http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/books/review/the-elusive-president.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&nl=books&emc=edit_bk_20131025&pagewanted=all&
Kennedy, the Elusive President
Abramson and Tanenhaus on J.F.K.:
Jill Abramson, The Times’s executive editor, and Sam Tanenhaus discuss
the many books devoted to John F. Kennedy, how his presidency changed
the news media and the effect the assassination had on her.
By JILL ABRAMSON
Published: October 22, 2013
As the 50th anniversary of his assassination nears, John F. Kennedy
remains all but impossible to pin down. One reason is that his martyrdom
— for a generation of Americans still the most traumatic public event
of their lives, 9/11 notwithstanding — has obscured much about the man
and his accomplishments.
Related
-
Sunday Book Review: J.F.K.: A Sampler (October 27, 2013)
-
The Shortlist: J.F.K. (October 27, 2013)
Matt Dorfman
Was Kennedy a great president, as many continue to think? Or was he a
reckless and charming lightweight or, worse still, the first of our
celebrities-in-chief? To what extent do his numerous personal failings,
barely reported during his lifetime but amply documented since,
overshadow or undermine his policy achievements? And what of those
achievements — in civil rights and poverty, to name two issues his
administration embraced. Weren’t the breakthroughs actually the doing of
his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson?
Even the basic facts of Kennedy’s death are still subject to heated
argument. The historical consensus seems to have settled on Lee Harvey
Oswald as the lone assassin, but conspiracy speculation abounds —
involving Johnson, the C.I.A., the mob, Fidel Castro or a baroque
combination of all of them. Many of the theories have been circulating
for decades and have now found new life on the Internet, in Web sites
febrile with unfiltered and at times unhinged musings.
Of course the Kennedy fixation is hardly limited to the digital world.
An estimated 40,000 books about him have been published since his death,
and this anniversary year has loosed another vast outpouring. Yet to
explore the enormous literature is to be struck not by what’s there but
by what’s missing. Readers can choose from many books but surprisingly
few good ones, and not one really outstanding one.
It is a curious state of affairs, and some of the nation’s leading
historians wonder about it. “There is such fascination in the country
about the anniversary, but there is no great book about Kennedy,” Robert
Caro lamented when I spoke to him not long ago. The situation is all
the stranger, he added, since Kennedy’s life and death form “one of the
great American stories.” Caro should know. His epic life of Johnson
(four volumes and counting) brilliantly captures parts of the Kennedy
saga, especially the assassination in Dallas, revisited in the latest
installment, “The Passage of Power.”
Robert Dallek, the author of “An Unfinished Life,” probably the best
single-volume Kennedy biography, suggests that the cultish atmosphere
surrounding, and perhaps smothering, the actual man may be the reason
for the deficit of good writing about him. “The mass audience has turned
Kennedy into a celebrity, so historians are not really impressed by
him,” Dallek told me. “Historians see him more as a celebrity who didn’t
accomplish very much.” Dallek also pointed to a second inhibiting
factor, the commercial pressure authors feel to come up with sensational
new material. His own book, as it happens, included a good deal of
fresh information on Kennedy’s severe health problems and their cover-up
by those closest to him. And yet Dallek is careful not to let these
revelations overwhelm the larger story.
Dallek is also good on the fairy-tale aspects of the Kennedy family
history, and he closely examines the workings of the Kennedy White
House. So enthralled was he by this last topic that he has written a
follow-up, “Camelot’s Court,” which profiles members of Kennedy’s famous
brain trust and is being released for the 50th anniversary. This time,
however, it is Dallek who doesn’t offer much fresh material.
This in turn raises another question: How much is left to say about
Kennedy’s presidency? The signature legislative accomplishments he and
his advisers envisioned were not enacted until after his death. Then
there is the Vietnam conundrum. Some maintain that Kennedy would not
have escalated the war as Johnson did. But the belief that he would have
limited the American presence in Vietnam is rooted as much in the
romance of “what might have been” as in the documented record.
