 The President and CEO of the LBJ Foundation, and I want to welcome you to a brand new season of programming for the Friends of the LBJ Presidential Library. While we had expected to welcome you back to the LBJ Library by this time, here I stand in my own library. But while COVID-19 has changed for the moment the way we live, it hasn't changed our commitment to bringing you the very best in public programming. To that end, we have a great season ahead for you. On October 1st, I'll be in conversation with the legendary Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, who will talk about his smash new book, Rage, about the Trump administration. A week later, on October 7th, we'll feature former Secretary of State James Baker, along with authors and preeminent journalist Peter Baker of the New York Times, and Susan Glasser from The New Yorker. We'll discuss their new book on Secretary Baker, The Man Who Ran Washington. On October 21st, we'll have as our guest attorney and co-host of ABC's The View, Sonny Hostin. We'll talk about her new memoir, I Am These Truths. And on December 3rd, we'll host author Julia Swagg and CNN's Kate Bennett. We'll be on hand to explore the rich life and enduring legacy of Lady Bird Johnson. But tonight, along with our partners at the Dothbrisko Center for American History, we welcome consultant, television commentator, and author Susan Eisenhower. We'll talk about her new book, How Ike Led, about the stalwart leadership of her grandfather and our 34th president, Dwight Eisenhower. As Henry Kissinger said of the book, it brings one of America's most remarkable public figures into lasting focus. Signed copies of Susan's book are available through the store at LBJ, which now offers curbside pickup. Moderating tonight's discussion is Dr. Leonard Moore, the vice president for diversity and community engagement, and a professor of American history at the University of Texas at Austin. Thanks for joining us, and thanks to our sponsors, St. David's Health Care and the Moody Foundation. Now, please join me in welcoming Susan Eisenhower and Leonard Moore. Good evening. My name is Leonard Moore from the University of Texas at Austin, and I'm here interviewing a phenomenal author, Susan Eisenhower. We'll be talking about her latest book, How Ike Led, the Principles Behind Eisenhower's Biggest Decisions. Good evening, Susan, and welcome to Austin virtually. Well, Dr. Moore, it's a pleasure to be with you. I'm a little embarrassed. I've been a history professor for 24 years, and this is probably the most I've ever read about your grandfather, Eisenhower. And so, fascinating book to read. You know, you are an amazing writer. You know, I like the rich details of your stories. And as we get started, I just want to throw out a general question to you. Your book is about how Ike Led is about leadership. And, you know, one thing I ask my 500 first-year students every fall semester, can leadership be taught, or is it innate? So when you look at the life of your grandfather, was he just born with this, or do you think it was taught? Well, Dr. Moore, I think that's an excellent question. And that's going to be one of the enduring questions that exist in the leadership field. But let me say that in my book, I draw a distinction between being an operational leader and a strategic leader. And so I think that leadership skills can be taught, but it might require some kind of cognitive capabilities to be a strategic leader. All of the operational experience Eisenhower played into his capacities as a strategic leader. But a strategic leader has a very different set of considerations. He's got to be, he or she has to be pulling a wildly diverse group of inputs together to create a coherent grand strategy for any effort underway. And he had talent at actually being able to connect dots. And over the course of a long consequential career, he managed to develop principles about how to strip down complex problems into the essence of the issue to then move forward. So I think it is a combination of the two, which is not a very satisfying answer. But I think that's probably where I come down on it. No, and in your book, I really love how you go through his childhood. You talk about his brothers and growing up in Abilene, Kansas. So if you could point to one, maybe one incident or one experience in his childhood before he goes to West Point that you may say, you know, this this moment right here, I believe is where he illustrated that he had the ability to go ahead and be a national leader. Anything in his childhood that stands out to you any experiences? You know, the Abilene High School yearbook suggested that he might become a renowned history professor at Yale. OK, well, that didn't quite happen. His brother, by the way, Edgar, was seen as possibly having a two-term presidency. So it's rather funny. I think Ike, though he was very athletic and very personable, had an introspective side, too. He did love history, which is fortunate because many of the principles he developed over time related to what worked and what hadn't worked in the past. In any case, I think Ike would tell you that one of the most important events that occurred in his childhood related to his passionate, you might even say, volatile interspace. As a kid, he sensed injustice in a very strong way. And he was known among family members to have occasional spectacular meltdowns, as we call them today. So there was one incident when he was a young boy. His two older brothers were allowed to go out trick-or-treating. And he became enraged that he was, according to his parents, too young to join in the fund. So he was outside at the time. And he started beating his hands against a tree until his hands drew blood. And he just he was so angry, he