Mutual Contempt: Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud that Defined a Decade (Paperback)

~ (Author) "In the late autumn of 1959, Senator John Kennedy dispatched his younger brother, Robert, to the Texas ranch of Lyndon Baines Johnson..." (more)
Key Phrases: bombing halt, speech draft, national committeeman, Bobby Kennedy, White House, Lyndon Johnson (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Library Journal

A portrait of two great 20th-century politicians at loggerheads.
Copyright 1997 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Kirkus Reviews

An extensive, minutely detailed analysis of the Lyndon B. JohnsonRobert F. Kennedy mutual-fear-and-loathing society. Entire books have been written examining Lyndon Johnson's presidency in which Robert F. Kennedy is but a very minor player. In his book, Shesol filters Johnson's entire vice-presidential and presidential careers through the lens of his hatred of Robert Kennedy and RFK's reciprocal contempt for Johnson. In his first book, Shesol, a political cartoonist, sets out to prove that from 1959 to 1968 both Kennedy and Johnson made ``few important decisions without first considering'' their mutual contempt, which was ``the defining relationship of their political lives.'' Shesol offers a mountain of evidence to buttress these original claims. The book is filled to overflowing with detailed reconstructions of many of the political actions RFK and LBJ took. Shesol is correct- -to a very limited degree. The two men hated each other viciously, and their hatred had an impact on some of their political decisions. Those facts are well documented here and elsewhere. But Shesol does not come close to proving that the mutual hatred was a key factor in Johnson's presidency or in Kennedy's political career. Shesol claims, for example, that Johnson's Vietnam War policymaking, by mid-1967, was ``inextricably bound to the Johnson-Kennedy feud.'' The feud had some impact, but Shesol either ignores or cursorily mentions the many other, much more crucial factors. They include the intransigence of the Vietnamese communists, the weakness of our South Vietnamese ally, pressures from the American Joint Chiefs and from conservative Republicans, threats from China, and Johnson's strong desire to win the 1964 election and, later, enact his Great Society programs. A myopic portrait of two powerful politicians that all but ignores any actions other than their spiteful, petulant, petty personal feuding. (photos, not seen) -- Copyright ©1997, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 624 pages
• Publisher: W.W. Norton & Co. (October 17, 1998)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0393318559
• ISBN-13: 978-0393318555
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6.4 x 1.3 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.8 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (22 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #84,726 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in these categories: (What's this?)

  #7 in	Books > Biographies & Memoirs > People, A-Z > ( K ) > Kennedy, Robert
  #8 in	Books > Biographies & Memoirs > People, A-Z > ( J ) > Johnson, Lyndon
  #46 in	Books > History > United States > 20th Century > 1960s

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Mutual Contempt, November 14, 2006

By	Michael Wescott (New York City) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Jeff Shesol's book is an evenhanded account of the deep animosity that pervaded the relationship between LBJ and RFK, fed by stark personality differences, real and perceived slights, and the stunning reversal of fortune that turned their balance of power upside-down.

Their animosity dated back to the race for the Democratic nomination in 1960, when Johnson hemmed and hawed about whether he would officially entered the race. By the time he committed, it was too late; to Johnson's surprise, the Kennedy machine was unstoppable. Yet there had been a brief bit of competitive mudslinging: when Kennedy's aides wondered aloud whether Johnson's previous heart-attack might be an issue, Johnson's aides leaked the "explosive" news that JFK was afflicted with Addison's disease and being kept alive by large infusions of steroids. Though completely true, the Kennedys vehemently denied this charge. Shesol believes that although JFK saw the episode as politics-as-usual, RFK was unable to forgive what he saw as a personal attack by Johnson on his family.

Given this, RFK was apoplectic when he learned that Johnson would be his brother's running mate. He was not alone in his chagrin, and though JFK's role is ambiguous, RFK visited Johnson in an attempt to have him withdrawal. Told by Johnson that this request would have to come from JFK himself, RFK left in defeat. No such request was to come from John Kennedy, and one can imagine Johnson's bitterness in what he may have perceived as an attempt by RFK to sabotage him. While there would be an element of truth to his suspicions as their relationship progressed, Johnson managed to take paranoia concerning Robert Kennedy to incredible heights.

According to Shesol, Johnson was treated shabbily by the Kennedy crowd, especially RFK. With his Texas manners and sensibilities, he was an easy target for mockery from such paragons of east coast sophistication. Also, RFK was particularly intolerant of those he thought were two-faced, disingenuous, or downright dishonest, while LBJ had a famously ambivalent relationship with the truth. At one point, RFK was given a gift of an LBJ voodoo doll, a gesture which was the cause of much "merriment". Johnson, in turn, chafed at newspaper articles which designated RFK the "number two man" in Washington. Even with his largely ceremonial office, Johnson felt that he should be considered the number two man. With unrealistic expectations of continued power over the Senate, Johnson was increasingly unhappy with his position.