Indeed, a dolorous mood of “what might have been” hangs over a good deal
of writing about Kennedy. Arriving in time for Nov. 22 is the
loathsomely titled “If Kennedy Lived. The First and Second Terms of
President John F. Kennedy: An Alternate History,” by the television
commentator Jeff Greenfield, who imagines a completed first Kennedy term
and then a second. This isn’t new territory for Greenfield, who worked
for Kennedy’s brother Robert and is the author of a previous book of
presidential “what ifs” called “Then Everything Changed.” (Dallek’s
“Camelot’s Court” and Greenfield’s “If Kennedy Lived” are reviewed here.)
Thurston Clarke, the author of two previous and quite serviceable books
on the Kennedys, also dwells on fanciful “what might have beens” in
“JFK’s Last Hundred Days,” suggesting that the death of the presidential
couple’s last child, Patrick, brought the grieving parents closer
together and may have signaled the end of Kennedy’s compulsive
womanizing. What’s more, Clarke makes a giant (and dubious) leap about
Kennedy as leader, arguing that in the final 100 days he was becoming a
great president. One example, according to Clarke, was his persuading
the conservative Republicans Charles Halleck, the House minority leader,
and Everett Dirksen, the Senate minority leader, to support a civil
rights bill. Once re-elected, Kennedy would have pushed the bill through
Congress.
Kennedy as Arthurian hero is also a feature of what has been called
“pundit lit” by the historian and journalist David Greenberg. The
purpose of this genre (books by writers who themselves are famous) is,
in Greenberg’s words, “to extend their authors’ brands — to make money,
to be sure, and to express some set of ideas, however vague, but mainly
to keep their celebrity creators in the media spotlight.” The champion
in this growing field is Bill O’Reilly, who has milked the Kennedy
assassination with unique efficiency.
O’Reilly’s latest contribution, “Kennedy’s Last Days,” is an illustrated
recycling, for children, of his mega-best seller “Killing Kennedy.”
This new version, it must be said, distinctly improves on the original,
whose choppy sentences, many written in the present tense, lose nothing
when recast for younger readers. “He is on a collision course with
evil,” O’Reilly declares. No less elevated is his discussion of
Kennedy’s decision to visit Dallas despite warnings of roiling violence,
including the physical assault on his United Nations ambassador, Adlai
Stevenson, who had given a speech in the city in October 1963. “J.F.K.
has decided to visit Big D,” O’Reilly writes. “There is no backing
down.” Happily, the wooden prose is offset by the many illustrations. My
favorite is a spread on the first family’s pets, including puppies and a
pony.
Bad books by celebrity authors shouldn’t surprise us, even when the
subject is an American president. The true mystery in Kennedy’s case is
why, 50 years after his death, highly accomplished writers seem unable
to fix him on the page.
For some, the trouble has been idolatry. Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who
wrote three magisterial volumes on Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal,
attempted a similar history in “A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the
White House.” Published in 1965, it has the virtues of immediacy, since
Schlesinger, Kennedy’s Harvard contemporary, had been on the White House
staff, brought in as court historian. He witnessed many of the events
he describes. But in his admiration for Kennedy, he became a chief
architect of the Camelot myth and so failed, in the end, to give a
persuasive account of the actual presidency.
In 1993, the political journalist Richard Reeves did better. “President
Kennedy: Profile of Power” is a minutely detailed chronicle of the
Kennedy White House. As a primer on Kennedy’s decision-making, like his
handling of the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban missile crisis, the
book is fascinating. What’s missing is a picture of Kennedy’s personal
life, though Reeves includes a passing mention of Marilyn Monroe being
sewn into the $5,000 flesh-colored, skintight dress she wore to
celebrate the president’s birthday at Madison Square Garden in 1962.
(This is the place to note that Reeves edited “The Kennedy Years,” The
New York Times’s own addition to the ever-expanding Kennedy cosmos, and
I wrote the foreword.)
Balancing out, or warring with, the Kennedy claque are the Kennedy
haters, like Seymour M. Hersh and Garry Wills. In “The Dark Side of
Camelot,” Hersh wildly posits connections between the Kennedys and the
mob, while Wills, though he offers any number of brilliant insights into
Kennedy and his circle of courtiers, fixates on the Kennedy brothers’
(and father’s) sexual escapades in “The Kennedy Imprisonment.”