almost blacked out. So, of course, David Jacob, Eisenhower probably got out the Hickory Stick and whooped him a bit because that's what they did in those days. And he was sent up to the room he shared with the two brothers who were out on the town, which probably made everything even worse for him. But as he lay in bed and it was moving towards dusk, his mother came up and told him that he only heard himself and wasn't it obvious from looking at his hands? Probably his brothers didn't know he felt resentful there, having a good time, sure, but who actually got hurt here? And then she started quoting the Bible because it was a very religious, by the way, pacifist household. She said, he who conquered this soul is greater than he who takeeth the city. And, you know, I like to reflect on that because I really believe that if he had not learned how to discipline his inner self, his inner life, that he would have never taken a continent. Literally, developing that inner space enabled him to rise to leadership positions because his mother had had such an extraordinary impact on him. Let me follow it up because in your, I mean, I love how you talk about his experience at West Point, you said he wasn't the top in his class, he challenged authority, and you said he almost got kicked out of West Point. So was some of that rebellious streak still in him when he went to West Point? Well, I'm not sure that he almost got kicked out. He had a higher than average academic record and he was a little bit below 50% in discipline. And I think that's because at that time he didn't know how to handle failure or disappointment or he was learning how to do it. Let's put it that way. He was a great athlete and was an important person on the West Point football team. As a matter of fact, he even played in the Army Carlisle game against Jim Thorpe. Oh, wow. Yeah, I know, exactly. And he really took his athletic seriously, a leftover from life in Abilene, Kansas. And he, but in the course of this football career, he broke his knee and had trouble with his knees, that particular knee his whole life. But he then was off the football team. He helped a lot with coaching. I think he even became a cheerleader, but to the extent that he could do that with a bad knee. But he, you know, this made him very unsettled and he had a hard time getting a grip. I just described a bit his emotional life. And then, so he did graduate. He graduated as a very, very popular cadet. And they seemed to understand at West Point that despite the growth that was still to happen in this young man, that he had leadership qualities. It was later in the Army where he thought that the way the Army was using tanks was crazy. That he wrote a couple of very controversial articles that almost got him a court marshal. Right, let me ask you this real quick. So, so he, right, I remember that you write differently about that. And my question was, he loved to challenge authority, right? You know, did he allow people under him to challenge his authority? Yes, actually, one of the things I found absolutely fascinating in my research is the scholarship about the war and many scholars rightly say it must have been extremely trying to have all of these alpha male personalities around General Eisenhower who all had very different views about what our allied strategy should be, whether they're getting enough resources, whether they had enough authority. And he got this pushback all the time. He only got the pushback from his subordinates. He was getting, you know, he had to keep his bosses happy. That would be Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill and George Marshall, of course, who's chief of staff of the Army. What's fascinating is that he takes the model of the war years and brings it with him to the presidency. So he is surrounded by people, including by the way, his two brothers. He had a very, very conservative, I'd even say right wing, older brother Edgar and a liberal brother, Milton Eisenhower. And they were always at each other. And Ike was the middle of the rotor there, no question. But he loved, when I say loved, he demanded that kind of pushback. Because like all good military men, the one thing that you're terrified of is allowing your own default assumptions to go unchallenged, because if you do at that level, then all you're doing is playing into your preconceived ideas. And the pushback actually gives you an opportunity to see an issue in a multi-dimensional way. Right. I know in the part of the book we talk about the Normandy invasion. I mean, talking about leadership, there's a story you relate. They were planning the invasion. I guess this person was over the airborne people. And he basically told, I think, Ike, this ain't going to work. You know what I mean? And I think in the book, you write down that Ike wrote a letter basically stating, so if it didn't work, that person wouldn't be responsible for it. And so to me, it's just an amazing story of he's allowing one of his subordinates to say, you know, Eisenhower, this is not going to work, but Eisenhower having so much respect for that gentleman to say, well, let's put it on record in case it doesn't work. You won't be blamed for it. Right. You will look like a hero. Can you talk about that for a minute? I mean, I think you need to get the book. Yeah, no, it's wonderful. He said he wanted to protect Air Marshal, Trafford Lee Mallory, who made a very serious recommendation. The problem was, is that the airborne troops that he suggested General Eisenhower should not use at the last minute because of German movements within the area. Unfortunately, those paratroopers were critical. They were the lynchpin of the Utah Beach and Omaha Beach operation, which, of course, was one of the key elements of the