Tag Archives: books

Franklin and Winston

Posted on by

Franklin and Winston: An Intimate Portrait of an Epic Friendship by Jon Meacham, an accomplished author, media executive and social/political commentator, is a great read on the close, personal relationship of the primary protagonists – Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill – behind the Western Hemisphere’s defeat of German fascism and Japanese hegemony during World War II. 

I became a fan of Meacham’s approach to historical figures and concepts through my weekday habit of catching segments of MSNBC’s Morning Joe while getting dressed for work.  Meacham has always struck me as a down-to-earth commentator on political and social issues.  He won the Pulitzer Prize for his treatment of Andrew Jackson in American Lion (not reviewed here); and his book on religion’s influence on the American experiment in American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers and the Making of a Nation is an excellent guide to discussions on the spiritual foundation of American governance.  

Meacham’s approach in Franklin and Winston is similar to the other works mentioned above.  He takes an overview approach to the subjects, and provides plenty of source notes and references for the serious scholar who wishes to dig deeper.  It is this approach that makes his books enjoyable reads regardless of your reasons for picking up a Meacham historical study.

In Franklin and Winston Meacham focuses on the personalities of FDR and Churchill, including their family lives and how their personal backgrounds, ambitions and political situations played into the Allied war effort and the friendship that developed between the two during the war. 

Both men were the products of rich American mothers; Churchill’s mother marrying Lord Randolph Churchill, Member of Parliament, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Leader of the House of Commons (1886).  Their parental relationships – or lack thereof – influenced both men in their very public lives.

Churchill’s parents were almost entirely absent; his father did not like him; and his upbringing and education was left to his nanny and the prescribed boarding schools for England’s power elite.  As a result, Churchill was driven to be the center of attention.  He was vigorous in all things he did, but was also impulsive and stubborn.  Churchill needed to be liked by those he highly regarded.  This would become a continuing theme in the Roosevelt-Churchill relationship, as Churchill found himself constantly chasing the more aloof, confident Roosevelt. 

FDR’s upbringing was quite the opposite.  He was doted on constantly by his mother.  Very little is mentioned of his father.  His mother’s coddling became even more prevalent when Roosevelt was diagnosed with polio in 1921 at the age of 39.  What FDR found at home as a child and even as an adult was everything Churchill’s early home life lacked.  As a result FDR did not feel compelled to seek anyone’s approval, even Churchill’s.  FDR greatly admired Churchill’s strength and leadership however, especially his skills at oratory during the dark days of 1940-41 (Battle of Britain). 

The friendship that these men forged in the year-and-a-half leading up to America’s entering the war and throughout the conflict resulted in a vision and strategy that freed Europe from the Nazis and chased the Japanese back to their home islands.  In this regard, Churchill did not have much choice but to follow the lead of Roosevelt on most matters of strategy.  Britain desperately needed the resources and manpower of the United States for their ultimate survival.  Only the thinnest of margins kept the Germans from attempting a cross-Channel invasion in 1940-41. 

Roosevelt – on the other hand – had to deal with an American electorate that for the most part wanted nothing to do with another war in Europe.  Yet he understood that the United States had to eventually enter the war or Europe would be lost to fascism.  He characterized his plight as ” … no leader should get too far ahead of his followers.”  FDR’s political strength permitted him to push such programs as Lend-Lease, which allowed for the sale of supplies and munitions to England (and eventually to all Allies) on a cash-and-carry basis.  Earlier under the Destroyers for Bases Agreement Roosevelt was able to send 50 aging destroyers to England for basing rights in the Caribbean.  Britain’s loss of those bases – though painful – provided FDR with necessary political cover, allowing the country to fulfill Roosevelt’s vision as “the arsenal of democracy”.

