 Good afternoon, and welcome to the sixth and final week this year of the American presidency. Our series of conversations with noted historians and journalists about the people and events that have defined the most important elected office in the world. A program is brought to you by the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, the UT Osher Lot's Law Learning Institute, and Humanities, Texas. I'm Phil Barnes, and it is my privilege to chair the UT Ollie Sage Enrichment Committee. Mark Lawrence, the director of the LBJ Presidential Library, and himself a widely respected historian, is the host of our conversations. As a member of the audience, you may participate in the Q&A segment of our program by using the chat function to write and submit questions. And I would encourage you to do so. Our Q&A host today is my UT Ollie colleague and our friend, Sandy Press. The theme for this year's series has been the American presidency pivotal elections. I look back at six of our 59 presidential campaigns and elections deemed by many to be among the most consequential in our history. And all of this is a reminder that our 60th presidential election, the election of 2024, will not be the only consequential election that our nation has experienced. Our guest today is John Ward, an experienced journalist with more than two decades writing about American politics and culture. He has served as the city desk reporter in Washington, D.C., as a White House correspondent traveling on Air Force One all over the world, and as a national affairs correspondent traveling the country to write about presidential campaigns. He is the author of Camelot's End, Kennedy versus Carr, which is the story of the 1980 battle of the Democratic nomination for president. James Earl Carter and Edward Moore Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy were powerful Democratic politicians. Ambitious, driven and highly competitive, they fought a bitter battle for the Democratic Party nomination in 1988. In his widely acclaimed book, John Ward gives us thorough insight into the campaign and the men involved. Carter and Kennedy could hardly have been more different. A man from the South Carolina was born into poverty in his early years living in a house without running water. Ted Kennedy, a man from the North, was born into a wealthy, prominent family of international acclaim and privilege. Carter lifted himself up attending the U.S. Naval Academy and could have had a career in the Navy. He chose to stand to return to Georgia. Ted Kennedy, by contrast, virtually inherited the Senate seat left by his brother, John, when JFK was elected president. And his family name and the power of the Kennedy bloke machine really shielded Ted Kennedy from the consequences of his own careless, carousing and crosses filled life. And John Ward tells the story by the time in 1974 when three-term U.S. Senator Kennedy met with little known one-term governor of Georgia. Kennedy had little reason to know or even suspect that Carter was already planning a careful and thorough campaign for his party's nomination in 1976. Kennedy, as John's closest, chose not to run that year. Carter won the nomination and defeated Gerald Ford in the general election. But all along, Carter, like the rest of the bloke world, really believed Kennedy would eventually be compelled to run for president, seeking to return the glory of Camelot. And he did so in 1980, arrogantly challenging the incumbent president of his own party. So to learn more about this fascinating campaign and pivotal election, we welcome for today's interview John Ward, the author of Camelot's End, Kennedy versus Carter, and the fight that broke the Democratic Party. And now, to Mark Williams. Well, thank you so much, Phil, and welcome, everyone. Thanks so much for being here for this sixth and, sadly, final program in this year's series. And thanks especially to our special guest, John Ward. John, it's wonderful to have you. Mark, thanks for having me and Phil, thanks for that introduction. You got my juices flowing and ready to talk. John, you've written so eloquently about the 1980 race, but in an unusual way. You know, your book isn't focused on the man who generally stands out as the star of that particular show, Ronald Reagan. You've given us a book that deals with this fascinating battle within the Democratic Party between Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter precisely, as Phil has just mentioned. And we want to get deeply into these two characters and maybe pull Ronald Reagan into this as well at a certain point. But set the stage for us to get us going. It's almost a cliche, it seems to me, to say that the 1980 election was a pivotal election in American history. In what ways was it a breaking point in American political history? Yeah, I'm a child of the 70s. I was born there and Ronald Reagan was a big part of my childhood. My dad, as I've written about in my other book, which was about growing up evangelical, my father was raised Catholic, voted for McGovern, voted for Carter in 76, and then voted for Reagan in 80. And that was the household I was raised in. And you're right, this story, this chapter was was generally neglected, especially by Democrats in part because it's so painful. It was so painful because it was a shattering of a number of things. It was a shattering of sort of the party unity. It was a shattering of sort of the last gasp of the three Kennedy brothers and their attempts to run or to return to the presidency. Bobby being struck down in 69 and then Teddy, you know, at some point being obligated to kind of pick up the torch of his two older brothers, both of them slain. And then finally, it was a it was a shattering of the Democratic coalition. And this is where your question really takes us. Because a lot of what we're seeing in American politics today, in terms of the Democratic Party's problems with working class Americans, traces its roots to this part of our history. Donald Trump's appeal to the Rust Belt in a large part traces its roots to this part of our history. A couple of stats I looked up earlier today. I mean, the South had been voting Democratic in presidential elections forever before the Civil War. That changed in 64, 1964, after the civil rights legislation was passed. In 64 and 72 and went Republican in 68, the South went for George Wallace. So those three elections between civil rights and Jimmy Carter all went against the Democrats. Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, won the South back and no Democrat has done that since not even Bill Clinton. Clinton got part of the South, but not all of it. The other thing to keep in mind in terms of the Democratic coalition, because that's what I'm talking about when I talk about the South, is organized labor. You know, organized labor really gained a lot of strength out of the New Deal, which is where the Democratic coalition really gained strength under FDR. And by the 60s into the 60s, about a third of the American workforce was unionized. By the time Ronald Reagan leaves office in 1988, eight years after this part of our history that I'm writing about in this book, that number had been cut in half almost to about 17 percent. And a lot of this is written about in David Leonehart's new book. Excellent look at this question. So, you know, the decline of organized labor was really a bit a part of an even larger story of the Democratic coalition declining because it it was just a major sign of their connection to the working class being being severed and weakened and broken. And Carter's presidency contributed to that. He did not get some key legislation passed that would have helped organize labor. I