The sum total of this oddly polarized literature is a kind of void.
Other presidents, good and bad, have been served well by biographers and
historians. We have first-rate books on Jefferson, on Lincoln, on
Wilson, on both Roosevelts. Even unloved presidents have received major
books: Johnson (Caro) and Richard Nixon (Wills, among others). Kennedy,
the odd man out, still seeks his true biographer.
Why is this the case? One reason is that even during his lifetime,
Kennedy defeated or outwitted the most powerfully analytic and intuitive
minds.
In 1960, Esquire magazine commissioned Norman Mailer’s first major piece
of political journalism, asking him to report on the Democratic
National Convention in Los Angeles that nominated Kennedy. Mailer’s long
virtuoso article, “Superman Comes to the Supermarket,” came as close as
any book or essay ever has to capturing Kennedy’s essence, though that
essence, Mailer candidly acknowledged, was enigmatic. Here was a
43-year-old man whose irony and grace were keyed to the national temper
in 1960. Kennedy’s presence, youthful and light, was at once soothing
and disruptive, with a touch of brusqueness. He carried himself “with a
cool grace which seemed indifferent to applause, his manner somehow
similar to the poise of a fine boxer, quick with his hands, neat in his
timing, and two feet away from his corner when the bell ended the
round.” Finally, however, “there was an elusive detachment to everything
he did. One did not have the feeling of a man present in the room with
all his weight and all his mind.”
Mailer himself doesn’t know “whether to value this elusiveness, or to
beware of it. One could be witnessing the fortitude of a superior
sensitivity or the detachment of a man who was not quite real to
himself.”
And yet Kennedy’s unreality, in Mailer’s view, may have answered the
particular craving of a particular historical moment. “It was a hero
America needed, a hero central to his time, a man whose personality
might suggest contradiction and mysteries which could reach into the
alienated circuits of the underground, because only a hero can capture
the secret imagination of a people, and so be good for the vitality of
his nation.” Those words seemed to prophesy the Kennedy mystique that
was to come, reinforced by the whisker-thin victory over Nixon in the
general election, by the romantic excitements of Camelot and then by the
horror of Dallas.
Fifty years later we are still sifting through the facts of the
assassination. The Warren Commission concluded in 1964 that Kennedy had
been killed by a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald. Edward Jay Epstein and
Mark Lane were among the first writers to challenge that finding, and
their skepticism loosed a tide of investigations. The 50th anniversary
has washed in some new ones. Among the more ambitious is “A Cruel and
Shocking Act: The Secret History of the Kennedy Assassination,” a work
of more than 500 pages. Its author, Philip Shenon, a former New York
Times reporter, uncovered a new lead, in the person of a heretofore
overlooked woman who may have had suspicious ties to the assassin. But
when Shenon finds the woman, now in her 70s, in Mexico, she denies
having had a relationship with Oswald, and Shenon’s encounters with her
prove more mysterious than illuminating.
Kennedy’s murder was bound to attract novelists, and some have
approached the subject inventively, if with strange results. Stephen
King’s “11/22/63,” a best seller published in 2011, takes the form of a
time-travel romp involving a high school English teacher who finds
romance in Texas while keeping tabs on Oswald. At more than 800 pages,
the novel demands a commitment that exceeds its entertainment value.
I rather like Mailer’s “Oswald’s Tale,” published in 1995. It is, like
his earlier masterpiece “The Executioner’s Song,” a work of “faction,”
which is Mailer’s term for his hybrid of documented fact and novelistic
elaboration. Mailer and his colleague, Lawrence Schiller, spent six
months in Russia examining Oswald’s K.G.B. files, and the huge quasi
novel that came out of it contains a good deal of engrossing material
about Oswald and his Russian wife, Marina, as well as the odd assortment
of people the couple mixed with in Texas. Mailer’s narrative skills are
prodigious, but in the end he has little to tell us that wasn’t already
uncovered by Priscilla Johnson McMillan in “Marina and Lee,” her
nonfiction portrait of the troubled couple from 1977. (Mailer properly
credits McMillan’s book.)