Despite Churchill’s standing as #2 in his relationship to FDR and to a greater extent England’s relationship to the U.S., he was a loyal and sensitive confidante to Roosevelt.  He protected FDR’s image in light of his crippling disease when the two met for the first time as world leaders at sea aboard the U.S.S. Augusta.  And he admired Roosevelt’s ability to transcend his disability and to accept the dependence on others that it required.  The description of the two leaders enjoying the view atop La Saardia in Marrakech in January 1943 is one of a caring Churchill overseeing the spiritual well-being of a cherished friend.

Like all friends, they also had their disagreements and slights that resulted in hurt feelings.  Churchill was upset when Roosevelt neglected to acknowledge Churchill’s cable of congratulations following FDR’s successful election in 1940.  And Roosevelt was miffed when Churchill sought a meeting of minds with Wendell Wilkie, FDR’s opponent in the 1944 election.  To make matter worse, Churchill ends up with Roosevelt on the phone due to a miscommunication and fails to recognize Roosevelt’s rather unique voice when the call goes through to the wrong man.  As the war winds down, Roosevelt realizes that stability in the post-war world requires greater interaction between the U.S. and Soviets as opposed to the British; and Churchill is – for a time – left out in the cold.

At the core of what would normally be an arm’s-length diplomatic relationship, the two most important men at such a critical juncture of history shared much.  Both had children serving in theatres of war.  Something not seen much these days aside from Britain’s royal family.  They leaned on each other at times of darkness, be it Dunkirk or Pearl Harbor.  They not only cooperated strategically and politically during the most trying of times, but genuinely liked each other and were lifted in spirit whenever they had the chance to get together.

And at times like those, what else are friends for?

Book Review: American Gospel by Jon Meacham

Posted on by

When I saw Jon Meacham‘s book, American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation,  I put it on my reading list.  I was looking for a book that would provide a layman’s perspective of how the relationship between God and government developed in this country.  Having read Meacham’s work on Andrew Jackson (American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House), I was hoping it would be another concise and enjoyable read. 

Meacham  is executive editor and executive vice president at Random House,  former editor of Newsweek and a Pulitzer Prize winning author.  I’m most familiar with Meacham as a guest political commentator on MSNBC’s Morning Joe (weekdays, 6-9 am), a show I usually watch while getting ready for work in the morning. 

Meacham starts off by highlighting the theme that’s consistently drawn upon throughout the book, the difference between Public religion and Private religion as the Founding Fathers had envisioned.  The concept of Public religion recognizes faith in God (in all forms in which He exists and is worshipped) as a unifying influence, one that unites “the virtue of the populace”.  In this regard, the concept and belief in God takes on whatever religious form is meaningful to an individual, be they Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, etc. 

Private religion seems a concept that is self-explanatory.  That all people have the right to worship – or not worship – God in whatever manner they choose.  This was the antithesis of the religious atmosphere in Europe which led to the founding and colonization of America, which Meacham covers in the first chapter, God and Mammon.  The American experiment provided that no individual would be prevented from worshiping God – if so inclined – in whatever form they should choose, a direct result of what drove the early pilgrims to hazard the perilous Atlantic crossing.

From the beginning, the thinkers among the Founders recognized the importance of religion.  Although they were almost all Christian, almost all Protestant (Several deists, such as Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, were also prominent players.), they recognized the importance of religious tolerance.  Yet they also appreciated the threat to religion that government could pose should the two become too close and become intertwined.  These principles hold true regardless of who you worship or how you worship them. 

(This is why I find The Founding period in our country’s history so fascinating!  The timelessness of The Founders wisdom and foresight is amazing.  The Founders were far from perfect.  Their failure to resolve issues such as slavery and women’s rights – among others – would complicate the road ahead; but the foundation and framework were sound and have survived multiple tests throughout our history. Despite their shortcomings, The Founders were incredibly prescient.)       

Meacham’s greatest accomplishment here is his discussion of the concept most commonly referred to as The Wall between church and state.  A common theme throughout the book, Meacham subscribes to the concept that The Wall was intended more to protect religion from the state as opposed to the other way around.  This is why he finds no contradiction in expressions of God in the public sphere, including mentions of God on our money or in the Pledge of Allegiance.   