didn't know this, but Leonehart's book talks about how Paul Volcker's approach to taming inflation was more helpful to Wall Street than it was to Main Street. And that, you know, that trend continued a lot under Clinton as well with the push for China to get into the World Trade Organization. So it was really the moment where the FDR coalition started to really founder on the rocks. But I could not agree more that David Leonehart's new book about the the history of the American dreams of a fascinating book that really lines up very well with many of the things that you write about. So much in that answer that you just gave to my very first question. You know, obviously, I want to unpack a lot of what you were just talking about as we proceed here. But maybe let's let's dial it back to a more granular level and talk about the fascinating cast of characters in your book, particularly, of course, Carter and Kennedy, the two the two stars of the show. I mean, let's start, I would suggest, with Jimmy Carter, who, of course, had been elected president in in 1976. Remind us of the source of his appeal in 1976 and where he stood within his party as as his presidency advanced. Carter's appeal was very much tied to the lack of appeal of Richard Nixon. Watergate and the impeachment or the resignation of of Richard Nixon. Sorry, he was not impeached, but the resignation of Richard Nixon after the Watergate scandal that was weighing heavily on the American psyche, as was the Vietnam War and a feeling of betrayal by the government in taking us into a conflict where we lost so many American young American lives. So those two things were really a burden on the American populace. You also had energy crises in the early 70s before you get to the gas lines of 1979. You have a gas shortage in, I believe, 73. There's a lot of anxiety in the country about our standing on the world stage. And so Jimmy Carter came along and in addition to appealing to the Democrats for his ability to win back the South, more generally, he was somebody who could renew a sense of hope, renew a sense of optimism and renew a sense of moral purpose, I think. You know, he talked about faith a lot. He was a born again Christian, which that was a very, you know, that that's part of my story. You know, my parents became born again Christians in the 70s. And that had a lot of appeal to a lot of young people. So Carter talked to his to the voters that he would see, you know, on the campaign on the campaign trail about wanting to have a government as good as its people. And, you know, there are echoes of that in George Bush's campaign in 2000, where he talks about trying to restore dignity to the office after Bill Clinton's scandal with Monica Lewinsky. But Carter was the one who kind of pioneered that message. So now let's let's move forward into, let's say, 1978, 1979. Jimmy Carter has been in office a few years. The story, I think that we know relatively well is why Jimmy Carter was vulnerable to Ronald Reagan and to the surging conservative movement. What you do such a great job of calling our attention to is why he was vulnerable to someone with Ted Kennedy's politics. So tell us why there was that opportunity for Ted Kennedy to get into the race and to, you know, do some serious damage to Jimmy Carter's election re-election prospects. Yeah, the fall of 79, the summer and fall, maybe even starting in the spring is a fascinating chapter because it was pretty shocking to me when I first discovered this that in the fall of 79, polling showed Ted Kennedy was up two to one on Jimmy Carter in terms of who would be the nominee of the party in the 1980 election. That was due to a couple of things, namely inflation and energy shortages. Inflation was in the double digits. And we can relate to that now because we've had very high inflation over the last few years that's come down now, but it is still sort of lingering. And it was really hurting the ability of the middle class to make major purchases of automobiles of a first home or second home. And so that was inflation price pressure. And then the summer of 79 things really fell apart when it came to energy. And one of the most famous chapters in Carter's presidency is what's known as the malaise speech, which happened in July of 79. Carter was traveling abroad in Asia. He had planned to kind of stop over in Hawaii for a night or two to kind of recover from jet lag. And his aides back in Washington were sending, you know, panic messages about the escalating chaos at gas stations around the country. There was violence. People were being stabbed and shot. People died at some of these gas stations. People were rationing gas. They had to pick a certain day to go to the gas station. So there was a real sense of desperation in the country. And then you had the Levittown riots where a bunch of truckers started a two day fracas in a planned community that was sort of a symbol of post World War Two, you know, boom housing. So Carter signed back to Washington and plans to give a speech and then disappears to Camp David for 10 days. And nobody really knows where he is at first. He meets with all kinds of people and comes back to Washington and gives this speech where he talks about America's crisis of confidence in some really stark terms. The speech was actually really well received at first for the first few days and you never use the term malaise. But Hamilton Jordan, I uncovered a memo in which he was encouraging Carter to fire the entire cabinet as a show of strength. That was the moment where things really began to backfire. And and since then, that speech became known as the malaise speech. So Carter Kennedy is is reported to have watched that speech and decided that that was when he was going to challenge Carter because he didn't feel like Carter was providing the kind of leadership that the country needed. And if you want, we can get into how things turned around. I think we'll probably get to that in a moment. But it is fascinating just to watch the fortunes rise and fall in the fall of the night. Yeah, let's get there in just a minute. But before we do that, John, put into perspective, if you would, into historical perspective, the challenge to a sitting president by by a challenger, by Ted Kennedy in this case, how unique is that in the long flow of American history? How extraordinary a moment was that? Yeah, it's very extraordinary and very rare. And Democrats after that moment, you know, have not have not done that. There was talk of, I believe, Hillary maybe challenging Obama in 2012. And I'm sorry, actually, what I'm thinking of is 2008, even in 2008, the residue of this fight, because you had advisers who worked on this campaign in in in 80, who were still, you know, around, they were probably junior in 80. And now they're senior advisers in 19 or in 2008. But as the Democratic primary between Clinton and Obama, you remember, it was extended and Hillary Clinton really stayed around for a long time. The question at the end of that primary was, you know, does Hillary try to really press her advantage to make a case maybe at the convention for herself? And at the end of the day, her advisers really remembered how painful and how harmful it was to the party to have a sitting president be challenged from within your own party. This wasn't the same situation in 2008, but the level of acrimony and the damage that it did to the party. Those wounds were still fresh, you know, 20, 30 years later. Yeah. And you you write in such a compelling way in your book about the personal relationship between these two men in 1980, noting that they really came to to detest each other. And you say that they might have been raised on different