What do you think?
Rate this book
Camelot's End: Kennedy vs. Carter and the Fight that Broke the Democratic Party
From a strange, dark chapter in American political history comes the captivating story of Ted Kennedy's 1980 campaign for president against the incumbent Jimmy Carter, told in full for the first time.
The Carter presidency was on life support. The Democrats, desperate to keep power and yearning to resurrect former glory, turned to Kennedy. And so, 1980 became a civil war. It was the last time an American president received a serious reelection challenge from inside his own party, the last contested convention, and the last all-out floor fight, where political combatants fought in real time to decide who would be the nominee. It was the last gasp of an outdated system, an insider's game that old Kennedy hands thought they had mastered, and the year that marked the unraveling of the Democratic Party as America had known it.
CAMELOT'S END details the incredible drama of Kennedy's challenge -- what led to it, how it unfolded, and its lasting effects -- with cinematic sweep. It is a story about what happened to the Democratic Party when the country's long string of successes, luck, and global dominance following World War II ran its course, and how, on a quest to recapture the magic of JFK, Democrats plunged themselves into an intra-party civil war.
And, at its heart, CAMELOT'S END is the tale of two extraordinary and deeply flawed men: Teddy Kennedy, one of the nation's greatest lawmakers, a man of flaws and of great character; and Jimmy Carter, a politically tenacious but frequently underestimated trailblazer. Comprehensive and nuanced, featuring new interviews with major party leaders and behind-the-scenes revelations from the time, CAMELOT'S END presents both Kennedy and Carter in a new light, and takes readers deep inside a dark chapter in American political history.
The Carter presidency was on life support. The Democrats, desperate to keep power and yearning to resurrect former glory, turned to Kennedy. And so, 1980 became a civil war. It was the last time an American president received a serious reelection challenge from inside his own party, the last contested convention, and the last all-out floor fight, where political combatants fought in real time to decide who would be the nominee. It was the last gasp of an outdated system, an insider's game that old Kennedy hands thought they had mastered, and the year that marked the unraveling of the Democratic Party as America had known it.
CAMELOT'S END details the incredible drama of Kennedy's challenge -- what led to it, how it unfolded, and its lasting effects -- with cinematic sweep. It is a story about what happened to the Democratic Party when the country's long string of successes, luck, and global dominance following World War II ran its course, and how, on a quest to recapture the magic of JFK, Democrats plunged themselves into an intra-party civil war.
And, at its heart, CAMELOT'S END is the tale of two extraordinary and deeply flawed men: Teddy Kennedy, one of the nation's greatest lawmakers, a man of flaws and of great character; and Jimmy Carter, a politically tenacious but frequently underestimated trailblazer. Comprehensive and nuanced, featuring new interviews with major party leaders and behind-the-scenes revelations from the time, CAMELOT'S END presents both Kennedy and Carter in a new light, and takes readers deep inside a dark chapter in American political history.
400 pages, Hardcover
First published January 22, 2019
138 people are currently reading
3142 people want to read
About the author
Jon Ward
1 book41 followersJon Ward has chronicled American politics and culture for two decades, as a city desk reporter in Washington D.C., as a White House correspondent who traveled aboard Air Force One to Africa, Europe and the Middle East, and as a national affairs correspondent who has traveled the country to write about two presidential campaigns and the ideas and people animating our times. He is a senior political correspondent for Yahoo News and has been published in The Washington Post, The New Republic, The Huffington Post, The Daily Caller, and The Washington Times. He and his family live in Washington, D.C.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 133 reviews
December 15, 2022
After reading Neal Gabler’s Against the Wind: Edward Kennedy and the Rise of Conservatism, 1976-2009, I wanted to revisit this book, which has almost as much detail of a key Kennedy life event. Neither book disappointed at all!
Many have heard the Kennedy family referred to as living in a modern Camelot. Powerful patriarch, Joseph, and his sons strove to make a difference in the political realm. But when did it all come to an end for them and how did America turn away from this glorified view of the Kennedys? Perhaps they never have, though Jon Ward argues that the political Camelot came crashing down with the 1980 Democratic National Convention, dragging the Party along with it. All this primarily due to an embittered campaign for a presidential nominee. Incumbent President Jimmy Carter took the stage at Madison Square Gardens to seek the formal nod by delegates to take the Democrats into the campaign to face the electorate in November. Standing in his way was Edward ‘Teddy’ Kennedy, the last of the political brothers and a powerhouse all his own. Ward takes the reader on a journey to see how these men destroyed their political bases, the Party, and all but handed Ronald Reagan the presidency in 1980, leaving the country in awe during a time it needed solace the most. Opening with great biographical narratives told in parallel, Ward discusses the upbringing of both men—Kennedy with a silver spoon lodged in his mouth, while Carter sweated it out picking peanuts—and how different they were. Kennedy had politics in his blood, but the shadow of his two brothers seemed to stymie his ability to stay on the beaten path. Carter, a respected Navy veteran, sought to promote his progressive ways in the Deep South, where segregation and racism were the lifeblood of politics. Coming up through the ranks, both men had