entire assault on the Normandy Coast. And Eisenhower decided that despite Lee Mallory's warning that 50% to 70% of these troops would be lost, Eisenhower decided that he had to use them. And he was just literally praying that the planning had been good enough and that the conditions would make it possible for these troops to be successful. As it turns out, we lost between four and as much as 10% over the execution of the entire Normandy campaign, which is way lower than the 50% to 70%. Nevertheless, Ike, on June 5th, as troops were ready to assault the coast of Normandy, wrote a note for his wallet for himself and to be released in case of failure that accepted singular responsibility if the entire invasion should fail. And that even included, by the way, the weather forecast. He was taking personal responsibility for the weather forecast. And rightly so, as I point out, because it was his decision to go on that day and at that time. And one thing you point out in the book, what I get is that great leaders make a decision and own it. And even Ike had something when I wrote it down. He said, if you make a mistake, admit it. If you make an error, admit it, spell it out, tell the entire story. Can you talk about where that came from, this thing of, I'm going to make a decision, I'm going to own it, and it's all going to be on me? Well, I think that there is certainly a good bit of that in the military culture, though. I must say that I think he took it to a higher level, as it were. I don't know that other generals were ready to accept full responsibility for their portion of the operation, though they might have. He just really believed that if he fought for the enlargement of the Normandy force structure, he argued for changes to the original plan. And so the D-Day plan really was his. And he didn't see how anybody else could be blamed. There's another interesting moment later in his presidency when the U-2 is shot down. The U-2 was an aerial reconnaissance plane that was developed to assure that we would not suffer a surprise nuclear attack at the hands of the Soviet Union. And he gave the order for that flight to occur several weeks before the Paris Summit. In any case, the Soviet Union shot it down and then made a huge performance over these overflights, even though they knew that the overflights had been occurring for some years and had been offered the opportunity to do it overfly the United States. In any case, Eisenhower took full and complete responsibility for the mistake he made, we made, because he wanted the Soviet Union to know that he had control over his government and that these decisions were his and his alone. So you see this pattern. Could I add one more thing, Dr. Moore here, which is really wonderful as a leadership principle, you might say. He is quoted many, many times as saying a commander, a leader's role is to accept all the blame for the mistakes of his subordinates and to give all of his subordinates the credit for a successful operation. That takes a lot of humility to do that because most people feel compelled somehow to make sure that their picture is in the frame, as it were, but he didn't feel that necessity. But I was still on the World War II topic. I was amazed at reading the book about how after the World War is over, he toured several Nazi concentration camps and he wanted people to see it, because in the book you said he made a quote that in future years, people may attempt to deny that this event occurred. How could he even have the foresight to understand that there would be Holocaust deniers after World War II? Well, I must say that one of the things that struck me about him in his developing and maturing career was to notice that he really was a person who studied the people around him. He was an observer of men. And I think by the time he gets to this point, and by the way, this would have come from his childhood too, his mother was always saying, how do you think it looks to the other person? And we got that in spades as kids. I'll tell you, we were always being asked by him and how do you evaluate this from the other person's standpoint? So with that kind of sensitivity to other people's viewpoints, I think he had a sense that it's just human nature that something so horrendous as a Holocaust would be denied. And he wanted to make sure that it was chronicled in every way possible before the post-war settlement came into effect. He asked for everybody who was not at the front to go through these camps. He asked General Marshall to produce journalists and members of Congress to come observe this. And really the record we have of the Holocaust is pretty much thanks to him. If I could add one more thing which struck me is that he had this capacity to see far out. And he was always interested in the long game, interested and driven for that. So after the war, and they signed the unconditional surrender Nazi Germany, Eich looks at his staff and says, if Germany is a prosperous democracy 50 years from now we will have succeeded. Oh, wow. So anyway, that struck me. And I think that was very much behind the Holocaust. Thank you for mentioning that because how to solve the terrible, terrible circumstances that the Jews have been subjected to was a huge issue. Pressing issue after the war because they were homeless and they among so many others on the continent of Europe were homeless. And that was another long-term issue that had to be sorted out. So your grandfather goes from leading troops in World War II, then I think over NATO, then he becomes president of Columbia University. Now I can't think of two institutions that are so opposite than the military with a strict hierarchy and then an academic setting, artist academic freedom. So number one, did he enjoy being