadly, the not being able to talk with people's face-to-face. it. george: will i can't wait for the next one. but congrats on a marvelous bo book. i wish all the success of the world to you. and matt reach any tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of readers. and i want to thank the library

in the audience for joining us tonight . most of all, for being one of the really great historian fighters in america today frederick. fredrik: thank you george floyd and i have this opportunity with you in your work and if you've not seen folks some of you have not read or man coming gotta get your hands of the book. george recent writings are a must read. it is been great chatting with you tonight. if you want to think the library. any folks in the library to my could've said much more there. i want to thank them. now we just need the doors to reopen. some of us can get back into those collections. it. george: good night everybody. fredrik: take care. >> you're watching book tv, on "c-span2". it every weekend with the latest nonfiction books and authors . tv on "c-span2" . created by

americans cable television company. today were brought to you by the television company, as a public service. ♪ during a virtual program hosted by the washington post, former president barack obama discussed the first volume of his presidential memoir. here's a portion of the program. >> is precisely because i can see both sides for all sides to a problem or an issue. then i would then feel as if though i were making a good decision. because i had seen it from different angles. this idea that overthinking problems was or is a weakness in politics. i think it is indicative in a culture in which we want to

signify and eliminate all gray areas and just have our way and beat the other team. as opposed to solving problems and figuring out how we come together. and in part, i suspect at least on the democratic side, saying donald trump eliminate all complexity and just do whatever he wants regardless of the consequences and demonizing the other side, prompts i think sometime the sense of that is what we should be doing as well. we do not need some fancy overthinking poetic sensibility. we just need to, this is what we want and were going to go get it. i think that is a mistake because the outcome in terms of

policy ends up being really bad. and of making poor decisions. >> to watch the rest of this program is our website for tv .org, search for barack obama for the title of his memoir, a promised land losing box at the top of the page. >> good evening everyone. ... ...