their foibles, which lingered with them, though Kennedy’s 1969 Chappaquiddick driving debacle that left a young woman dead would seem to have overshadowed much of Carter’s aligning himself with racists in order to secure both the Georgia governor’s mansion and a 1976 run for president. While both men knew the other only in passing, they remained on one another’s radar. Kennedy passed up the chance to run in ‘76, but many felt that he was gearing up for ‘80, though he remained uncommitted. Meanwhile, Carter sat in the Oval Office and faced economic disaster at a time when the American people could not accept anything less than the prosperity they felt the world’s superpower deserved. While Carter had some international successes, these were overshadowed by long gas lines and protests by the American people. Kennedy toiled in the US Senate to create needed legislation for healthcare reforms and tax breaks that would help the middle class. As they geared up for the 1980 campaign, Carter and Kennedy both sought to take the Democratic Party in their own direction, though it was the latter’s decision to challenge a sitting president that left Carter promising to ‘whip his ass’ even before the last Prince of Camelot had formally entered the race. Speaking of entering the race, Ward goes into detail about a CBS special on Teddy Kennedy before he announced, which depicted the man as one who could not dodge the Chappaquiddick disaster from a decade before and had no clear reason for entering the race, even though he was seen as an odds-in favourite and wanted to shape policy in new directions. From there, the primary season began, allowing both men to claw at one another and make gains in different ways. Kennedy stumbled out of the block and found financial limitations paralyse his progress, while Carter was trying to juggle the Iran hostage crisis, which was yet another black mark on his reputation. Even when Carter had the needed delegates to win, Kennedy would not concede, crafting an idea about releasing delegates from their primary commitments when they arrived in New York. Bloodied and bruised, they arrived for the convention to a raucous, yet highly divided Democratic base, all while GOP candidate Ronald Reagan sat back and basked in the knowledge that he would obliterate either man, come November. Ward offers a wonderfully detailed description of the goings-on at the Democratic Convention, including Kennedy’s last attempt to wrestle control away from the sitting president. However, nothing could outdo the events surrounding the last night, when Kennedy handed Carter the snub seen round the world. From there, it was a rocky push through the general election campaign, where Reagan all but handed victory to Carter, who fumbled many chances to bury the ‘television lightweight’. In the end, with Carter trounced and the Democrats in disarray, both men turned away from the presidential limelight. Carter was shunned by his party and turned to a life of humanitarian aid and writing, while Kennedy spent one final decade as a philanderer, while honing his skills as a senator and helped bring the institution together before his death. While it is impossible to know what might have happened in 1980, had things been a little different in the primaries or during the election, there is no doubt that the 1980 left a sour taste in the mouths of many watching the implosion of the Democratic Party by two men who refused to compromise. Camelot is gone, left crumbled by a bumbling third son and other relatives who have passed on. Gritty political battles are also a thing of the past, at least those played out on the convention floor during prime time. But, as we continue to see today, tearing a party apart remains a game that some play for the fun of it, leaving some to wonder if the GOP will resurrect the bloodbath this book depicted in 2020. A powerful narrative that engages the reader with anecdotes and historical accounts, sure to educate and entertain in equal measure. A must-read for political fanatics such as myself, especially those who love American politics.
While I am a fan of political history, particularly as it relates to presidential politics, this book stood out as something even more exceptional. Jon Ward delivers not only a description of the battle for the Democratic nomination in 1980, but serves to present a well-rounded biographical piece of the two main contenders. Mixing in many of the political flavours of the time, Ward supports his claims that this was to be the true litmus test of how the Democrats could meld two of their major factions ahead of another clash with the Republicans. Vowing not to be as criminal as Nixon or as blazé as Ford, the Party wanted to build on its successes, while also trying to ignore some of the domestic disasters that had befallen the Carter Administration since January 1977. In doing so, two men who refused to bow to one another began a battle that would ensure no stone was left unturned and allowed the world to watch as they destroyed one another. Unity was second to victory in August of 1980, with a sitting president being forced to fight for his own party’s stamp of approval, though it was from the last man in a family that had owned the Democrats for decades. Ward uses not only press coverage, but interviews, behind the scenes candid depictions, as well as poll sentiments at the time to develop a narrative that permits the reader to feel right in on the action. Vicious attacks were lodged and stubbornness helped disintegrate any form of coming together before the prime time disaster that encapsulated the Democratic Party coming apart. Who was to blame for all of this? Ward offers some suggestions in his powerful prose, though it is up to the reader to decide in the end. With powerful chapters full of research, Jon Ward offers readers that detailed look into the political goings-on leading up to the 1980 Convention and how it took years for the Democrats to recover and unite to defeat their GOP opponents, at least for the White House. I am so pleased this book found its way onto my radar and hope to find more in line with this style soon.