president? And number two, how did he take his leadership skills from the battlefield and bring them to the halls of the academy? I love the way you said that. Actually, you know, it's so well said. I just, we will put an exclamation point on that idea. Yes, the military is very hierarchical but Eich really loved his GIs and he was out visiting them all the time. He had such an interest in young people and as the post-war began to develop, it was very clear that it was going to be an extremely turbulent time and there were lots of challenges even to the United States. It was suffering labor disputes, high inflation. We were in the Korean War and all of this and Eich really believed that education was absolutely critical for a functioning democracy. So he loved that part of it. He also truly believed though he was much more, he was less hierarchical than almost any of the other generals under his command and he gave a wonderful talk to the maintenance staff at Columbia about the interdependency of our jobs and he told them that the work they were doing was absolutely indispensable and that I rely on you and you rely on me and this kind of holistic way of looking at leadership I think helped him survive much of the Columbia experience. I think the professors were a little bit dubious like how do we end up with a five star general here? But there are two things to be noted about. Number one, Columbia University was in some rather difficult financial circumstances so Eisenhower helped raise a lot of money for the university that put it back on solid footing and secondly it was transformational for him in terms of appreciating expertise. Of course he had that from the war, you'd have to do that but he really develops a close personal relationship especially with the scientific community bringing many of those professors from Columbia University to his White House after the inauguration in 1953. All right, now let's talk about Ike and McCarthy, all right? Sure. As I'm reading it, you know, because you're taking the book is that he didn't wanna challenge McCarthy because he didn't want McCarthy, he didn't wanna give McCarthy additional publicity but couldn't he argued, Susan, that Ike silenced for so much of that McCarthy in his period allowed McCarthy to ruin lives. Oh, I think it can be argued that, yes, but Truman did attack McCarthy and it didn't help. As a matter of fact, because Harry Truman attacked and it wasn't just Harry Truman, the administration did as well, it elevated him in a way that he didn't deserve to be elevated, he was a junior senator from Wisconsin and not a senior senator or in leadership positions at all in the Senate. So understanding that that approach didn't work might have been somewhat influential in Eisenhower's decision, but I'm so glad you asked this question after I just got done saying that he understood constitutionally the three co-equal branches of government. Let's not forget that he had absolutely no control over centering Senator McCarthy. So and since he had a tenuous grip on the majority in Congress at that point, which he lost in 1954, in order to get other key legislation through, he had to find a way to work behind the scenes, which is what he did. Now, to your point, yes, I think that it was extremely frustrating that I could refuse to give McCarthy the one thing McCarthy wanted. Again, that is kind of a military principle. You don't play your enemy's game, right? You make sure that you're depriving them of success at every turn. He really, he was visceral about how much he disliked this man. And so the decision not to use the quote unquote bully pulpit as we think of it today is really not quite accurate because he used the bully pulpit on this issue, but he didn't name names. And he would talk about general principles. Like he said, you can't defeat communism by destroying America. He'd say things like that. Now, there's one other factor here too, is that the no personalities principle, whether you like it or not, it's like, so we have to say that you don't have to like it, but I'm trying to explain who he is. He had the feeling that if you insulted your opponents personally, it would make them double down in their efforts. That is a great leadership strategy. And I was reading it. I'm like, okay, I got to quit talking about people in public, you know? But that is a phenomenon. And then one thing you talked about, I mean to cut you off, you said that he would not in many ways, damage the dignity of his office as president by coming down and get going in a back and forth. Can you talk about that for a minute and get in a back and forth with McCarthy? Well, Ike's idea not to use personalities and to talk about Senator McCarthy specifically drove a lot of people straight up the wall. His youngest brother, Melton Eisenhower, advised him to take McCarthy on. His press secretary was chomping at the bit this is driving everybody crazy. But Ike, you know, the thing is he liked the pushback, but if he had a strong feeling about something based on, you know, years of experience, he wouldn't, he didn't budge on this. And I think it was also informed by the view that we needed cooperation during that time. We needed to unite the country. And you can't unite the country if you're hurling personal insults at people, especially the opposition party. I think the thing that's stunning about the McCarthy period is that Ike had a number of very, very serious issues that came before Congress, including something called the Bricker Amendment. We don't need to bother your listeners with the details of the Bricker Amendment, but this was an amendment proposed by a member of Eisenhower's own party that would curtail the power of the presidency. And who helped him out on that? But the Democrats, and