planets. I wonder if you could fill in his introduction and touched on a bit of this, but talk a little bit of if you would about how their personal backgrounds made these two men so different and how this might have informed their rivalry. Yeah, I'll back up from this statement, but I just want to point out that when Carter ran in 76, he was one of the first candidates for president to really run against Washington. He ran as an outsider. He may not be too strong word to say despised, professional Washington despised sort of the political class here in Washington. And and that's been a winning message pretty much almost every election cycle since. Um, but yes, I mean, Phil alluded to it. Jimmy Carter grew up in the deep south on a farm before farming tools had really entered the the modern era. I mean, a lot of the farming tools that his family and their shop sharecroppers used have been in use for a very, very long time. I don't remember the exact number of years. It could have been decades. It could have been centuries. I mean, these were really kind of frozen in time places, you know, in rural Georgia. Phil mentioned there was no running water until he was about 12. They didn't have, you know, toilet paper. So very, very. Archaic, Carter's dad was not. I wouldn't say he was poor, you know, he had land. He was able to turn a profit with his farm. But they were certainly not wealthy. He had no political political connections. You know, in Carter's path to the state Senate and the governorship. Are really remarkable. He was elected to the state Senate after somehow getting a reporter from Atlanta, I believe from the journal Constitution to come out, you know, to West Georgia, to rural Georgia and investigate these stories of people intimidating voters at the ballot box in the polling place and stuffing the ballot box. You know, that was how Carter originally lost his race for the state Senate. And then when he runs for governor, he loses the first time, runs as a moderate on race and then runs in between his first and second run for governor, has sort of a spiritual awakening, becomes a born gang Christian. And then he runs a second time for governor with a with a message on race that's far more complicated. And, you know, some have said, you know, was really appealing to white supremacy down there. And, you know, I asked Carter about this myself. He said, I never get anything to turn off the white supremacists. So he acknowledges that that was a factor. And there were certainly things done by people who work for the Carter campaign in that in that race that were that were not that were not right. So that's Carter's background comes from nothing has to, you know, claw his way into politics. Whereas Teddy Kennedy, of course, you know, he's a child living in the ambassadorial residence in London, you know, just this massive estate in the middle of the city comes from great wealth and is really pushed into politics. You know, his father has to tell him, you know, you're not going to go live out in Arizona, which is where in his first wife, Joan had talked about he was not interested in politics. But Joe Kennedy said, you're going to you're going to continue the family business and he sent him up to Massachusetts. So Kennedy over time, by the time you get to 1980, looks at Carter and sees somebody who's in over his head and Carter looks at the Kennedy and sees somebody who has had a lot of things handed to him. So it's a natural, natural recipe for mutual loathing. And John, just to push you one step further, how do you see those differences of background play out in the animosity between these two figures, you know, as the 1980 election approached? Kennedy wants Jimmy Carter to pass a health care law and Jimmy Carter doesn't really. Make that a priority. That's a big policy break. You know, there is some detente early in Carter's presidency. But the relationship grows colder over time. And by the time you get to 79 and 80, there's not much of a relationship there at all. And by the time you get to Kennedy kind of inching towards a run, Carter makes it well known. You know, he makes a comment to some members of Congress at a lunch at the White House that he's going to kick Kennedy's ass, you know, which is the kind of language that you might not expect from a from a born again Christian, you know, president, even if he did, you know, hang out with Willie Nelson and Bob Dylan. But but his aides, you know, made sure that the press found out about that comment. And one of the most interesting sort of anecdotes about Jimmy Carter or or details is, you know, Hunter Thompson, who is a famous writer, journalist. He he once called Jimmy Carter one of the three meanest people he had ever met. And I think the other two were the founder of Hell's Angels and Muhammad Ali. And what his point was that this is after Hunter Thompson saw Carter give a speech after Ted Kennedy in Georgia. It's called the Law Day speech, probably Carter's second most famous speech. Yeah, which he really kind of took apart not just Kennedy, but he took apart the the political elites, the ruling class of Georgia in a very populist speech. And Carter was willing to be ruthless. He really had a had a mean streak in him, even though he came across as gentle, his wife, you know, Rosalind. I mean, she rest in peace, having just passed away. She she once said something to the effect of don't pay attention to that smile. It doesn't mean a thing. And how did Ted Kennedy view Jimmy Carter, would you say? Yeah, I mean, I said earlier, he he thought he was in over his head. And that just gets to the fact that Carter came into Washington really despising the political class. He didn't Carter didn't try to bring in counsel from people who knew who knew the city, you know, who had the relationships wired. And so he did spend that was a mistake. Like he spent a good amount of time trying to get up to speed on things that he could have adapted to more quickly if he had drawn on the resources of people who knew the city. I think that was one of Kennedy's observations. The other was it was just a difference in style. And I think that does get to Kennedy's experience in politics at the national level. I think he understood probably better than Carter did. Sort of had a project leadership. And Carter was definitely still learning that on the job. Would you go along, I wonder, with the assertion that Ted Kennedy was in a certain way the last gasp of great society, liberalism. Was that something that was also in play in the rivalry between these two figures? Carter, in other words, despite his hard scrapple background, was in many ways the more conservative figure, whereas Ted Kennedy, arguably through his support for health care and his connections, of course, to his his famous brothers from the 1960s might stand out as kind of the the the person who wore the mantle of that earlier generation of of liberal ambition. Yeah, I don't think you ever saw anybody come along after Ted Kennedy, even who really wore that mantle. One of the key things to know about this is, you know, another part of the the breakup, the Democratic coalition was the decline of power of city bosses and political machines. I think that does go in hand in hand with sort of the type of Democratic politics you talked about, because it wasn't until we all think of the way we elect presidents now as set in stone, or not all of us do, but a lot of people do. But we didn't have primaries until the 70s. You know, after the 68 convention, that was when the McGovern, I believe the McGovern-Fraser Commission took place and they instituted primaries. Primaries was a big part of how Carter won the nomination in 76. And