Kudos, Mr. Ward, for a great story of political undoing in the modern age. I will have to find more of your work, especially if it is as easy to comprehend.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
Many have heard the Kennedy family referred to as living in a modern Camelot. Powerful patriarch, Joseph, and his sons strove to make a difference in the political realm. But when did it all come to an end for them and how did America turn away from this glorified view of the Kennedys? Perhaps they never have, though Jon Ward argues that the political Camelot came crashing down with the 1980 Democratic National Convention, dragging the Party along with it. All this primarily due to an embittered campaign for a presidential nominee. Incumbent President Jimmy Carter took the stage at Madison Square Gardens to seek the formal nod by delegates to take the Democrats into the campaign to face the electorate in November. Standing in his way was Edward ‘Teddy’ Kennedy, the last of the political brothers and a powerhouse all his own. Ward takes the reader on a journey to see how these men destroyed their political bases, the Party, and all but handed Ronald Reagan the presidency in 1980, leaving the country in awe during a time it needed solace the most. Opening with great biographical narratives told in parallel, Ward discusses the upbringing of both men—Kennedy with a silver spoon lodged in his mouth, while Carter sweated it out picking peanuts—and how different they were. Kennedy had politics in his blood, but the shadow of his two brothers seemed to stymie his ability to stay on the beaten path. Carter, a respected Navy veteran, sought to promote his progressive ways in the Deep South, where segregation and racism were the lifeblood of politics. Coming up through the ranks, both men had their foibles, which lingered with them, though Kennedy’s 1969 Chappaquiddick driving debacle that left a young woman dead would seem to have overshadowed much of Carter’s aligning himself with racists in order to secure both the Georgia governor’s mansion and a 1976 run for president. While both men knew the other only in passing, they remained on one another’s radar. Kennedy passed up the chance to run in ‘76, but many felt that he was gearing up for ‘80, though he remained uncommitted. Meanwhile, Carter sat in the Oval Office and faced economic disaster at a time when the American people could not accept anything less than the prosperity they felt the world’s superpower deserved. While Carter had some international successes, these were overshadowed by long gas lines and protests by the American people. Kennedy toiled in the US Senate to create needed legislation for healthcare reforms and tax breaks that would help the middle class. As they geared up for the 1980 campaign, Carter and Kennedy both sought to take the Democratic Party in their own direction, though it was the latter’s decision to challenge a sitting president that left Carter promising to ‘whip his ass’ even before the last Prince of Camelot had formally entered the race. Speaking of entering the race, Ward goes into detail about a CBS special on Teddy Kennedy before he announced, which depicted the man as one who could not dodge the Chappaquiddick disaster from a decade before and had no clear reason for entering the race, even though he was seen as an odds-in favourite and wanted to shape policy in new directions. From there, the primary season began, allowing both men to claw at one another and make gains in different ways. Kennedy stumbled out of the block and found financial limitations paralyse his progress, while Carter was trying to juggle the Iran hostage crisis, which was yet another black mark on his reputation. Even when Carter had the needed delegates to win, Kennedy would not concede, crafting an idea about releasing delegates from their primary commitments when they arrived in New York. Bloodied and bruised, they arrived for the convention to a raucous, yet highly divided Democratic base, all while GOP candidate Ronald Reagan sat back and basked in the knowledge that he would obliterate either man, come November. Ward offers a wonderfully detailed description of the goings-on at the Democratic Convention, including Kennedy’s last attempt to wrestle control away from the sitting president. However, nothing could outdo the events surrounding the last night, when Kennedy handed Carter the snub seen round the world. From there, it was a rocky push through the general election campaign, where Reagan all but handed victory to Carter, who fumbled many chances to bury the ‘television lightweight’. In the end, with Carter trounced and the Democrats in disarray, both men turned away from the presidential limelight. Carter was shunned by his party and turned to a life of humanitarian aid and writing, while Kennedy spent one final decade as a philanderer, while honing his skills as a senator and helped bring the institution together before his death. While it is impossible to know what might have happened in 1980, had things been a little different in the primaries or during the election, there is no doubt that the 1980 left a sour taste in the mouths of many watching the implosion of the Democratic Party by two men who refused to compromise. Camelot is gone, left crumbled by a bumbling third son and other relatives who have passed on. Gritty political battles are also a thing of the past, at least those played out on the convention floor during prime time. But, as we continue to see today, tearing a party apart remains a game that some play for the fun of it, leaving some to wonder if the GOP will resurrect the bloodbath this book depicted in 2020. A powerful narrative that engages the reader with anecdotes and historical accounts, sure to educate and entertain in equal measure. A must-read for political fanatics such as myself, especially those who love American politics.
While I am a fan of political history, particularly as it relates to presidential politics, this book stood out as something even more exceptional. Jon Ward delivers not only a description of the battle for the Democratic nomination in 1980, but serves to present a well-rounded biographical piece of the two main contenders. Mixing in many of the political flavours of the time, Ward supports his claims that this was to be the true litmus test of how the Democrats could meld two of their major factions ahead of another clash with the Republicans. Vowing not to be as criminal as Nixon or as blazé as Ford, the Party wanted to build on its successes, while also trying to ignore some of the domestic disasters that had befallen the Carter Administration since January 1977. In doing so, two men who refused to bow to one another began a battle that would ensure no stone was left unturned and allowed the world to watch as they destroyed one another. Unity was second to victory in August of 1980, with a sitting president being forced to fight for his own party’s stamp of approval, though it was from the last man in a family that had owned the Democrats for decades. Ward uses not only press coverage, but interviews, behind the scenes candid depictions, as well as poll sentiments at the time to develop a narrative that permits the reader to feel right in on the action. Vicious attacks were lodged and stubbornness helped disintegrate any form of coming together before the prime time disaster that encapsulated the Democratic Party coming apart. Who was to blame for all of this? Ward offers some suggestions in his powerful prose, though it is up to the reader to decide in the end. With powerful chapters full of research, Jon Ward offers readers that detailed look into the political goings-on leading up to the 1980 Convention and how it took years for the Democrats to recover and unite to defeat their GOP opponents, at least for the White House. I am so pleased this book found its way onto my radar and hope to find more in line with this style soon.
Kudos, Mr. Ward, for a great story of political undoing in the modern age. I will have to find more of your work, especially if it is as easy to comprehend.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
June 20, 2021
Camelot’s End is a dual biography of President Jimmy Carter, Senator Ted Kennedy, and their race for the Democratic nomination in 1980. Carter was running for a second term and Kennedy ran against him because he felt that Carter wasn’t liberal enough. Carter ultimately wins the nomination but then loses the presidency to Ronald Reagan. Many scholars and pundits believe that Kennedy’s campaign resulted in Carter losing the White House. I disagree, I think Kennedy’s campaign was a byproduct of the fact that Carter had a turbulent first term and that the Democratic dominance in the country beginning in the FDR years was breaking apart (read Skowronek's The Politics Presidents Make: Leadership from John Adams to Bill Clinton for more info).
