Director of the john f. Kennedy president ial library and museum. On behalf of all of my library and foundation colleagues, i thank you for coming this evening, and id like to extend a warm welcome to those who are joining us online as well. I would also like to acknowledge the support of our underwriters for the Kennedy Library forums. The lead sponsor is, bank of america, the Lowell Institute and our media sponsors, the boston globe, xfinity and wbur. Richard aldous has kindly agreed to sign books after tonights forlumbar. Our bookstore has forum. Our bookstore has Copies Available for purchase. This year marks the centennial of john f. Can kennedys birth. As we honor his life and legacy during this centennial year, we cannot be more pleased to explore the life and work of arthur. Lettingier ger jr. In more detail tonight. I am delighted to introduce the participants in tonights program. We are so pleased to welcome richard aldous, author of the new biography schlesinger the imperial historian. He is the author and editor of 11 books including mcmillon, eisenhower and the cold war and reagan and thatcher the difficult relationship. I am also delighted to introduce our moderator for the evening, an old colleague of mine, timothy naftali, professor of history and Public Service at new york university. He is an awardwinning author, a cnn president ial historian and also served as the director of the Richard Nixon president ial library and museum. Please join me in welcoming richard and timothy. [applause] thank you, warren, and thank all of you. Richard, youve written a wonderful book which you will all have the opportunity of purchasing. [laughter] and take it. Why did you decide to write about Arthur Schlesinger . First of all, can i just say what a real pleasure it is to be here at the jfk library, and im very grateful for the invitation. And also wonderful to be interviewed by such a fine kennedy historian. I think the answer to that question actually in some ways, maybe the real answer lies in my childhood that Arthur Schlesinger was one of the first historians, proper historians that i read. And i can still see the gold spine of the british edition of a thousand days on my fathers book shelf. And i i only realized this fairy recently that when i look back at the very first newspaper article i wrote quoted schlesinger, the first academic article that i wrote quoted schlesinger. And i think for me kind of more recently i realized that he is the very epitome of the historian as, if you like, the action intellectual, the public intellectual. And i was fascinated by the way in which he traversed those two different worlds; excelling in both but also controversial in both. What were the surprises for you as you did your research . I think that, i mean, in some ways the first surprise was as a historian that this is a man who kept everything. He knew what a historian or biographer, people like us, could do with this material. But im fairly sure looking through the papers that he doesnt destroy any of the material there. Theres some very personal things in the or archives that hes kept. One of the slightly disconcerting things is that very often because he wrote his own memoirs you can actually see him having already read the papers that me as his biographer is reading too. But i think that the real surprise in some ways the best quality about Arthur Schlesinger, the man, is that quite clearly he is the same in private as he is in public. Hes not saying things in his private or correspondence that he isnt prepared to go on the record and say. So theres a kind of integrity about him that rereally does say what he believes, and very often that means speaking truth to the power too. Were at the Kennedy Library, and tell us how you understand now, having written this fine book, arthurs relationship, Arthur Schlesingers relationship with john f. Kennedy. Its a fascinating relationship, isnt it . As warren said in his introduction, you know, this is the centennial of kennedy and schlesinger, both born in 1917. Yet in a curious kind of way, they almost dont seem like contemporaries, and in many ways they actually werent. Because schlesinger was fast tracked through school, it means that although he was at harvard, he wasnt in the same year as john f. Kennedy. He was actually in the same year as kennedys older brother. And, you know, i think that that relationship always has a kind of curious quality of both being an insider, but not part of the kennedy circle. And ultimately, i think the thing that brings them together is not some of the usual things throwing a football at hyannis port and so on it is actually the relationship as a historian, that kennedy loved history, was a writer, thought of himself as a historian. And so where they really bonded was over history. Were going to talk a bit about this, i hope, over the course of our conversation and during the q a, but to what extent do you think president kennedy was comfortable sharing his thinking with Arthur Schlesinger . I think thats a really interesting question. I think hes very comfortable in company of Arthur Schlesinger, that schlesinger is somebody who inside the white house he would quite often just drop by at the end of the day. Kennedy would beckon him in to the oval, whoever was in there, and invite him to join those conversations. He quite often liked ruminating with schlesinger about, well, you know, what was this like with in the days of Grover Cleveland or polk or truman or whoever. He likes those aspects. But you know as well as i do, tim, that kennedy was interesting in that he was never really close to anyone. Robert makes this point in his book about the kennedy court, that he uses people where theyre useful. He enjoys peoples company, but even the characters like dave powers not really, nobody really gets close to him. And this is something that ive come to realize over a number of president s that ive looked at and worked on. Reagan was very