that was taking power out of the hands of party elites and transferring it to the grassroots. And, you know, I actually think that primaries now have been weaponized and are one of the greatest things damaging American politics. We have, you know, 10 percent of the of the voters choosing 80 percent of our Congress, choosing who hundreds of millions of us get to choose from for president. But at the time, you know, the primary system was designed by reformers to get to kind of take party away from that party elite. You know, yeah, fascinating. And you mentioned a few minutes ago that. Early polling in the race for the Democratic nomination had Ted Kennedy way out in front. And yet Jimmy Carter closed that gap, obviously, and came out on top in the end. Explain that part of the the rise and fall of Ted Kennedy's fortunes. I guess the fall part. How was it that Jimmy Carter was able to make the comeback and ultimately prevail? So a lot of people remember. Why do you want to be president? The question from Roger Mudd that Ted Kennedy had trouble answering. That interview took place a few days before Kennedy's announcement for president, I believe. I didn't check this detail and spend a few years since I wrote this book, but I believe that the mud interview aired on a Sunday, the same day that the hostages were taken at the US Embassy in Tehran. So that happens right before Kennedy announces. The mud interview. There's a whole chapter in my book on the interview. Just a fast, you know, just a really interesting episode. The mud interview raises a lot of doubts and questions in the minds of political elites about Kennedy's preparedness for for this campaign. The hostages. Yeah, go ahead. Sorry, John, go please. The hostage crisis at the same time creates a rally around the leader dynamic in the larger country and it pushes Kennedy out of the news cycle, which at that time is, you know, three TV stations and a couple of major newspapers nationally and in each city. And it makes it pretty hard for Kennedy to criticize Carter as he's launching his campaign. So all of these things contribute to a freeze out. Carter's bull numbers turn upside down within the span of a few weeks. And then you've got Iowa. Iowa caucuses are upon them in the new year. And so Kennedy loses Iowa and loses New Hampshire. And from that point on, it's an uphill battle. He does, you know, make an effort and gain some momentum after that. But that two month period between his announcement and the New Hampshire primary are really critical for what happens next. And John, that that mud interview, as you point out, it seems to me to be so important in the changing perception of Ted Kennedy. What's your explanation for how poorly Ted Kennedy did in that particular moment? You know, it's sometimes been suggested. I think you you mentioned this in your book that there was a sense of entitlement there on Ted Kennedy's part, maybe even an uncertainty about whether he really wanted this you know, run for the presidency. That was a matter of kind of the momentum of being a Kennedy. It was almost an expectation that maybe he had had his own personal misgivings about. Anyway, what's your what's what's your explanation? Yeah, you know, Mark, after I really spent a lot of time with this story, it did look to me like. Teddy was was pulled and pushed into this race. By events and by advisors and by history in his family name, I did not I think at a certain point, once he was losing, he became. More of a participant, a willing participant. And I don't quite understand the psychology there. Maybe it was, you know, losing that kind of was the cold water that woke him up. Yeah. But there was this sort of glaze over, you know, this glazed look that he had for much of the mud interview that I think people caught on caught on to and it really did raise this question of, you know, why why do you want to be do you want to be president? Because there had been election cycle after election cycle. I mean, he almost ran in sixty eight. I believe, yeah, sixty eight. Sorry, I mentioned earlier that Bobby was killed in sixty nine, but sixty eight. He almost ran that year. And every year after that, you know, it was the same question over and over again. So, you know, we'll get to this probably later. But there was so much pressure on him to to do this at some point. And and I think I think he was happy to have it over and done with once it was all finished. Let me ask you what I'm sure is an unfair counterfactual. But these are the things that make history fun. Could Ted Kennedy, if he had performed more effectively, have gotten the nomination in 1980? Yeah, I mean, these are hard questions to answer. He didn't have a couple of things that were hanging around Carter's neck, namely the the hostage crisis. You know, even if if the hostage crisis had lasted until election day like it did, you know, that wasn't Kennedy's Carter Kennedy wasn't president. So he wasn't, you know, totally responsible for that. He also had a pretty different leadership style. I think he would have been a better debater. Just a presentation on presentation, you know, a lot of Reagan's appeal was. You know, he had a he was a he was a former actor. He was able to present well on television. And I think Carter was earnest and sincere and authentic. And that stuff doesn't necessarily come through on television. Kennedy, as we talked about earlier, I think understood how to project leadership. So it's possible. But I think Kennedy would have would have had some real problems answering questions about Chappaquiddick. You know, there was a lot of, you know, other questions about his marriage and his personal life. So that that would have been an issue for sure. And I suppose another undoubtedly unfair counterfactual is could candidate Kennedy. The Democratic Party nominee have performed better against Ronald Reagan. Can I run that one by you and see if see what you think? I thought that was the question I just answered, whether. Well, I'm drawing, I suppose, a fine distinction here in the first place. Could a different Kennedy, could a different performance by Ted Kennedy have resulted in the Democratic nomination and then secondarily, you're asking a candidate being Carter. Yeah, it's a fine distinction. I mean, going back to the Democratic nomination, I just think once once you have what happened, the the hostages and the mud interview, you know, and once you lose Iowa and New Hampshire, it's it's pretty tough from there. But the other thing that really stood out to me was you go to the convention and there is a push, actually, to try to to get Kennedy to replace Carter. Which gains a little bit of steam because of, you know, Jimmy Carter's brother, Billy and a scandal he was involved with with Libya before the convention. But even though there is a push for that for Kennedy at the convention, there's also a significant portion of the Democratic party that's not really interested, even if they are not enthused about Carter. They they are not super interested in Kennedy either. There's a push for a senator from Maine who who's who went on to negotiate the peace agreement in Ireland. His name is escaping me at the at the moment. But that's people like him who are being nominated as an alternative to Kennedy. Yeah. And I think that goes to. Some of the discomfort with his with his personal life. You know, you know, now, your book, as we've acknowledged, is principally about the the struggle on the Democratic side. But let me just ask you a little bit about Ronald Reagan, an unavoidable figure in connection with 1980. He himself was perhaps not as clear-eyed, as consistent as we sometimes might think in retrospect, right? Of