This book is a quick read that political junkies will enjoy. There are plotlines in it that reminded me of the 2016 Democratic nomination between Clinton and Sanders and the bad blood that developed between the two camps (and still exists) after the 2016 election. The book bounces back and forth between Carter and Kennedy’s biographies starting with their childhood and into their respective political careers. They came from very different backgrounds; Kennedy came from a wealthy political family in the northeast while Carter came from a working class family in the South.
This book gets very interesting when it covers the 1980 campaign: the primaries and caucuses, delegate math, convention theatrics, etc. In this book you will learn that Carter was a hard-nosed politician, don’t let his meek piousness fool you. Kennedy didn’t really know why he was running for president, he was mostly advocating for a liberal cause. In the end, the 1980 campaign may have ended each man’s presidential ambitions but doors opened for both of them to become greater figures: Carter became a leader on human rights and a humanitarian while Kennedy became the U.S. Senate’s liberal lion.
Thanks to NetGalley, Twelve, and Jon Ward, for a free ARC copy in exchange for an honest review.
This book is a quick read that political junkies will enjoy. There are plotlines in it that reminded me of the 2016 Democratic nomination between Clinton and Sanders and the bad blood that developed between the two camps (and still exists) after the 2016 election. The book bounces back and forth between Carter and Kennedy’s biographies starting with their childhood and into their respective political careers. They came from very different backgrounds; Kennedy came from a wealthy political family in the northeast while Carter came from a working class family in the South.
This book gets very interesting when it covers the 1980 campaign: the primaries and caucuses, delegate math, convention theatrics, etc. In this book you will learn that Carter was a hard-nosed politician, don’t let his meek piousness fool you. Kennedy didn’t really know why he was running for president, he was mostly advocating for a liberal cause. In the end, the 1980 campaign may have ended each man’s presidential ambitions but doors opened for both of them to become greater figures: Carter became a leader on human rights and a humanitarian while Kennedy became the U.S. Senate’s liberal lion.
Thanks to NetGalley, Twelve, and Jon Ward, for a free ARC copy in exchange for an honest review.
February 24, 2019
Two flawed men.
Kennedy, carrying the heavy legacy of his patriot martyred brothers, a narcissist womanizer and drunkard yet developing into the 'conscious of his party." And Carter, a devout Christian, a political maverick, a man whose wide grin disguised a bulldog tenacity.
I could see it coming. As author Jon Ward unfolded the story of the 1980 presidential election campaign, I got to the 'ah ha' point of understanding the inevitability of the Democrats losing to the Republican candidate Ronald Reagan.
Incumbent President Carter had lost credibility. He was unable to end crippling inflation--do I remember that inflation! 15 1/2% interest rate on our first house! He had done nothing to end high unemployment. The Iran hostage crisis just went on and on. The punitive oil prices caused shortages and the shortages led to riots and violence. Carter had believed that politics could be used for Christian purposes to alleviate suffering. But he never played well with others--Hunter S. Thompson declared him 'one of the three meanest men' he had ever met.
Teddy Kennedy hoped to 'save the soul' of the Democratic party. A deeply troubled man burdened by the Kennedy legacy, the last son standing, he felt he had to run. But he was haunted by one night, a car, a bridge, and a dead woman at Chappaquiddick. Kennedy did the unthinkable, challenging an incumbent president from his own party. He wanted national health care, a stimulation bill, to end the arms race.
Reagan, sixty-nine-years-old, a conservative who had provided Hollywood names to the House UnAmerican Committee, declared for states rights. Carter misjudged him as a lightweight. But Reagan had ease and charm where Carter looked like a coiled snake ready to bite.
Third-party candidate John Anderson had also thrown his hat into the ring.
The working people abandoned the Democratic Party. Carter's own church, the Southern Baptists, abandoned the Democratic Party. The Republicans had found the golden ticket: attracting working-class white Christian voters into the party of rich businessmen. Carter had lackluster support, and even after the convention, Teddy was getting cheers.
Even after Carter won his party's nomination, Kennedy didn't give him his wholehearted support.
The failed president later won the Nobel Peace Prize and his work with Habitat for Humanity is a mene going around social media as an example of presidential values. At the senator's death, Carter admitted Kennedy was one of the "best senators." They redeemed themselves in later life, becoming better people. But in 1980, they managed to cost the Democrats the White House.
Ward's book was a revealing, engrossing read. I ended up taking copious notes. I enjoyed the book on many levels: recalling the social and political climate in the lates 70s and how it affected me; as portraits of two Democratic icons; as a step-by-step retelling of a pivotal political contest; and for addressing the political issues that are still relevant today.
I received a free book from the publisher through Goodreads in exchange for a fair and unbiased review.
Kennedy, carrying the heavy legacy of his patriot martyred brothers, a narcissist womanizer and drunkard yet developing into the 'conscious of his party." And Carter, a devout Christian, a political maverick, a man whose wide grin disguised a bulldog tenacity.
I could see it coming. As author Jon Ward unfolded the story of the 1980 presidential election campaign, I got to the 'ah ha' point of understanding the inevitability of the Democrats losing to the Republican candidate Ronald Reagan.
Incumbent President Carter had lost credibility. He was unable to end crippling inflation--do I remember that inflation! 15 1/2% interest rate on our first house! He had done nothing to end high unemployment. The Iran hostage crisis just went on and on. The punitive oil prices caused shortages and the shortages led to riots and violence. Carter had believed that politics could be used for Christian purposes to alleviate suffering. But he never played well with others--Hunter S. Thompson declared him 'one of the three meanest men' he had ever met.