similar. Its almost a characteristic of those who serve with distinction in the oval office. There is actually something unknowable about them. You make very good use of the entirety of arthurs diaries. Theres an edited version, but it actually a lot of the the most interesting materials are not in the edited, published version. You used the whole version. To what extent do you think Arthur Schlesinger felt he got the elusive kennedy . Because he understood this too about kennedy. To what extent did he, does he believe he actually understood the president some. I think the president . I think that in some ways, as you say, he understands the elusive quality as well. And actually, one of the things that he faces once he starts writing a thousand days is how to reconcile his own relationship with kennedy. You know, lets not forget that in 1959 and 1960 he was unsure about kennedy. Ultimately he thinks, well, stevenson who hes close to probably doesnt deserve another shot. But he kind of flirts with the idea that maybe stevenson should have another go. Hes not part of the inner circle. And one of the reasons why and what he has to confront again after kennedys assassination is that in his heart of hearts he knows that kennedys not a liberal in the sense that he understands it, that kennedy in many ways, hes a conservative president with a small c. And so part of the intellectual job that he does more kennedy is almost for kennedy is almost reconfiguring him as a more progressive figure, trying to reconcile him not being a liberal with his conservative instincts and instead recasting him as a progressive kind of a president. Well, lets step back for a moment because this might be surprising to some of the people listening. How would arthur have described liberal . What did it mean to be a liberal in arthurs era . And thats, you know, in some ways thats a kind of an interesting question and difficult question to answer because schlesinger himself is constantly parsing what it means to be a liberal. But i think that, you know, in particular he has this kind of sense of politics as an educational process. He likes the educational president s, most particularly roosevelt who sees politics as a way of kind of, of identifying things which are in the public good. Not just kind of efficient things that can be improved. And thats one of the things that he has to deal with with kennedy. Kennedy is more of an efficient, technocratic president than schlesinger necessarily would have liked. Well, why dont we lay out for people who kind of decisions would fit in this category of being technocratic rather than a schlesinger liberal . For example, when schlesinger when kennedy, rather, deals with the whole question of civil rights, its not something that he comes into office seeing as a kind of a burning desire to address an injustice. Instead, its when he sees, for example, the events of birmingham and he recognizes that within a kind of Democratic Society he is an ill that needs to be addressed, that this is something which is, yes, its wrong, but he comes to that, he comes to that realization not necessarily through a kind of a, as i say, a burning desire to correct something or a burning kind of inner belief. Its because its inefficient within society. And thats why he moves incrementally on it. So are you saying that for Arthur Schlesinger, a liberal had to be passionate . I think thats right, yeah. And also a kind of a sense that, as i say, that politics is about more than efficiency, that its about this kind of sense of looking at society, a kind of understanding how you fit within this progressive arc that runs through as he would conceive it, through characters like Andrew Jackson and president roosevelt, fdr, and then kind of someone like Adlai Stevenson who he did see as a more progressive liberal character. Although interestingly, when he was working for stevenson in the 1950s, he had many of the same reservations about stevensons liberalism. Would you say that Arthur Schlesinger had this idea of the perfectibility of america, that it was always Getting Better . Yes, absolutely. And theres a kind of an underlying whig notion to schlesingers history, very much something that he gets from his father. I mean, Arthur Schlesingers genius father is somebody who develops the kind of notion of progressive kind of history, is somebody who looks at history through the idea of cycles that america has gone, goes through this progressive and conservative cycle, and thats something which arthur jr. Kind of then subsequently picks up and writes a book about. What does he think the role of the individual is in creating a more perfect america . Well, certainly for himself this is one of the reasons why he thinks that historians should participate in that process, that its not enough for Arthur Schlesinger just simply to be writing books, that the historian has to apply the lessons of history in a direct way by participating. So even in his own individual case, yes, he does believe in the individual. And then you look at his books, i mean, the age of roosevelt, the age of jackson, kind of very much looking at the role of the individual, but also just think of the title of those books, the age of, theres a kind of a sense of a generation grappling with these kind of problems and a generation as a cohort kind of moving forward too. Now, before he writes because hell have this crisis of confidence about this when he writes the imperial presidency. But what role does he see the president playing before the 70s in achieving sort of these august ages . Yeah. So, you know, you could make an argument and, in fact, i do in the book that, you know, actually almost his entire frame of reference is governed by one individual and one president and, of course, thats fdr. The age of jackson in many ways is a book about roosevelt as much as it is one about the 19th century. And then, obviously, the age of roosevelt itself is trying to take those lessons