you see time and time again in the first term of his office, the Democrats helping him with appointments, including the appointment of Chip Bolin as ambassador to Russia. So now how would he have been able to garner that cooperation if he'd been insulting the opposite party? Not at all. He was intent on working with them, with Republicans and Democrats. And maybe it's worth... I just think as a leader, it takes tremendous discipline and restraint. When you see somebody like a McCarthy, to not go at him, you know what I mean? But in the book, you point out that Eisenhower had other ways he would deal with McCarthy, basically set a trap for him and let McCarthy walk into it. I mean, and basically, in many ways, he would damage his own career. Can we? I'll say, go ahead. Well, I just wanted to add there that the trap really revolved around putting McCarthy in a situation where McCarthy's colleagues, that would be the Republicans because they controlled the Senate, that they would censure a member of their own party. And so what he was trying to do the whole time was to demonstrate to those who could discipline Senator McCarthy that it was inevitable that it had to be done. And yes, I mean, I personally, and I know he personally, deeply regretted the people who were given a very, very rough ride during that time. But it's hard to imagine how it would have worked any other way because other methods had been tried. If you don't control the outcome, like the ability to censure this senator, then you're not holding all the cards. Susan, that is an amazing leadership piece. And I'm digesting all this stuff as we talk. You said, if you don't control the outcome, you don't control all the cards. Or that is, I may put that on my wall and quote somewhere. Can we shift gears a bit and talk about icon civil rights? You know, I teach African-American history in, you know, even within African-American history, we have overlooked him. You know, we'll go to FDR for a little bit, but we jumped literally from FDR straight to JFK in 1960. And I'm just thinking about all the critical African-American events. 1954, Brown versus Board of Education, 1955, the lynching of Emmett Till, 1956, the Montgomery bus boycott in 1957, Little Rock. So can you talk a little bit about why you think historians, and I'm one of them, why you think historians have overlooked Ike's contributions and what those contributions were. Well, first of all, let me say, I think again, it's human nature because after Ike left office, the Democrats assumed the presidency and they did make, you know, enormous contributions there. So, you know, it's inevitable that they would wanna talk about their contributions. I think the reason Ike's position on civil rights is a little less known is again, he had a kind of different leadership style, number one, but number two, and most importantly, he was a military man. So now let me explain that for you just quickly in one sentence. As a strategic leader in the military, he's always thinking about resources, timelines, who controls the terrain. This is a kind of methodology that he is trained for. So he says to himself, I've got four to eight years to do something on a subject that's very near and dear to me. And it really was. If you read, wasn't it surprising, for instance, to read his first State of the Union address where he commits himself to desegregate everything that the federal government controls? Absolutely. He said it at a state in DC, basically announcing what he was gonna do in DC. I'm sorry. That's right. You know, you're completely correct. And so he says, I'm starting with the District of Columbia because the federal government controls the District of Columbia. It was remarkable that the district was desegregated without violence, and he even desegregated Washington DC schools before Brown versus Board of Education. The point was is that, again, as a strategist, a grand strategist, he understood that if he did what he could control, then he would create a precedent that would make rollback impossible. Now, this is a very subtle intellectual point, but it takes nothing away from what was in his heart and what drove his determination. Then he goes for federal contracting. He desegregates federal contracting, but, and then, of course, you mentioned Brown versus Board of Education. That was his appointment, Earl Warren, who, contrary to what scholars say, he admired, I mean, I read his diaries. He admired Earl Warren, and he admired Earl Warren for this particular ruling on Brown. Anyway, I've got that chapter footnoted to assure people that I didn't dream this up in the middle of the night. Let me just say one other thing, that he went a long way at the end of the war to desegregate units, and he went as far as he could as far as the federal government regulations and the rest of it, but, you know, he really believed that America had a responsibility to make good on its promise, and this is a big part of it. May I just also say, Dr. Moore, on a personal note, he had a valet who've been with him since the war, who he adored, and we all understood in the family that there was only one indispensable person aside from my grandmother, and that was Sergeant John Mone. And Sergeant Mone, I hope that people will take this away. A Sergeant John Mone, an African-American associate of my grandfather's, was the first African-American to be a pallbear in a president's funeral. And if being African-American wasn't surprising enough for that time, this was a sergeant standing shoulder to shoulder with a bunch of four-star generals. And that was so moving for me because the two of them were so connected, I mean emotionally even, that when Ike died, Sergeant John Mone didn't last much longer himself. And it's a, and there