As he explores the role of Public religion in America, Meacham takes us through many of the nation’s struggles and accomplishments where Public religion served to unite the country behind the causes that defined the nation, such as the fight for Liberty; the struggle to end slavery and Jim Crow laws; the Great Depression, and the defeat of both Nazi and Communist suppressions in Europe.  In these instances as well as others, Meacham illustrates how American Presidents, political and social leaders invoked the concept of God and the values that flowed from that belief as a compelling, uniting influence for the country.

The book reads much shorter than it looks, running only 250 pages in narrative length.  The rest of the book is a compendium of extensive source notes and bibliography, references to historical letters and documents, even excerpts of presidential inauguration speeches where religious themes were integral. 

Meacham’s effort here is not intended to be taken as an in-depth, historical essay.  He attempts only to provide a historical perspective to the questions “What part did religion play in the founding of the American experiment?” and “How has religion affected the moral development and success of the country?”  Regardless of where you stand on – or know of – the relationship of religion to the American experiment and American governance, you will enjoy Meacham’s perspective on how that relationship came to be.

When was the last time you read a short story?

Posted on by

There’s a sense of anticipation whenever I open a new book, whether reading the first words of an unfamiliar author or settling in with the familiar style of a past favorite.  But a book is also a commitment, especially when taking on more serious, academic works.  And although I can count on both hands the number of books I have tossed aside before completing, I consider most of those to be failures. 

It’s a bit daunting for me as to start a book the thickness of our local Yellow Pages on some tangent of social or political history, because I know I have to be into it for the long haul.  Given the small amount of leisure time I devote to serious reading, I almost expect my attention to wander, my commitment challenged.

About a year ago, while perusing the bargain shelves at the local Barnes & Noble, I spied The New Granta Book of the American Short Story (Edited and introduced by Richard Ford) when something clicked …

I realized that I hadn’t read a short story since college, quite possibly since high school.  Why, I’m not quite sure.  But the prospect of picking up a read that would not turn into weeks of guilt-laden glances at the dust-covered novel on the coffee table was appealing.

Besides the lack of a long-term commitment, there are several advantages to picking up a collection of short stories.  For one thing, a collection of shorties presents a true box of literary chocolates.  Everyone can find something they like.  But if you don’t, you can take a bite and spit out the rest.  (Please pardon the visual!)  Little intense effort.  No sense of loss.  No guilt when you decide you would rather watch the Phillies game.

The New Granta is indeed the thickness of a phone book.  It contains an impressive 44 offerings from 44 authors.  Some as short as 1000 words; the longest about 30 pages.  I’ve read only 13 so far; enjoying the fast-paced story-telling between the longer novels and historical tomes on my lengthy reading list.  Whenever I read one of its entries, I scribble a short Yea or Nea to mark the storytellers I like.  

If you pick up Richard Ford’s New Granta, be sure to read the introduction.  Ford does an excellent job describing the similarities and differences of novels versus short stories.  He also explains how the concept of writer’s authority contributes to the way author and reader interact.

Short stories will turn observable qualities of life upside down.  They play tricks with space and time.  They are short on character development, and long on daring literary twists in an attempt to both capture your attention and tell the story in their willfully truncated allotment of words.  The biggest difference one would notice is the lack of dithering about that you come to expect from the characters of a voluminous novel.   

Recently I read one of Stephen King‘s collections of short stories, Just After Sunset.  In his foreword, King describes his short story writing experience as almost cathartic.  He finds that when he sits down to write them, they come out in bunches.  If you like King’s more suspenseful, less horror-filled offerings, you will really enjoy this collection of short works.

My favorites were a stretch of stories beginning with The Things They Left Behind.  This entry followed by Graduation  Day and ending with The New York Times at Special Bargain Rates, was an interesting, troubling and curious sequence involving New York City.  I won’t play spoiler here by giving away the reason why I felt this way.  I’ll leave it to you to decide for yourself.  The Cat From Hell is simply an interlude here, and more in line with the kind of gruesome horror for which King is renown. 