Most critics seem to think the outstanding example of Kennedy
assassination fiction is “Libra,” Don DeLillo’s postmodern novel,
published in 1988. The narrative is indeed taut and bracing. But the
challenge DeLillo set for himself, to provide readers with “a way of
thinking about the assassination without being constrained by half-facts
or overwhelmed by possibilities, by the tide of speculation that widens
with the years,” exceeds even his lavish gifts.
It is telling that DeLillo reverts to the shadowy realm of “half-facts.”
Their persistence raises the question of just how many secrets remain,
not only about Kennedy’s death but also about his life. And if there are
secrets, who is guarding them, and why?
One clue has been furnished by the historian Nigel Hamilton, whose book
“JFK: Reckless Youth,” published in 1992, was the first in a planned
multivolume biography that promised to be a valuable addition to the
current literature. (He has since dropped the project.) While the book
was gossipy, especially on the subject of the young Kennedy’s sexual
adventures, Hamilton also provided a vivid and lively account of
Kennedy’s successful 1946 campaign for Congress. But when Hamilton began
work on the next volumes, he said he came under a sustained barrage by
Kennedy loyalists. “The family leaned upon well-known historians such as
Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Doris Goodwin to write protest letters to
the press,” Hamilton wrote in 2011 in The Huffington Post. “I was warned
that no Kennedy-era official or friend would be ‘allowed’ to speak to
me for my proposed sequel.”
Kennedy may have enjoyed the company of writers, but the long history of
secrecy and mythmaking has surely contributed to the paucity of good
books. The Kennedys — especially Jackie and Bobby — were notoriously
hard on authors whose books they didn’t like. And they enlisted
Schlesinger, Theodore Sorensen and other intimates to act as a kind of
history police, not only withholding primary materials but also bullying
writers. A prominent historian recently told me he was once warned by
Schlesinger, with whom he had been friendly, that because he had invited
Hamilton to a meeting of the American Historical Association he might
himself be banished from the organization. In recent years, the
protective seal seems to have loosened. The Kennedy family, including
Edward Kennedy and his sister Jean Kennedy Smith, gave unfettered access
to their father’s papers to David Nasaw, the author of “The Patriarch,”
a well-received biography of Joseph P. Kennedy that appeared last year.
Caroline Kennedy has been even more open to the claims of history. She
herself was involved in the publication of two books and the release of
accompanying tapes. One of them, “Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic
Conversations on Life With John F. Kennedy,” contains the transcripts of
the first lady’s interviews about her husband with Schlesinger,
conducted in 1964 but kept secret until 2011. They are revealing and
mesmerizing. The other, “Listening In,” offers White House conversations
captured in a secretly installed taping system in the Oval Office.
Since Kennedy controlled the device, these conversations are more
guarded, but the book includes at least one memorable moment, when the
president hilariously loses his temper over unflattering press about the
$5,000 cost of Mrs. Kennedy’s hospital maternity suite — “Are they
crazy up there? Now you know what that’s gonna do? Any congressman is
going to get up and say, ‘Christ, if they can throw $5,000 away on this,
let’s cut ’em another billion dollars.’ You just sank the Air Force
budget!”
The most disturbing case of the family’s attempts to control history
came early on, and it involved William Manchester, the historian chosen
by the Kennedys a few weeks after the assassination to write the
authorized account, “The Death of a President.” Manchester was selected
because of a previous, and fawning, book he had written about Kennedy,
“Portrait of a President.” (In a bizarre twist, this was one of the
books Lee Harvey Oswald checked out of a New Orleans public library just
months before the assassination.) Manchester was given sole access to
almost all the president’s men as well as to his widow and virtually
every principal figure. (Lyndon Johnson submitted answers in writing
through his staff.) It seemed the ideal arrangement — until Manchester
presented a manuscript to the Kennedys.
In a gripping piece from his 1976 collection of essays, “Controversy,”
Manchester described what happened next. First there were the many
insertions and deletions made by various Kennedy minions, who applied so
much pressure that Manchester became a nervous wreck. An especially low
point came when Robert Kennedy hunted Manchester down in a New York
hotel room and banged on the door, demanding to be let in to argue for
still more changes. Next, Jackie Kennedy, who had not bothered to read
the manuscript, accepted the view of her factotums that many of its
details, like the fact that she carried cigarettes in her purse, were
too personal. Further angered by the $665,000 Manchester had received
from Look magazine for serial rights, Mrs. Kennedy went to court to
enjoin the author from publishing the book. Eventually, she settled out
of court and finally read “The Death of a President” when it was
published in 1967. She deemed it “fascinating.”