Reagan is sort of etched in marble in many ways, it seems to me in the way that many people talk about him. But if we put ourselves back in 1980, we see a Ronald Reagan who's also struggling to define exactly where he stands in the spectrum of opinion on the GOP side of the story. He surrounded himself famously, I think, with a wide array of advisers and even considered Gerald Ford as his running mate in 1980, something that certainly cut against the sort of conservative credentials that that he would come to be known for over the course of his presidency. At any rate, how would you describe Ronald Reagan's position within his his own party and the the the ways in which Americans' perceptions of Reagan evolved as the campaign advanced? Well, I mean, you mentioned the Ford co-presidency that going back and watching that footage was was eye opening. And it showed, you know, a level of uncertainty and indecision by Reagan, who ultimately ended up going with George H. W. Bush to try to to win over the evangelicals. You know, back in 76, Reagan was the renegade, the upstart talking about, you know, smaller government taking on the establishment. So he, you know, he did grow into this larger than life Kennedy-esque figure for the Republican Party. But at the beginning, he was really, you know, as you said, uncertain and and quite kind of undefined in a lot of ways. And I think you kind of your mention of his his advisers speaks to his malleability. He was sort of looking for a persona, which, you know, he was helped by the fact that the economy sort of turned around in his first term. And he was also helped by the fact that the Democrats were were adrift after a painful, you know, fight between Kennedy and Carter and and also adrift in terms of their their electorate. You know, they had lost the South to Reagan. Everything I outlined in the beginning about their connection with the working class, all of that was was was was kind of splitting apart. And they were changing. They were becoming a very special interest focused, activist focused party. And it took until Clinton to kind of patch it back together. So Reagan benefited from all that, I think. You know, and the result, of course, was something we can easily call a landslide. Reagan wins by a huge margin. Did the Carter camp see that coming? At least the full scale of that landslide. Talk about how they understood their chances as the election drew close. They thought it was close. I mean, Pat Caddell was was Carter's pollster. He passed a few years ago, was a larger life character. And I think it was the last rally of the campaign. They were still looking at numbers, seeing numbers that showed them within victory. You know, and I think it was that last weekend that they, according to their telling, saw the poll numbers start to go the wrong direction. You know, they blamed it on the TV networks. You know, focus on the one year anniversary of the hostages being taken. Yeah. So that's their telling of the story. But, you know, it was competitive. It was competitive. That's that's not debatable for much of the election. But it certainly was a competitive on Election Day. And turning back to Ted Kennedy for a second, you suggest, I think, a really fascinating part of the book toward the end that Ted Kennedy's loss was, in a certain sense, good for Ted Kennedy, who gave up finally on the presidency and devoted himself to the Senate, where he achieved, you know, genuine distinction. Talk a little bit about how that experience of running unsuccessfully in 1980 shaped Ted Kennedy's expectations and his career thereafter. Yeah, I I think it was painful to lose the election. You know, he certainly did fight for a very long time. I have kind of wondered whether that was him wanting to ring every last drop out of this one shot so that he didn't have to do it again. Because when he was done, you know, that monkey was off his back, you know, if he runs a campaign and kind of loses Iowa and New Hampshire and then drops out. I can see a scenario where later on in in 84, Democrats are saying, well, you know, maybe this time. Yeah, but if you really go a whole way, you know, and you burn bridges, you know, there's a finality to that. That I think, again, speaks to where Kennedy's head was at. And he does. He goes on. I think the Reagan presidency was a good foil or Kennedy, even though Kennedy, you know, he worked with Reagan on some things. But, you know, the Bork and and Thomas hearings are big moments for him to become a hero to the activists. But he also does a lot of just. Very. I don't want to say I was going to say pedestrian, you know, legislating. I don't know if that's the right adjective, but it's it's working like, you know, I think you I think it was Kennedy who talked about three yards in a cloud of dust. You know, that's how you get laws passed through dogged. Relentless effort year after year after year. And, you know, he is somebody who. If there are people and there are. In Congress, who wanted to be legislators because many in Congress don't want to be legislators, they want to be TV stars. And that is again, going back to the primary system. A big reason why. But anybody who wanted to learn how to legislate, you know, would would learn a lot by studying Ted Kennedy's career. And a lot of that growth comes after this this experience. John, let me ask you about your attitude as an author who spent a lot of time digging into the lives of Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter into a much lesser extent, Ronald Reagan, for that matter. But where do you where do you stand on these figures? You know, a few years out from your book, who do you sympathize with most? With the passage of time? Well, sympathize is an interesting word. I mean, I think I sympathize more with Kennedy. And I look up to Jimmy Carter. I look up to Kennedy, too, but he's more of a tragic figure. I do admire his. Fortitude in this election. Um, you know, I think he. He shows some some real sort of backbone and what's the word? I don't know. He really does show some some character. And even though I'm sure a lot of Carter people would would not like that characterization, in sort of persisting in his speech at the convention, you know, the dream will never die. It's it kind of carries so much weight because of that. I think I think it remains one of the great kind of moments in American rhetoric. Yeah. And Carter, somebody I've come to really look up to. As I mentioned, I was raised evangelical. I've written a book about that whole journey. And I really do see Carter as somebody who. More than anyone in my lifetime, more than any president, I can think of or or know of. Who tried to really. Not bring faith into the presidency in a way that was oppressive or beating people over the head, tried to live out his Christian faith in public life. With a level of nuance and complexity and selflessness that that I find to be really compelling and integrity. I mean, the guy has no incongruous integrity and just the way he's conducted himself as an ex president, I find inspirational, not just the philanthropy and the alleviation of disease and suffering and the election monitoring, but also the modesty and the simplicity. I just find it incredibly inspiring. Yeah, thank you. Thank you for that. And by the way, let me pause just for a moment and invite members of our virtual audience to please put your questions into the Q&A or the chat function at the bottom of your Zoom screen. And John, I'll just ask you a couple more quick ones before I turn things over to Sandy Kress and the Q&A part of our program. You mentioned close to the beginning of the book that there are some striking similarities between