Teddy Kennedy hoped to 'save the soul' of the Democratic party. A deeply troubled man burdened by the Kennedy legacy, the last son standing, he felt he had to run. But he was haunted by one night, a car, a bridge, and a dead woman at Chappaquiddick. Kennedy did the unthinkable, challenging an incumbent president from his own party. He wanted national health care, a stimulation bill, to end the arms race.
Reagan, sixty-nine-years-old, a conservative who had provided Hollywood names to the House UnAmerican Committee, declared for states rights. Carter misjudged him as a lightweight. But Reagan had ease and charm where Carter looked like a coiled snake ready to bite.
Third-party candidate John Anderson had also thrown his hat into the ring.
The working people abandoned the Democratic Party. Carter's own church, the Southern Baptists, abandoned the Democratic Party. The Republicans had found the golden ticket: attracting working-class white Christian voters into the party of rich businessmen. Carter had lackluster support, and even after the convention, Teddy was getting cheers.
Even after Carter won his party's nomination, Kennedy didn't give him his wholehearted support.
The failed president later won the Nobel Peace Prize and his work with Habitat for Humanity is a mene going around social media as an example of presidential values. At the senator's death, Carter admitted Kennedy was one of the "best senators." They redeemed themselves in later life, becoming better people. But in 1980, they managed to cost the Democrats the White House.
Ward's book was a revealing, engrossing read. I ended up taking copious notes. I enjoyed the book on many levels: recalling the social and political climate in the lates 70s and how it affected me; as portraits of two Democratic icons; as a step-by-step retelling of a pivotal political contest; and for addressing the political issues that are still relevant today.
I received a free book from the publisher through Goodreads in exchange for a fair and unbiased review.
July 16, 2019
Over the past few weeks I have been studying the Carter Administration, the first presidency I really remember. With the passage of nearly 40 years enough time has passed to look objectively at the Jimmy Carter presidency, and I wanted to see if my life-long impression of him as a hugely incompetent president but a very good man, has changed. Although I have learned a lot from this reading, and I believe history shows Carter in fact achieved some good things, my overall perception of him has not changed. Despite his accomplishments, he failed in a fundamental role of the presidency, which is to project personal and American strength and his opponents both home and abroad took advantage of that.
By 1979, with Carter unable to address out of control inflation, high unemployment, energy shortages and the Iranian revolution and hostage crises, as well as his self-inflicted chaos of seeking the resignations of his entire Cabinet after his actually well-received "malaise" speech, the odds were frankly against his re-election. Enter liberal Senator Ted Kennedy, who decided to challenge Carter for the 1980 Democratic nomination. The surprise was not that Kennedy ran, but how bad a campaign he ran. It was a long, bitter slog that deeply embittered both men, but despite his problems and unpopularity, Carter won, fair and square. But instead of gracefully bowing out and setting himself for a 1984 run, Kennedy refused to give up and carried his campaign to the 1980 Democratic convention, where he snubbed Carter and delivered a blockbuster speech that totally overshone the president.
The amount of time and money Carter had to spend defeating Kennedy and the harm Kennedy's attacks did to Carter, wounded an already hurting president. Combined with Carter's mismanagement of the weekend before the election, when he ill-advisedly stopped campaigning to one again hopelessly respond to the Iranians and see the hostages not released, that led to large overnight defections from him, Kennedy's poor sportsmanship and disdain for Carter clearly played a leading role in the president's crushing defeat.
While Kennedy helped defeat Carter, he really helped defeat his lifelong liberalism. For all his conservatism on spending, Carter was no Ronald Reagan and Reagan proceeded to dismantle much of the liberalism Kennedy stood for and in fact the conservative turn Reagan's election brought to the nation continues today.
This book does a solid and engaging job in explaining Kennedy's ill-fated 1980 presidential campaign and the harm it did to Carter's already troubled presidency and campaign, while also being very honest in presenting Carter's mis-steps also. Anyone interested in knowing the details of part of the key reason Carter lost in 1980 and how Kennedy's selfishness harmed both Carter and Democratic Party liberalism will learn much from this well-written and well-researched book.
By 1979, with Carter unable to address out of control inflation, high unemployment, energy shortages and the Iranian revolution and hostage crises, as well as his self-inflicted chaos of seeking the resignations of his entire Cabinet after his actually well-received "malaise" speech, the odds were frankly against his re-election. Enter liberal Senator Ted Kennedy, who decided to challenge Carter for the 1980 Democratic nomination. The surprise was not that Kennedy ran, but how bad a campaign he ran. It was a long, bitter slog that deeply embittered both men, but despite his problems and unpopularity, Carter won, fair and square. But instead of gracefully bowing out and setting himself for a 1984 run, Kennedy refused to give up and carried his campaign to the 1980 Democratic convention, where he snubbed Carter and delivered a blockbuster speech that totally overshone the president.
The amount of time and money Carter had to spend defeating Kennedy and the harm Kennedy's attacks did to Carter, wounded an already hurting president. Combined with Carter's mismanagement of the weekend before the election, when he ill-advisedly stopped campaigning to one again hopelessly respond to the Iranians and see the hostages not released, that led to large overnight defections from him, Kennedy's poor sportsmanship and disdain for Carter clearly played a leading role in the president's crushing defeat.
While Kennedy helped defeat Carter, he really helped defeat his lifelong liberalism. For all his conservatism on spending, Carter was no Ronald Reagan and Reagan proceeded to dismantle much of the liberalism Kennedy stood for and in fact the conservative turn Reagan's election brought to the nation continues today.