Nevertheless, the Kennedy family, which controlled publication rights to
“The Death of a President,” allowed it to go out of print, and for a
number of years copies could be found only online or at rummage sales.
The good news, maybe the best, of the 50th anniversary is that Little,
Brown has now reissued paperback and e-book editions.
It’s good news because, remarkably, and against all odds, Manchester
(who died in 2004) wrote an extraordinary book. There are obvious
defects. Predictably, he blares the trumpets of Camelot, and he has a
weakness for melodrama. It’s hard to believe, even at the time of
Kennedy’s murder, that to the world it was “as though the Axis powers
had surrendered and Adolf Hitler and Franklin Roosevelt had died in the
hours between noon and midafternoon in Washington of a single day in
1945.” But these excesses don’t really matter, thanks to Manchester’s
vivid reporting, masterly narrative and authentically poetic touches.
It is in small, quiet scenes that Manchester’s chronicle accumulates its
greatest force. When it is time for Dave Powers, the slain president’s
aide and sidekick, to pick out the clothes Kennedy will wear to his
grave, he selects from eight suits and four pairs of shoes brought out
by Kennedy’s valet, George Thomas. Powers settles on a blue-gray suit,
black shoes and “a blue tie with a slight pattern of light dots.” An
embroidered “JFK” on the white silk shirt is hidden from view. The valet
remembered that Kennedy’s “dislike of flamboyant monograms had extended
to handkerchiefs,” Manchester writes. The president “had carefully
folded them so that the initials would not show, and Thomas did it for
him now, slipping the handkerchief into his coat pocket.”
Of all that has been written and that will be read on this 50th
anniversary, it is the last paragraphs of “The Death of a President”
that deserve to stand out from everything else. Manchester describes
viewing the bloodstained pink suit Jackie Kennedy wore on Nov. 22, 1963,
which had since been stowed in a Georgetown attic:
Unknown to her, the clothes Mrs. Kennedy wore into the bright midday glare of Dallas lie in an attic not far from 3017 N Street. In Bethesda that night those closest to her had vowed that from the moment she shed them she should never see them again. She hasn’t. Yet they are still there, in one of two long brown paper cartons thrust between roof rafters. The first is marked “September 12, 1953,” the date of her marriage; it contains her wedding gown. The block-printed label on the other is “Worn by Jackie, November 22, 1963.” Inside, neatly arranged, are the pink wool suit, the black shift, the low-heeled shoes and, wrapped in a white towel, the stockings. Were the box to be opened by an intruder from some land so remote that the name, the date and photographs of the ensemble had not been published and republished until they had been graven upon his memory, he might conclude that these were merely stylish garments which had passed out of fashion and which, because they were associated with some pleasant occasion, had not been discarded.If the trespasser looked closer, however, he would be momentarily baffled. The memento of a happy time would be cleaned before storing. Obviously this costume has not been. There are ugly splotches along the front and hem of the skirt. The handbag’s leather and the inside of each shoe are caked dark red. And the stockings are quite odd. Once the same substance streaked them in mad scribbly patterns, but time and the sheerness of the fabric have altered it. The rusty clots have flaked off; they lie in tiny brittle grains on the nap of the towel. Examining them closely, the intruder would see his error. This clothing, he would perceive, had not been kept out of sentiment. He would realize that it had been worn by a slender young woman who had met with some dreadful accident. He might ponder whether she had survived. He might even wonder who had been to blame.
Unfortunately, the tapes of Manchester’s two five-hour interviews with
Jackie Kennedy, who seems to have regretted her frankness, remain under
seal at the Kennedy Library until 2067. This is a final sadness for a
reader sifting through these many books. Taken together, they tell us
all too little about this president, now gone 50 years, who remains as
elusive in death as he was in life.
No comments:
Post a Comment