the 1980 race and our own political movement, and especially the 2016 election, which was, you know, I suppose the freshest political the freshest presidential election when you were working on this book. What are the the similarities that you would point to between 1980 and our own moment? Well, when I started the book, it was just after Obama had been reelected. By the time I finished it, former President Trump was, you know, ascendant, I would say, in the party. It was published in 19, but I was largely done, I don't know, sometime in 16, 17, maybe 18. So there was just a a darkness, a despair in our in our political discussion. By the time I finished the book, that seemed similar to some of the ways I heard and saw people talking about the 70s and the way I hadn't experienced before that. And then I think, you know, a big similarity, another similarity that's of interest is, you know, in 2016 at the Republican Convention, you actually did have a pretty robust effort to try to switch nominees. You know, I stood, I was on the floor of the convention in 16 in Cleveland. And I was standing three feet away from Senator Mike Lee of Utah, who people may have forgotten this. He was leading the effort to try to replace Trump as the nominee. And I was standing a few feet away from him when he was yelling out his objection to a procedural vote that was basically going to quash that rebellion. Um, you know, that's that was the first time you really had that at a convention since 1980 with the Democrats. Um, if you look at today, I think one of the big similarities is inflation. You know, Carter battled that during his presidency. It was it was one of the big reasons he lost. And, you know, President Biden has been battling this. It's a big reason why, even though the economy has, you know, has turned around a lot from last year, there's still a lot of pessimistic consumer sentiment and sentiment off in trails, you know, statistical data and we get that. But, you know, the economy is always huge in how presidential elections go. And, um, I would say that's one of the big, big similarities now. Are there any lessons from the 1980 race that you think either party would do well to bear in mind in 2024? I mean, the most obvious one is that you don't know what's going to happen. You know, if you're if you're Ted Kennedy in the fall of 79 or if there's one of his advisors, you're thinking you're thinking ahead to the general election. Yeah. And yeah, I mean, so you might think you're going to be the nominee and you don't know what's going to happen. So that's that's a big lesson in politics in general. But the the 70, the 80 primary is is a stark example of that. Well, John Ward, I want to thank you very sincerely for spending time with me this afternoon and congratulations again on Camelot's end. The Democrats last great civil war. A book I highly recommend to all of our listeners. Thank you so much for being with me. Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate it. And let me now turn things over to my friend and colleague, Sandy Kress, who will pose some additional questions. Thank you, Mark. John, so good to be with you. I have been looking forward to this interview for several reasons. One, just it's a fascinating topic for all people interested in political science or history. But personally, I was in the Carter administration and a fan of Ted Kennedy. In fact, I negotiated no child left behind for President Bush forty three with with Ted Kennedy and grew to know him and admire him a great deal. So your take on these issues is something I've been looking forward to a great deal. Glad to have this chance to ask you a few questions. Right. Thank you. I want to focus first because this is this is part of so many different questions in your interview so far with Mark. I don't know that I've ever seen a president who had such fluctuation in the polls as Jimmy Carter did during that 18 month to two year period twice in the high fifties and twice in the 20s. I guess I want to ask you generally. But let me round, let me surround it with a question. What how much the answers to all of this depend upon those that up and down? You know, I've had there's an anonymous question and Mike Pistorius asked a question around the hostage crisis. What what role did the hostage crisis play in the election? Mike asking what was the role specifically of the failed rescue mission? And I guess as I look at these polls, I've just got them right here in front of me. Right after Kennedy announces there is this and you've talked about it, this real nice rise in Carter's popularity out of sympathy, I guess, for the president rallying around the flag and then this deep decline that takes place largely beginning with the failed crisis. That made a big difference, didn't it, both of those events? Yeah, the the hostage crisis and then followed by what again? By the failed rescue mission. Yeah, yeah. I mean, the failed rescue mission, I think, was April, I want to say. And that did certainly. You know, I think play a role in Kennedy's campaign gaining some momentum, you know, I think it's also probably a big reason why things went to the convention. You mentioned Carter's numbers going up and down. I'm looking at the Gallup numbers right now. You know, the Camp David Accords were a big reason why he had that second spike. And and the economy was kind of driving things down and down and down. And then Camp David happens, pops back up and then the economy keeps pulling back down, which goes to my point at the end against with Mark, it's it's it's often the economy that is sort of the baseline. And if you have something really big that happens, you know, that can move things a different direction. You know, foreign policy today, I don't it doesn't seem to drive numbers in a similar way. But, you know, if we were to have major conflict that involved our own military, I think that would that would move the needle for sure. Yeah, exactly. I think you're right. But that was such a unique situation where it was embarrassing. I mean, deeply embarrassing to the country. And then this failed mission, which I think was as Mike is suggesting in his question, very troubling. So that fall that began, it was almost a steady fall, although Carter studied things. And this leads me to my next question. As you suggest, he he actually was leading Reagan in the polls before the debates. I think he was eight points ahead. So even with these problems, he pulled himself out and pulled it into a lead. And as you say, he was in the polls showed he was a few points ahead among among likely voters and even more among registered voters the weekend before the election. I guess I want to I want to use those facts to ask you this question. Given Carter's being competitive and even being ahead, yeah, toward the end, does that suggest that perhaps this fight did not break the Democratic Party, that he was still competitive, still possibly able to win even after this intra-party fight and that maybe it was all it was all these other things that caused his defeat instead of what? Instead of being hurt by the intra-party fight. I guess I'm asking how much was he hurt by the intra-party fight as opposed to inflation, as opposed to the failed rescue mission, as opposed to Reagan's competitive strengths and so forth. Yeah, I mean, I think the the Kennedy Challenge. You know, there's no question that hurt him when you try to kind of weigh up, when you try to look at the scale and say, what's the what's the thing that that went on the scale that tipped it at the, you know, into a loss? That's really hard to do, but there's probably not arguable to say, oh, you know, he would have been better