This Steven King collection disproved the Box of Chocolates Theory on short story collections in general.  I did not find one story I did not like or could not easily immerse myself.  The book proved well worth the price of admission. 

So if you haven’t picked up a short story since they forced you to read them in high school or college, take a chance.  You will like their concise, relatively uncomplicated nature.  And should you find one or two you don’t like, you won’t suffer that annoying sense of loss over failing at a long-term commitment!

Happy Fred Korematsu Day!

Posted on by

(In a shout out to Jon, a debate counterpart on another website, the following was posted in response to his request for comments on California’s observation of Fred Korematsu Day on January 30.)

It (internment) was a travesty perpetrated on Japanese-Americans during WWII.  And it reflects – to a point – the mindset from the 1940s that Orientals were a lesser race of people.  It’s especially appalling given the experience of German and Italian-Americans during the same period.  But it’s not that easy – in my opinon – to fully comprehend or to condemn.

On one hand, you can rationalize to an extent the treatment of the Japanese in the immediate aftermath of Pearl Harbor.  Their race was viewed as being sneaky and ruthless, due to the nature of the Pearl Harbor attack contrasted with the false negotiations Tokyo held with Washington in the weeks leading up to the attack.

It’s also somewhat easier to comprehend when you read what the Japanese were doing in areas they had already conquered, like China.  If you get the chance, pick up the book The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II.  The Japanese were doing some nasty, nasty stuff in their own belief that THEY were the race superior to all others.

So I don’t think it’s as easy to dismiss the fear, distrust, and ethnic animosity that was present especially after thousands of Americans died in a surprise military attack.

Don’t get me wrong.  It was reprehensible treatment of fellow Americans, many of whom either fought or sent sons to fight in defense of their U.S. homeland despite – in some cases – family still living on the Japanese islands.

It was a horrible event during horrible times.

For Anglo veterans of the Pacific in World War II, many never got over what they experienced fighting the Japanese.  I recall a day out golfing with a good friend in the late ’80s/early ’90s, when we pulled up the 10th tee after the turn.  A group of older Anglo gentlemen were already on the tee, waiting for a group in the fairway to clear out.  One of the gents came up and – by way of apology – stated that they were waiting for “the gooks” to move on.  Being the smartass, I replied, “”You mean those Oriental gentlemen?”  And despite the fact that you could not determine from where we stood whether they were Japanese, Korean, Chinese or whatever, he dismissively snorted, “Not if you were in the Pacific during WW2!” 

For another perspective – though fictional – read Snow Falling on Cedars by David Guterson.  It deals with the real discrimination that Japanese- American World War II veterans faced in the years after the war ended.  A national award winner, it’s also an enjoyable read!

Reading List: “Game Change” – Heilemann & Halperin

Posted on by

(I’m sure many blogs are delving deeply into the recent SOTU Address and the analysis thereof.  But the SOTU has become such partisan political demonstration, I have a hard time even reading the media analyses, let alone actually watching the speeches themselves.  So today I’ll stick to a less aggravating topic, political history.)

Game Change was written by two political journalists, John Heilemann (New York) and Mark Halperin (Time). Both are regular contributors on Joe Scarborough’s morning MSNBC offering, Morning Joe.

Game Change takes a look at the 2008 U.S. Presidential race, including the critical Democratic primary run-up that saw the rise of Barack Obama to national prominence.

By far the most interesting aspect of the book is the meteoric rise of Obama, and the unseating of Hillary Clinton as heir to the throne.  John Kerry’s decision to invite a little known State Senator from Illinois to give a keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention resulted in recognition on a national level of Obama as a charismatic leader with the potential to unite and excite the various factions with in the Democratic Party.

But the depth and breadth of his appeal with little experience at the national level and absolutely no executive background puzzled many.