This book does a solid and engaging job in explaining Kennedy's ill-fated 1980 presidential campaign and the harm it did to Carter's already troubled presidency and campaign, while also being very honest in presenting Carter's mis-steps also. Anyone interested in knowing the details of part of the key reason Carter lost in 1980 and how Kennedy's selfishness harmed both Carter and Democratic Party liberalism will learn much from this well-written and well-researched book.
February 15, 2019
Today we find ourselves at the beginning of the 2020 presidential campaign even though the Iowa caucuses are eleven months away. It seems that each day another Democrat announces their candidacy, and President Trump does what President Trump does. Talking heads on cable news programs ask each candidate why they are running and what sets them apart from the competition. For me, it brings back memories of watching a 60 Minutes program in 1980 where Roger Mudd interviewed Ted Kennedy and asked him why he was challenging President Carter for their parties’ nomination. Kennedy’s response went along way in destroying his candidacy as his rambling response lacked coherence, and in no way answered the question, leaving the American electorate in the dark as to why he was running.
At a time when the Democratic Party seems split between its progressive and moderate wings it would be a useful exercise to examine a similar split that played out during 1980 election campaign. Jon Ward’s new book, CAMELOT’S END: KENNEDY VERSUS CARTER AND THE FIGHT THAT BROKE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY successfully takes up the task and provides numerous insights into the politics of seeking the presidency considering today’s budding Democratic Party fissures. One could also make a similar argument as the more establishment wing of the Republican Party appears to be growing tired of threats, government shut downs, “wall” politics for the base, that even President Trump might be challenged during the primary season for his parties’ nomination.
Ward’s book is in large part a dual biography of President Carter and Senator Kennedy tracing their personal roots from their upbringing, their political careers, as well as their distaste for each other. The scope of Ward’s narrative encompasses the politics of the south that Carter emerged from, in addition to the Kennedy legacy that Senator Kennedy had to cope with his entire career. Ward raises important questions that effected the course of the Democratic Party after the 1980 election that elevated Ronald Reagan to the presidency, as well as the country at large. Ward explores why Kennedy challenged Carter’s re-nomination, and what impact that challenge had for American political history. Further, the author contemplates how Kennedy’s challenge impacted the two men on a personal level.
Ward argues that in part Kennedy was driven by the cost and state of health care in America in the 1970s. A witness to one family health crisis to another; the death of two brothers and a sister, and his son Ted Jr.’s battle with cancer, apart from his own surviving a plane crash that immobilized him for six months, the Senator sincerely believed it was not fair that a rich family like the Kennedy’s could afford the medical bills from such tragedies, while most American families could not. Secondly, Kennedy opposed Carter’s fiscal conservatism that produced budget cuts to basic social programs. For the senator, “sometimes a party must sail against the wind.” Further, 1979 was a terrible year for President Carter. The Camp David Accords seemed to be unraveling, unemployment remained high, inflation was rising, gas prices were increasing, and events in Iran led to the overthrow of the Shah and the taking of American hostages. For Kennedy and establishment types within the Democratic Party, the president with a 37% approval rating was so weak he could be defeated. With the scandal involving his Director of Management and Budget Bert Lance, and Carter’s “Malaise Speech,” a vacuum seemed to appear that could be filled. Finally, Kennedy would seek the presidency that seemed to be his birthright, hoping that Chappaquiddick had receded far enough into the background of the American electorate’s collective memory.
Carter was a very driven man. Ward states that he appeared to be a soft-spoken individual who had evangelical glow about him, however, inside he was very competitive and was made up a steely disposition that hated to lose or admit he was wrong. In addition to the persona he presented Carter viewed politics through a Niebuhrian lens, combining a belief in his divine calling, juxtaposed with a competitive politician. Peter Bourne, one of his advisors and a biographer has written, “increasingly be conceptualized politics as a vehicle for advancing God’s kingdom on earth by alleviating human suffering and despair on a scale that infinitely magnified what one individual could do alone,” that individual was Jimmy Carter.
Ward argues that the turning point in the relationship between the two men occurred in May 1974 at the Law School Day speeches at the University of Georgia where both men where scheduled to speak. Kennedy gave a traditional democratic values speech, but Carter who had decided to run for president resented Kennedy’s presence and as Governor of Georgia treated him rather shabbily that day. Carter believed that Kennedy was pushing him around and he would not tolerate it. Ward goes on to describe Carter’s successful race for the presidency in 1976 in detail and accurately points out that it was clear that the seeds for his 1980 defeat were already being planted.
Carter and his people believed that they were not beholden to the Democratic Party establishment and Messrs. Jordan, Powell, Lance and others knew what was best. Further, Carter alienated the journalistic community with his “refusal to give a plain answer to a plain question,” converting every act into a political morality play. Carter’s insular group played hard in their personal lives stretching certain boundaries which conflicted to the holier than thou attitude that Carter preached to the press.
Ward dissects the 1980 race, and the book moves smoothly, but does not neglect scholarship relying on secondary works, memoirs, and numerous interviews. Carter and Kennedy’s complex personalities are fully explored, including what causes drove them, and what they were most passionate about.
The events of 1980 had important implications for American politics for decades to come. First, Kennedy was able to remove “presidential” fever from his system and go on to serve in the Senate for 47 years and become one of the most prolific legislators in American history. Second, it launched the most successful post-presidency in American history as President Carter through the work of the Carter Center and other organizations has impacted world peace, helped cure disease, and reduce poverty, programs that continue to this day. Lastly, With Carter’s defeat, Ward correctly argues that the coalition that Democrats relied upon since the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 had splintered apart. Reagan was able to split the combination of “union members and ethnics in the big cities, poor rural voters, racial minorities, Catholics, and the South” that had formed the Democratic Party voting blocs. This coalition was fractured so badly that it has not and may never be put back again. This chasm in Democratic party politics is ongoing and it will be interesting how it plays out in the coming presidential election.