off or he was he was made stronger by the Kennedy Challenge. You know, I just think there's no question that that weakened him, in particular, what happened at the convention. I mean, the night of his accepted speech is just an utter humiliation in front of the entire country. And what should have been a moment of victory and strength becomes a moment of embarrassment and humiliation. So, you know, the hostages probably and the economy and inflation are probably more consequential, but the Kennedy Challenge really played up the idea that he was weak and that that was not helpful. Well, I certainly I was there at that convention and it was it was embarrassing to be sure. And you're absolutely right. It was of no help to have had the challenge. But how much hurt he was by it, I guess, is what I was driving at. I was active in that campaign. And I remember it just seemed to me that most people who were campaigning for him felt that that it didn't it didn't it didn't hurt him as much, I think, as as it might be supposed. It was embarrassing. But I think it was as embarrassing for Kennedy as it was hurtful to Carter. And let me let me go on to the next question. I'm just stunned at how far off that final poll was. Ten point a ten point loss as opposed to being a few points ahead. That seems to be about as much as Gallup was ever off that I'm familiar with. And the do you have any do you have any sense in you talked about this a little bit with Mark, but I want you to focus a little bit on. Why do you think it was that far off? I don't have a strong opinion on that. I mean, I haven't looked at these polling numbers any time recently. The only real tangible thing I can remember. Pat Cadell and Carter's adviser saying was they felt like the the network. You know, focus on the the year anniversary of the hostage crisis was a big reason why the numbers kind of the basement or the floor fell out. I remember talking about that. You know, at this last rally, somewhere out west, I think. And, you know, is that why? I don't know. It seems plausible, but it's also possible that the pollsters miss something. We certainly seen plenty of that in the last few years. Yeah, I was just curious if you had to take on it, that it sounded more like a pollster. You know, a thought of an insider who was saying it was going to be close and it wasn't. But be that as it may. I want to talk to you a little bit, ask you a little bit about the Reagan campaign. The I was interested during that year at how far he went. John Sears did this with him and some others did to try to make him look more moderate because I recall that being a real concern that he was perceived as an extremist. And he went out of his way to show himself to be an environment, to be pro environmentalism. I remember there was a week where that was his focus. He went to the Urban League and gave a speech on how pro civil rights he was. To what extent did those efforts help Reagan become more competitive in the election? Yeah, I think they helped. I think the debate, though, was probably a bigger factor. But, you know, all of those efforts to kind of chip away at a candidate's weakness, play a role. I think when people were actually able to see him next to Carter, that was pretty late in the campaign, as I remember. And that that, I think, moved the numbers. I think that was part of Reagan kind of reassuring people that he wasn't at least people who voted for him. You know, he was able to convince a lot of people that he was not what his critics said he was, whether that was you know, a warmonger or whether that was, you know, not serious. You know, that debate was was a big deal. You know, there you go again was a big line. But Carter didn't help himself either. You know, he got a lot of criticism for the way he talked about his decision, whether or not to use nuclear weapons and having discussed it with his young daughter at the time, Amy, you know, all that stuff. But, you know, Reagan's I think also was effective in that other famous line, which is, you know, are you better off now than you were four years ago? Yeah, that really tapped into all of the economic troubles, inflation, energy, it tapped into the the the sense of I don't know, vulnerability, maybe that that was taking place because of the hostage crisis. What role did do you think John Anderson made played in this in the election? Did did he turn votes one way or the other? I realized it ended up being such a big victory. It couldn't have been that much either way. But what role did he play? Yeah, you surprised me at that one. I had a strong opinion about this when the book came out. And now I'm trying to remember what it was. He's a fascinating guy, you know, his whole arc as a person and as a politician. But I believe. When I was deep in this material that I felt like the Anderson candidacy did not play a major role. That was that's what I remember thinking and saying at the time. But I'm a little rusty on that one. Yeah. Yeah. I just was, you know, whenever you have a third party candidate who gets any votes more than a percent or two and he got almost seven, you'd think could this have made made a difference. I want you to return to I just can't get it out of my system because I remember watching the Roger Mudd interview. And I know Mark visited with you about that. But I want to ask you whether you think there might be another possible explanation of it, because I certainly thought at the time that it was exactly what you said. But, you know, Kennedy did come on after that, giving very strong speeches. You know, and I think he showed that he at least to me that he really wanted it. I mean, he was powerful, strong, tough. He gave good speeches, gave a great speech at the convention. One person in the Wall Street Journal just a few weeks ago. Talking about CBS and they were going after the way CBS had treated Nikki Haley using the same issue, a fellow raised the possibility that CBS had held this interview for a while and that they pushed it out there at a time when Kennedy was that it was done. I'm sorry that the interview was not was done way ahead of the announcement and that it surprised Kennedy a little bit. I don't know whether that's true or not, but I want to ask you about it. And I want to ask you whether it's possible that he just wasn't prepared that he wasn't prepared and politicians have to be prepared, even Ted Kennedy, that it may have just been not being prepared for that question. Do either of those make any sense? Well, this I can talk about it. I mean, I love this whole story because it's taken on, you know, the whole after report, the after action report on how this interview came about, you know, it took on the tenor of a Senate investigation, you know, with the Kennedy camp putting out their version and mud putting out his version. Mud, you know, has probably at least a whole chapter in his memoir about this. Whether or not he was prepared, you know, one detail signals to me he was not taking it seriously enough. That is most people don't know this. The mud interview actually took place in two installments. The first installment, two interviews, the first interview was up on Cape Cod. The second interview was at his Senate office in Washington. And at that first interview on Cape Cod, there were no staff present. That to me signals that Kennedy was was expecting a softer interview. Yeah. And and he afterwards, Kennedy, you know, told said publicly that he had been told by mud that it would be a soft interview. Mud said, no, that's not true. But, you know, the idea that you would have an interview with a major network correspondent without an aid present is unthinkable now and was then, I think, also. Now, as