In one scene (p. 65) – to which many of us who watched this drama from the Republican side can relate –  a white woman in an Iowa focus group leading up to the caucuses there states, “There’s something about that guy; that’s the guy I want. I can’t even put it in words.”  The occurrence nicely summarizes the phenomena that launched his successful quest for The Oval Office.  Who is this guy?  How did he get here?  What’s the appeal?

For me, it’s a fascinating story. 

The play between the Obama and Clinton camps is the best part of the story.  Hillary actually coaches the newly elected Senator Obama during his very short stint in The Senate (141 days).  Yet the animosity for the Clintons within the Democratic Party, which lies just beneath the facade of support demonstrated by party leaders becomes all too easy for Obama to tap.  Just goes to show that if you’re considered the playground bully – as the Clintons were, it doesn’t take much to instigate a palace revolt!

Obama slowly starts to pull in party support and endorsements, including the defection of Bill Richardson, former New Mexico governor who served as Secretary of Energy and Ambassador to the U.N. in Bill Clinton’s administration.  And the theme of the book quickly becomes the befuddlement of the Clintons as political rugs are pulled out from beneath them time and again. 

Of course my first reaction to all this, as it peaked during the caucus and primary season in the summer of ’08, was not particularly flattering.  I kept recalling the campaign and election of James Earl (Jimmy) Carter.  I would shudder when I recalled all the excitement and media frenzy surrounding the peanut farmer with the big toothy smile.  Ever since, I can’t look at Planter’s Peanuts commercials featuring Mr. Peanut without getting nauseous.  Afterall, Carter has to go down as one of the worst Presidents in U.S. history.  I can still see the cardigan sweater-clad Carter sitting leisurely by a fireplace as he chided America about its defeatist attitude, which would later be described by Carter staffers as a national “malaise”.  Just a complete lack of leadership …

On the other hand, John Edwards and his late wife, Elizabeth, do not fare well in Game Change.  From John’s $400-1200 haircuts, his Rielle Hunter affair, and the knock-down drag-out fights it produces between them to Elizabeth’s unfortunate bout with cancer, her high maintenance needs and general surliness towards everyone, it’s an ugly picture.  How exactly Edwards thought he could pull off an affair with the attention-whore Hunter and still think he could be a good president is simply mind-boggling.  It’s the height of self-absorbed elitism.

Once Obama seals the Democratic nomination, the story turns to John McCain and Sarah Palin.  They come out looking better than the Edwards’, but not by much.  McCain comes off as an aloof candidate, prone to angry outbursts sprinkled with expletives; more concerned about dinner plans with his much younger wife, Cindi, than he is about campaign issues.  This includes a White House strategy session McCain instigates to offer his plans to right the economy during the banking crises.  McCain arrives at the meeting completely unprepared.  Obama end up doing a much better job of presenting his views and call to action.  As a result, even Bush43 wonders what the heck McCain’s point was in betting his political life by proposing the crises meeting.  

Sarah Palin shows her ability to wow a crowd, but becomes more of a drag on a sinking McCain candidacy.  Her obliviousness to even the most rudimentary political and foreign policy issues is alarming for anyone who was concerned about her readiness for the international spotlight.  I’m not a fan of hers, so some might conclude I’m letting the media influence me.  But there’s an awful lot of baggage there.  In the end though, it was the McCain campaign that did her in by shoving her into the national spotlight when she wasn’t ready for the national stage.

As you can see there’s a lot of meaty political nastiness and intrigue in Game Change.  Even as an avid reader, I NEVER read books on politics.  Political history, biographies?  Absolutely!  (Pick up some of Edmund Morris’ works on Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan!)  But never political tomes. 

But I was fascinated by the 2008 campaigns …  the changing fortunes of the Clintons, the meteoric rise of Obama, the RNC settling for an indifferent and low-energy McCain, Palin, the Edwardses …  It was a political soap opera.  If you feel – like I do – that the 2008 election cycle was so atypical for what we have grown used to over the past 20 years or so, you should definitely pick this book up! 

4 stars out of 5

(Hope you enjoyed this.  It’s been DECADES since I did a book report!)