Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

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.

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.

Wow -- who knew two people could hate each other so much? This is a spectacular work of scholarship. Shesol covers every moment that these two men interacted and does so while placing the relationship in the broader context of the 1960s. In the end, one gets the sense that both LBJ and RFK were horrible individuals who let petty feuds and personal ambitions get in the way of real historical progress. (Also, it was interesting to learn how some social welfare programs failed in urban areas). My only question after finishing this is how will Robert Caro top it in his final installment of the Years of Lyndon Johnson series?

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.

Recent months have seen the publication of a spate of books regarding presidential politics in the turbulent decade that was the 1960s. Taking Charge, The Kennedy Tapes, Shadow Play, LBJ's War, Kennedy and Nixon, The Walls of Jericho, The Living and the Dead, Guns and Butter, Dereliction of Duty, The Other Missiles of October---all these books offered some insight into the thoughts, beliefs, actions and geopolitical decisions of the men (and they were all men) who ran our country during that difficult and often painful period. Many of them are well-researched, some are well-written, a few have become best-sellers, but all of them are missing a vital piece of the puzzle, a flaw which leaves each of them, for all af their research and erudition, strangely unsatisfying and incomplete. This magnificent new book supplies that vital missing piece and, in doing so, paradoxically renders each of the others both more valuable and at the same time obsolete.

Shesol's thesis, which he amply substantiates with tapes, documents and personal interviews, is that the feud between RFK and LBJ was pivotal not only in the later stages in their respective political careers, but also in a wide range of policy decisions taken by Johnson, as President, and Kennedy, as Attorney General and then as Senator from New York. He enlivens his book with commentary and anecdote from a variety of important figures of the time, inclding Arthur Schlesinger, who is also quoted approvingly on the dust jacket. This is both an important piece of historical research and a thoroghly enjoyable read.

This delightfully written, important, book is essential reading for anyone who wishes to understand the Vietnam War, the Johnson Presidency, the catastrophic results of the Great Society which we are still living with today, or, indeed, the 1960s in general. It should certainly be read in preference to any of the other books mentioned above.

After reading this book, one can hardly contest the author's assertion that Johnson and RFK disliked, feared and resented each other even more than is the case in most political relationships. That no doubt arose largely because of the exceptional circumstances created by JFK's assassination. But did their feud really "define a decade"? No, because the political and social canvas on which their rivalry was played out was far greater than the author allows. That said, the book is extremely well researched, and the wealth of primary sources that are used enables the reader to reach his own conclusions. My main complaint is that the author seems unduly influenced by the views of some of the young "radical" advisors who surrounded RFK. The book also seems to tilt in a slightly bitter manner against Johnson toward the end. Was Johnson really that bad? Looking at what came after him, one is permitted to think not.

"Mutual Contempt" is a good book about a fascinating period of history, even though reading about the "feuding" becomes a little tiresome after awhile. Basically, the book is written in a neutral fashion, neither overly championing nor discrediting either man; however, much is made of LBJ's obsession with (and apparent paranoia over) RFK's activities during Johnson's presidency. Since I lived through that period, I found certain things illuminating: such as that LBJ dropped his reelection plans in 1968 two weeks after RFK announced that he was running. What I remembered was that LBJ had basically dropped out because of his unpopularity with regard to the Vietnam War.

The book does allow for taking another look at events that occurred during the 60's, and wondering just how much the dynamics between LBJ and his nemesis RFK impacted them. My only complaint is that about two-thirds of the way into the book, the recitation of the bickering back and forth is told in too much detail, but it picks up again toward the end. All in all, a good and worthwhile read.