was nothing master-servant kind of thing about it. They had, they did something for each other that was really quite wonderful. And as Sergeant Mone used to tell me, he says, you know, your grandfather and I desegregated all the hotels in the south. What? And what he means by that is that quite literally, if Place Eisenhower visited would not allow Sergeant Mone to stay in the hotel along with him, then he said he wouldn't go. Wow, wow, right. Anyway, is that just a little side note? And so in the book you do, you do a great job of talking about how he laid the groundwork for all the civil rights legislation. So what was his relationship like with, with LBJ? Well, you know, in 1957 Ike managed to pass the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Now think about this. He is a Republican and now Congress is controlled by Democrats. And the 57 bill actually got watered down. It is correct that those who are writing about it today say that they were Southern segregationists. What's not fair about this is that it was also the Democratic leadership. Okay, in the 57 Civil Rights Act, Eisenhower vehemently wanted voting rights in that bill. And it was, you know, the Southern Democratic leadership, including one Northerner named John F. Kennedy who voted against that provision. But the thing that's moving again for me is that Lyndon Johnson, of course, was the leader in the Senate. And because of their relationship, they got together on this and found a compromise. That yes, meant that, but when I've noticed in the newspaper in the last couple of days, because the Eisenhower Memorial, they keep saying that Ike caved into Southern segregationists. Well, yeah, the whole Democratic party, you know, was dependent on many of those folks at that time. And so it's really a great tribute to Lyndon Johnson that he and Ike together worked out a compromise that at least made it possible for the Eisenhower bill to be passed so that certain improvements could be made. I think in this respect, we have to look back and put all this into context. Eisenhower wanted to do way more and actually got a bill passed in 1960 that made improvements to the 57 bill. Now, this is what I was most excited about, if I may say so. After he left office, he told John F. Kennedy that he would support Kennedy's civil rights bill. And by the way, made a commitment to call up Republicans in his own party and insist that they support Kennedy's civil rights bill. Well, as we know, it took 1964 for things to really come to that fruition. But then at this time, we have Barry Goldwater who's running on the Republican ticket. And Ike told him, if you don't support the 1964 civil rights bill, I'm gonna vote for Lyndon Johnson. Wow. I gotta tell you. Wow, poor Barry Goldwater listening to Ike's dissertation on that. You know, wow, he could be very tough. And so anyway, I think it speaks to the fact that people of good will who wanted to see accomplishments could even at that level do more for civil rights than to defend their own party. And I do so wish that we would have that kind of political flexibility today because our country has so many things it must attend to. And I hope actually Dr. Moran writing this book that I would inspire some people to understand that leadership and strength requires compromise. So I know it sounds like a radical idea, right? Last question. If your grandfather was alive and you all were sitting at home just flipping through CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, what do you think his observation would be about the current political climate? Well, I don't know how he could, first of all, he was an extraordinarily optimistic person. And what I would say about that, his optimism derived from an almost, from a tremendous belief in the American people. He had seen what they did during the war. They scaled up that wartime effort. Ordinary Americans, kids from cities and farmlands went and thought heroically to win that war and he deeply believed in our capabilities. But I think he could not help but be deeply worried about the fact that we have leaders who don't understand how perfectly frightening it is that we are as divided as we are. And I would say that applies to all sides. And I think what he would be telling me right now is start with yourself, okay? How are you talking to people? How are you behaving? Are you part of this problem? Are you listening to other people? Are you, how does it look to the other guy? Now I can hear him say that. How does it look to the other guy? And I don't know. I have a lot of faith in this country too, but I think it's not gonna happen without some recognition that we need to find a new way to solve our problems. That winner can't take all by definition in a democracy. Well, Susan, thank you so much. It was a phenomenal book. It was an easy read for me and I find myself, like I was reading, it was a story. And so thank you for this great addition you've made to the history of not only American presidents, but also the history of our country. Well, I just wanna thank you Dr. Moore for a tremendous opportunity to talk to you personally. And I look forward to meeting you in person when we're allowed to gather again. Absolutely, thank you so much. We'll see you. Take care, bye-bye. Thanks to Susan Eisenhower and Leonard Moore. We invite you to support these programs by becoming a member of the Friends of the LBJ Library at lbjfriends.org. You can purchase a signed copy of Susan Eisenhower's book at lbjstore.com. To continue the conversation on President Eisenhower and his legacy, please join us on September 29th for an interactive members-only conversation with Dr. William Hitchcock, Professor of History at the University of Virginia. Thanks for joining us, see you next time.