At a time when the Democratic Party seems split between its progressive and moderate wings it would be a useful exercise to examine a similar split that played out during 1980 election campaign. Jon Ward’s new book, CAMELOT’S END: KENNEDY VERSUS CARTER AND THE FIGHT THAT BROKE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY successfully takes up the task and provides numerous insights into the politics of seeking the presidency considering today’s budding Democratic Party fissures. One could also make a similar argument as the more establishment wing of the Republican Party appears to be growing tired of threats, government shut downs, “wall” politics for the base, that even President Trump might be challenged during the primary season for his parties’ nomination.
Ward’s book is in large part a dual biography of President Carter and Senator Kennedy tracing their personal roots from their upbringing, their political careers, as well as their distaste for each other. The scope of Ward’s narrative encompasses the politics of the south that Carter emerged from, in addition to the Kennedy legacy that Senator Kennedy had to cope with his entire career. Ward raises important questions that effected the course of the Democratic Party after the 1980 election that elevated Ronald Reagan to the presidency, as well as the country at large. Ward explores why Kennedy challenged Carter’s re-nomination, and what impact that challenge had for American political history. Further, the author contemplates how Kennedy’s challenge impacted the two men on a personal level.
Ward argues that in part Kennedy was driven by the cost and state of health care in America in the 1970s. A witness to one family health crisis to another; the death of two brothers and a sister, and his son Ted Jr.’s battle with cancer, apart from his own surviving a plane crash that immobilized him for six months, the Senator sincerely believed it was not fair that a rich family like the Kennedy’s could afford the medical bills from such tragedies, while most American families could not. Secondly, Kennedy opposed Carter’s fiscal conservatism that produced budget cuts to basic social programs. For the senator, “sometimes a party must sail against the wind.” Further, 1979 was a terrible year for President Carter. The Camp David Accords seemed to be unraveling, unemployment remained high, inflation was rising, gas prices were increasing, and events in Iran led to the overthrow of the Shah and the taking of American hostages. For Kennedy and establishment types within the Democratic Party, the president with a 37% approval rating was so weak he could be defeated. With the scandal involving his Director of Management and Budget Bert Lance, and Carter’s “Malaise Speech,” a vacuum seemed to appear that could be filled. Finally, Kennedy would seek the presidency that seemed to be his birthright, hoping that Chappaquiddick had receded far enough into the background of the American electorate’s collective memory.
Carter was a very driven man. Ward states that he appeared to be a soft-spoken individual who had evangelical glow about him, however, inside he was very competitive and was made up a steely disposition that hated to lose or admit he was wrong. In addition to the persona he presented Carter viewed politics through a Niebuhrian lens, combining a belief in his divine calling, juxtaposed with a competitive politician. Peter Bourne, one of his advisors and a biographer has written, “increasingly be conceptualized politics as a vehicle for advancing God’s kingdom on earth by alleviating human suffering and despair on a scale that infinitely magnified what one individual could do alone,” that individual was Jimmy Carter.
Ward argues that the turning point in the relationship between the two men occurred in May 1974 at the Law School Day speeches at the University of Georgia where both men where scheduled to speak. Kennedy gave a traditional democratic values speech, but Carter who had decided to run for president resented Kennedy’s presence and as Governor of Georgia treated him rather shabbily that day. Carter believed that Kennedy was pushing him around and he would not tolerate it. Ward goes on to describe Carter’s successful race for the presidency in 1976 in detail and accurately points out that it was clear that the seeds for his 1980 defeat were already being planted.
Carter and his people believed that they were not beholden to the Democratic Party establishment and Messrs. Jordan, Powell, Lance and others knew what was best. Further, Carter alienated the journalistic community with his “refusal to give a plain answer to a plain question,” converting every act into a political morality play. Carter’s insular group played hard in their personal lives stretching certain boundaries which conflicted to the holier than thou attitude that Carter preached to the press.
Ward dissects the 1980 race, and the book moves smoothly, but does not neglect scholarship relying on secondary works, memoirs, and numerous interviews. Carter and Kennedy’s complex personalities are fully explored, including what causes drove them, and what they were most passionate about.
The events of 1980 had important implications for American politics for decades to come. First, Kennedy was able to remove “presidential” fever from his system and go on to serve in the Senate for 47 years and become one of the most prolific legislators in American history. Second, it launched the most successful post-presidency in American history as President Carter through the work of the Carter Center and other organizations has impacted world peace, helped cure disease, and reduce poverty, programs that continue to this day. Lastly, With Carter’s defeat, Ward correctly argues that the coalition that Democrats relied upon since the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 had splintered apart. Reagan was able to split the combination of “union members and ethnics in the big cities, poor rural voters, racial minorities, Catholics, and the South” that had formed the Democratic Party voting blocs. This coalition was fractured so badly that it has not and may never be put back again. This chasm in Democratic party politics is ongoing and it will be interesting how it plays out in the coming presidential election.
August 13, 2021
Camelot’s End by Jon Ward was a quick read but it contained a lot of fascinating information and kept me engaged the entire time.