We were assigned this rather repellent book for an advanced graduate seminar on the role of the presidency in post-war US history. Our professor raved about it (probably because the author quotes him approvingly on several occasions), saying that it would "force a radical reappraisal of the Johnson presidency". Both he and Shesol (the author) somewhat overstate the case-- I find it hard to believe that a US President, even one as monstruously egotistical as Johnson, could really subordinate policy decisions to personal vendettas to the extent claimed--but Shesol certainly builds a strong argument from presidential documents and personal interviews. Whether or not his case is as solid as he would like to think, Shesol certainly entertains mightily while making it. The book is a rollicking good read, full of hillarious anecdotes, mainly (though not entirely) at Johnson's expense. My favourite was about an Oval Office tape, now in the Johnson library, which, in an earlier era, had been transcribed as the President finishing a telephone call with the words "I have to go now: I have to meet the f--king b---ard". A Johnson biographer had interpreted this as a reference to Bobby Kennedy, but Shesol, with a keen ear and Johnson's appointment list for the day in hand, realised that what the President actually said was "I have to go now: I have to meet the Pakistani Ambassador" !!!!!! Another fine tale bites the dust.... But not to worry, for there are plenty more in this irresistably vulgar, but simultaneously thought-provokingly erudite, book.

This extraordinary work will ignite the reader's imagination, and he will never be able to think of Robert Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson the same again. The vague historical references to this feud can never fully express the emotion and passion that fueled it. Robert Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were inextricably tied throughout the 1960's and, indeed, this book superbly records their eternal connection. Though the author is clearly Kennedy-partisan, the work is a fair study of both players. The reader will find himself on an emotional rollercoaster, filled with varying degrees of anger, shock and sympathy toward both men. This book chronicles beautifully a real life Shakespearian tragedy as it unfolds and progresses toward its all too sudden finale.

Robert Kennedy and LBJ were truly at political, ideological and philosophical swords' points. As one reviewer aptly noted, was their "feud" really one that defined the 1960s? That point is questionable at best, doubtful at worst. The very position these men occupied during that period (Attorney General and later Senator/President respectively) certainly does command the world's interest and attention.

Both men are drawn in stark relief to each other. One point I think is worth mentioning is that they really did have a lot in common. Both men were very bright, very aggressive and very determined. Both men had strong convictions and personalities to match. As has been duly recorded over time, one major point of contention was the Vietnam War.

I agree with one reviewer who questioned the harsh description of Johnson's character. I happen to believe that Johnson was a good, effective administrator. As for the Vietnam War, he inherited that headache and as an unfortunate consequence, followed bad advice about that war instead of bailing out sooner. RFK seemed to feel LBJ was wholly responsible for the war escalation. He neglected to note in his arguments and criticisms of President Johnson that the Vietnam conflict began in the late 1950s! (ca 1957, under Eisenhower's administation). During President Kennedy's tenure in office, the Vietnam conflict was well underway, but it is interesting to note that this author does not really point out that fact.

In this reading, one gets the feeling that Robert Kennedy was still working to protect the interest and reputation of his late brother. Since President Johnson assumed office after President Kennedy's death, one could sympathize with the Attorney General's resentment of anyone assuming that office.

The whole description of the "feud" is really a clashing of ideologies; it is really the parting of ways over issues. This author, to his credit does a thorough job in researching this subject and portrays historical events accurately.

It is hoped that in time, the general perception of LBJ will be softened; LBJ was by far and away the most progressive administrator on domestic issues since FDR. LBJ had more bills enacted during his tenure in office than any other president to date. He took a strong stand on environmental, education and civil rights issues that have positive impacts to this day. He was the president who negotiated and succeeded in securing public/subsidized housing, Head Start programs for underprivileged school children; MediCaid/MediCare and the 1965 Voters' Rights Acts which have today a positive impact on the large number of minorities who vote today. It is the opinion of this reviewer that President Johnson was a good and decent man whose many bills, budgets and proposals have had many positive impacts on the world as we now know it.

Robert Kennedy, the tireless worker who actively became involved in Civil Rights after the death of his brother, provided a parallel view of the work Johnson was already immersed in. Both men shared a vision and a quest for a better world with more advantages extended to all persons and with the rights of all persons more fully protected and enacted.

Robert Kennedy was in many ways not too different from President Johnson in objectives.