far as CBS and whether they held it, my recollection, and again, you can go check this in Mud's memoir and in Kennedy in some of the literature about Kennedy, but my recollection is that the interview in the Cape went horribly. And that's, you know, the question about why do you want to be president was the second interview. The first interview was in Cape Cod. It was all about Chappaquiddick. I mean, to me, that's really what is the striking thing about the mud interview, which, by the way, was an hour long special. This was an hour long special, not just interviewed, but mud kind of going through every detail of what happened in Chappaquiddick in 69. And Kennedy's performance with those questions was atrocious. And so, you know, that first interview happens, there's no aid present. And so Kennedy, I believe, asks for a second interview to do to get a do over. And I think, according to Mud's telling, they're, you know, working on getting the package ready. Maybe there was some stuff going on at CBS with executives. There's a whole side story about the mud trying to get, you know, the the main anchor job after getting his name. I can't remember. I can't believe I'm forgetting his name, but. Mud's story is that they're they're getting ready to put it to air. And then Kennedy sort of tries to move up his announcement so that they can't air it without giving Kennedy sort of sort of fair use, I think, or fair reply. Anyway, it had some impact on how they could air it, according to FEC laws, I think. And so CBS kind of like moved a bunch of things around to air it before the Kennedy announcement. So that's my right. Well, that's so fascinating. And isn't it amazing, as you suggested a moment ago, and it turns out you're absolutely right. That interview takes place the very day our hostages are taken in Iran. You were you were absolutely right about that, which leads me. And I know this is a counterfactual question to ask. But Kennedy for Kennedy to decide to run as much as he wanted to run being 20 points ahead or whatever it was, had he had that had it been two or three weeks later as Carter's making this rise in the polls? Would Kennedy do you think Kennedy would have run if it were five points or close or Carter ahead? Yeah, I think if the hostages are taken a month before they were, I do think that that's a that's a that's a strong likelihood that he doesn't pull the trigger at that point. Don't you? It's fascinating, isn't it, that those two things happen the same the same day. It's funny how history. Yeah, it is weird. Yeah, it is totally weird. Final question. I just I've learned a lot from you on a lot of things, and especially this idea of the two sides of Jimmy Carter, which I did not know as much as I was in his campaign. I worked for him. I did not know as much about that other side. But it certainly explains, doesn't it? I just was surprised to see him hitting Kennedy hard after Kennedy died on this issue of the health bill. However much he may have felt about it, that seemed to be. Did that surprise you that that he came and hit him that hard on that on that? I mean, I know a little bit about what was going on politically between the two. But that seemed to be kind of a low blow. Did you have a take on that? I'm not familiar with that. Was that around President Obama's health care law? No, no, no, I'm sorry. When Carter and I think you you may have mentioned this, but when when Kennedy passes away, Carter's interviewed about it and Carter criticizes Kennedy for not not negotiating with him, taking his legislation seriously and actually suggests that he would have passed his health initiative had Kennedy been supportive instead of resistant among the various chairs in the health committees back during the time he was president. Yeah, I mean, it just it goes to one of Carter's. Weaknesses, you know, he he held a grudge, I think, for the campaign. And he could be he could be exacting. He could be sort of sensorious. I think he's probably harder on himself than anyone else than he is on anyone else. But, you know, I think that that's a common characteristic is when people are really hard on themselves and really driven. They can they can take that same thing out on other people. But, you know, he did have a bit of the. I don't know the fair. I don't want to say ferricy. That's not quite right. But. Yeah, he just he couldn't bite his tongue at times when it came to saying what he thought he never wanted to really play politics, even as president, you know, he wanted to. Say what he thought was right and persuade people that way. And, you know, he he continued that way. I think what you were seeing primarily, though, is just sort of his. Resentment of Kennedy's challenge in 80, I saw that, too, when I spoke to him. Yeah, even after publicly and even after Senator Kennedy had just passed away. Yeah, listen, I've learned so much from you and I'm grateful. I know our audience is so grateful for having this opportunity to learn about this election and to learn about significantly about President Carter. John, thank you so much. I'm going to turn this now back to Phil Barnes. Thanks for having me. Well, thank you, John, for a very special afternoon. It's a splendid book and I commend it to our audience. And thank you, Mark and Sandy as well. Today's program brings to a close the third year of this series on the American presidency. During 18 programs over three years, we have had conversations with historians and journalists about 14 of our 46 presidents. These conversations have given us new insights into some of the iconic figures in our history and also insights to some of the presidents who might not have been as well done. The conversations took us through the challenging and difficult decisions that presidents made for peace and war. And we were made to feel, as you were today, a part of certain consequential and pivotal elections. For those of us interested in American politics, this series has been very special. Mark Lawrence and Sarah McCracken and Sandy Kress have served as her hosts for these programs throughout the three-year period. I respond behind the scenes as the technical communication specialist supporting each of the webinars. And I want to extend a special thank you to Mark Lawrence. This series was possible only because of his efforts, his thoughtful planning of each year's theme his ability to reach and successfully invite world-renowned historians and journalists as our special guests, and then his engaging interviews of each of them. And I would remind our audience that Dr. Lawrence knows all of this while it has a full-time job running the nation's premier presidential libraries. And in addition to this, please note that Mark Lawrence and his colleague, Mark Uptegrove, the president of the LBJ Foundation, will be leading a special six-week seminar on the years of Lyndon B. Johnson. It begins on Monday, September the 30th. It runs each Monday through November 4th in 2024. And that Monday on November 24th is the day before Election Day, and should be a fascinating program. So, offered as a part of the UT All-In-Sains curriculum for next fall, the seminar will be held in the LBJ auditorium on campus and all members of UT All-In, friends of the LBJ Library and if you're mad at us, Texas are invited to attend. It will be a unique opportunity to learn more about LBJ's life and legacy from two of the nation's eminent presidential scholars. I hope you will attend. And thank all of you for joining us each week. After all, the series was planned with you and mine. And I hope you have enjoyed the programs as much as we have enjoyed bringing it to you. Thank you again and goodbye, at least for now.