Then, of course, everything changed with the assassination of JFK. Johnson's unnecessary insistence that he take a formal oath of office before leaving Dallas reportedly rankled the Kennedys considerably. Furthermore, Johnson's disingenuous claim that the oath was being taken at RFK's request was particularly "galling". Also, many of Kennedy's aides felt that the trip to Texas was made to help Johnson politically, though others feel that it was exactly the opposite situation, and JFK was trying to shore up his shaky position in the south. Memories of the flight back to Dallas vary considerably, with some calling the transition of power Johnson's finest moment, and others describing his behavior as "obscene".

From this point, everyone was in an extremely difficult political position. Feeling that his legitimacy was dependent on his support of the Kennedy legacy, and dependant on support from the popular Kennedys themselves, Johnson was stuck with RFK's continuing influence, both as the Attorney General and as the head of the Kennedy clan. Over time, they were bound to have conflicting ideas about where the Kennedy legacy would lead. On top of this, RFK was no longer the number two man in Washington. He could "hardly countenance" the fact the LBJ was sitting in the Oval Office. Aides and White House staff, as well as others in the Democratic Party elite, felt compelled to take sides. The contentiousness escalated until, finally, in 1968, RFK and LBJ enjoyed their final split over Vietnam War policy, and Kennedy announced a challenge for the presidential nomination. Though Shesol says that LBJ was convinced that he could win, RFK was extremely popular, and the tide of opinion on Vietnam was turning in his favor. He would have been a very formidable opponent, and may well have given Johnson the final push to decline seeking another term.

If so, Shesol's subtitle could be correct: theirs was the "feud that defined a decade". Certainly, the actions and attitudes of one, whether real or inferred, profoundly affected those of the other, and Johnson policy was sometimes determined not by how effective it might be, but how effective it might be in needling or embarrassing Kennedy. Shesol does not really dwell on the broader implications of the feud, however, and declines to spell out exactly how the decade was "defined" by it, choosing instead to present the animosity in its full, unsavory glory, and to let the reader draw his own conclusions.

6 of 7 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Good, but not definitive, May 8, 1999

By A Customer

Given the recent market for books about LBJ, the consistent market for Kennedy books, and the play the LBJ-RFK relationship gets in almost every book about either man (and about JFK), it's surpising that no one has tackled this subject in a book before.

But, as good as this book is, one has to wonder if it's really worth the 500+ pages Shesol devotes to it. (Chris Matthews covered the just as interesting JFK-Nixon relationship in his much shorter, more piquant book "Kennedy & Nixon.) Shesol goes to some length to justify this book's subtitle -- "the feud that defined a decade" -- but doesn't really succeed. Say what you will about either LBJ or RFK, but both were far too canny politically to let their personalities completely overpower the events of the 1960s.

This book is comprehensively researched, sensitive, clear-headed, and impressive...just as you would expect from an academic history paper, which is what the genesis of this book was. But for all that, this book lacks the narrative force, drive, and passion that, say, Robert Caro is likely to bring to this topic when he covers it in his comprehensive, controversial series of "The Years of Lyndon Johnson" books--which are recommended to readers who like this story.

Especially early in this book, Shesol goes off on tangents (for example, on William Manchester & Jackie Kennedy) which might impress a history professor but aren't really necessary in this depth in this type of book.

Readers interested in RFK in particular should check out a very underrated RFK book by Jules Whitcover called "85 Days: The Last Campaign of Robert Kennedy."

Readers can argue forever who, in the end, Shesol likes better. My vote says RFK, but that's far from certain, and it really doesn't matter anyway. Enjoy this book for what it is - a good, somewhat dry, tackling of a subject that is both more simple and more complex than Shesol says.

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars An excellent study of the effect of power on personality., June 8, 1998

By A Customer

This review is from: Mutual Contempt: Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud That Defined a Decade (Hardcover)

What comes to the fore in this book is that power influenced both LBJ and RFK negatively -- especially with respect to their treatment of each other. During the 1960 presidential campaign and then during the JFK administration, Robert Kennedy's innate dislike and scorn of LBJ was put into practice by his uniquely powerful position within JFK's cabinet. Clearly, RFK held the upper hand from 1960 through 1963, and he used his influence to shut LBJ out of important meetings and events and to make sure that LBJ's role was little more than that of "water boy." LBJ, for his part, fumed at the repeated slights from RFK during JFK's tenure, and -- as Shesol well demonstrates -- allowed the hurt and resentment that had built up during those three years to play much too large a role in his decision-making calculus during his own administration. If anything, LBJ's well-documented personal insecurities (which may have reached the level of clinical paranoia by the time he left the presidency) and mastery of the political game made his ostracism of "all things RFK" even more effective than RFK himself had ever been able to manage.

What all this means is that the personal animosity that these two important men felt toward one another was best effected by each during his own time of greatest power and influence. As a result, the talents and resources that each of these two great public servants had available to contribute were underutilized (at best) or squandered (at worst) at a time when the country desperately needed both men to help see it through some of its most difficult times. To the largest extent, Shesol does not ascribe greater fault or worse judgment to either man, and indeed he cannot, as each took advantage of his own personal power to minimize the influence of the other. That is the sad theme underlying Shesol's important and fascinating book.