and to apply them in the specific context to stevenson and to kennedy. But, yeah, he believed that, the use a churchillian phrase, that the president is the person who sets the weather, you know, the person who can, who sets the tone for policy but also one of the lessons that he learns from roosevelt is that its not enough simply to be the weathermaker. Did write down into his administration, has to file decisions through, not just talk to someone from the state department about issues, you might have someone from agriculture and you just asked him about some matter that youre constantly driving your agenda by making sure at every level of government there something understood. This book is also about people as well as ideas and one of those people, of course, is arthur. The book has a number of these examples appear arthur struggled to think of him and those have read about him as a success, man who enjoyed success after success, but in your book its clear that was not the case nor did he see it hit see life that way. Tell us about the human side of him. Its one of the things he aligns in his own memoirs that he does tend to to smooth over the struggles which he has had and on one level it was a very smooth life, Pulitzer Prize in his 20s, harvard professors professorship. Special assistant to the president , another Pulitzer Prize. He has a record of success thats enviable, but he is in a very Nice Public School doing very nicely when he is a boy, but his parents are very ambitious and they shift him up to years and he goes from being someone who plays baseball and is kind of one of a normal kind of boy to suddenly being the little squirts. He talks about how at the age where he started wearing glasses and he struggles at school. He goes to his parents to pull him out and send him off to another school where again he struggles, not just because of his size and age, but because hes a surrounded by people who are much much wealthier than him and so its that kind of struggle. He goes off with oss, the forerunner of the cia during the Second World War and find it very difficult. Hes unable to really make close friendships. He makes some very important enemies who to a large degree persecute him while hes there, but the one thing that always was the constant in his life, something very local kind of here is harvard, so that when hes at school he realizes the person us to become become a harvard professor so much so that he changes his name from arthur bancrofts less injured to Arthur Schlesinger junior because he wants to become his father. When hes there he is able to pull at various times context to provide favors to smooth things over for him and even the way in which parthenia is able to monitor maneuver things to get him to make sure he gets his fellowship at society for fellows or the office from harvards forthcoming even on very private, his father is influential, so there is a sense in which he is an outsider and insider, but ultimately the harvard connection even with jfk the harvard connection is something which is kind of a unmoving parts and very awesome often rescues him. Someone coming to your beaucoup hasnt spent a lot of time at the Library Might be surprised at how Arthur Schlesinger was not in the inner circle of the Kennedy Administration and from your book i get the sense he was frustrated by the. He was frustrated on one level because, i think, once he goes to the white house doesnt feel that hes able to influence events as much as he would want to, so there is a sense of frustration that is personal, but in some way that frustration is born of realizing as a specialist system without special responsibilities, once its muted that perhaps he will become the National Security advisor and thats something that would have had real kind of authority that went with it, but so on the days the kennedy wants to speak see him or his amused by him or even taking him seriously he can have an impact, but other times he fills frustrated because hes not able to make that kind of influence, have that influence with the president seem iconic asian he has impact so lets talk about where he does have an impact on policy. I think in many ways theres a learning curve for him because events that you have written about and demonstrated that during the bay of pigs he writes that the bay of pigs. Hes one of the few people in the lead up to the bay of pigs that says you shouldnt do this. He first of all he doesnt say this face to face to kennedy and the curses himself when he goes back to his office and writes a memo saying to the president quite cream cleanly dont do this and then tells kennedy this and then goes to seeing dean rusk and eventually Bobby Kennedy said him enough, stop. So, that point he has to do that the lesson he learns is that its not enough to be writes. You have to be heard and is so on the things covered once he gets to berlin hes able to be heard and have an influence that someone like dean is taking a very hawkish line on this. s less injured or says to kennedy you have to learn the lesson of the bay of pigs trick you have to widen your circle. You have to get all kinds of opinions for example ringing in hendry kitchener Henry Kissinger and he writes a series of memos to kennedy making clear what his policy should be and hes able to be heard and influences kennedy and you could make an argument thats a stretch, but you could make it are you in doing that he establishes the kind of the way in which kennedy deals with the cuban missile crisis, so on the outside their the actual way in which kennedy is successfully held with berlin using schlesingers model has longstanding ramification. You talk about his role in shaping policy towards italy. Italy is a good example of one of his major frustrations. The state department and in a thousand days its one of the few things he does wear dean rusk is kind of sliced and diced. He believes in something that he has written about the need to encourage the non