Structured as a dual biography of Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy, it tracks the two Democrats from their early years to the last contested convention in 1980. In between, we get detailed and comprehensive views of Carter the Navy man, the peanut farmer, the state senator, his first unsuccessful bid to the governorship, his successful second gubernatorial run and on to the Presidency in 1976. Ward does a great job detailing the many challenges Carter faced during his presidency. I learned a lot reading this book and have decided Carter deserves a deeper study, especially when you factor in the amazing post presidency accomplishments. Other than possibly JQA, Carter has had a more successful post presidency than any other person to hold the office.
Ward tracks Kennedy the youngest brother through boarding school, his cheating scandal at Harvard, replacing JFK as senator of MA, to Chappaquiddick, and the many other personal troubles in his life.
The book does a good job covering both protagonists, but really takes off in the last couple chapters when the months long primary challenge by Kennedy finally culminated in the fight over convention rules that might have allowed Kennedy to become the party’s nominee in 1980. Even though Carter had enough delegates to win outright, this challenge on the convention floor showed the weakness of the Democratic Party. Eventually Carter wraps up the nomination, but is upstaged when Kennedy takes 20 minutes to arrive at the end of the convention to get on stage and to barely acknowledge Carter’s presence. The animosity between the two politicians would last decades.
In hindsight, with the election of Ronald Reagan, both politicians were set free, Kennedy from his older brothers shadows, and Carter to begin his work in the Carter Center.
Overall, an excellent view of the politics of the Democratic Party in the 1970s. Recommended to anyone interested in politics and this time period.
Structured as a dual biography of Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy, it tracks the two Democrats from their early years to the last contested convention in 1980. In between, we get detailed and comprehensive views of Carter the Navy man, the peanut farmer, the state senator, his first unsuccessful bid to the governorship, his successful second gubernatorial run and on to the Presidency in 1976. Ward does a great job detailing the many challenges Carter faced during his presidency. I learned a lot reading this book and have decided Carter deserves a deeper study, especially when you factor in the amazing post presidency accomplishments. Other than possibly JQA, Carter has had a more successful post presidency than any other person to hold the office.
Ward tracks Kennedy the youngest brother through boarding school, his cheating scandal at Harvard, replacing JFK as senator of MA, to Chappaquiddick, and the many other personal troubles in his life.
The book does a good job covering both protagonists, but really takes off in the last couple chapters when the months long primary challenge by Kennedy finally culminated in the fight over convention rules that might have allowed Kennedy to become the party’s nominee in 1980. Even though Carter had enough delegates to win outright, this challenge on the convention floor showed the weakness of the Democratic Party. Eventually Carter wraps up the nomination, but is upstaged when Kennedy takes 20 minutes to arrive at the end of the convention to get on stage and to barely acknowledge Carter’s presence. The animosity between the two politicians would last decades.
In hindsight, with the election of Ronald Reagan, both politicians were set free, Kennedy from his older brothers shadows, and Carter to begin his work in the Carter Center.
Overall, an excellent view of the politics of the Democratic Party in the 1970s. Recommended to anyone interested in politics and this time period.
March 17, 2021
Listening to this audible book filled me in on age time in national politics around 1978 through 1982 that I had very little personal recollection about although during that. I was in my late thirties. The book also includes a good deal of the history/biography of the two main characters Jimmy Carter and Teddy Kennedy. Because the book is about political events there is always some possibility that the presentation might be slightly skewed away from truth and reality! But I found it a fascinating look at historic events. Some time had passed between the events and when the book was actually published in approximately 2015.
The common line about Carter is that he was not much of a president but has excelled and being an ex president. Teddy Kennedy has a pretty poor reputation. He had many well publicized personal feelings but maybe finally got it together during the last decade or so of his life to be a relatively effective senator. He served 47 years in the Senate and probably the real question is how he managed to be elected over and over during some of his less stellar personal years of drinking and womanizing.
It is interesting to think about this book being written 30 or 35 years after the events when people involved in those events were interviewed or had published various memoirs and autobiographies. The book certainly did seem to provide a considerable amount of inside information that might not have been readily shared at the time.
The common line about Carter is that he was not much of a president but has excelled and being an ex president. Teddy Kennedy has a pretty poor reputation. He had many well publicized personal feelings but maybe finally got it together during the last decade or so of his life to be a relatively effective senator. He served 47 years in the Senate and probably the real question is how he managed to be elected over and over during some of his less stellar personal years of drinking and womanizing.
It is interesting to think about this book being written 30 or 35 years after the events when people involved in those events were interviewed or had published various memoirs and autobiographies. The book certainly did seem to provide a considerable amount of inside information that might not have been readily shared at the time.
January 25, 2019
An interesting book, and a somewhat fresh take on a well traveled topic. Overall though nothing in the book was particularly earth shattering. Despite the title there was also no real commentary offered about how the events that took place in the 1980 primary or the Kennedy/Carter relationship shaped the future of the Democratic party.
April 20, 2019
The book is interesting, but it fails to deliver what it promises. It's not at all about the fight that broke the democratic party. It's a mixed biography of Carter and Kennedy. There's not much about the current democratic party at all or even the next democratic administration that followed Carter's. The biographies are pretty interesting though.
February 2, 2019
Who could be more dissimilar as politicians than Jimmy Carter and Edward Kennedy? Yet, this book claims what happened during the early 1980’s changed everything. It didn’t seem to be a very believable argument.
July 16, 2020
Ward’s “Camelot’s End” is the story of the Democratic Party truly fracturing at the end of the 1970s, culminating in the chaotic Presidential Primary season between incumbent President Carter, and Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts.
Though the title is slightly hyperbolic - this has not been “a civil war” in the Democratic Party, nor was it the last major schism the party has seen; Ward details the fundamental differences between the two men, and their rise to power and eventual face off that allowed for Ronald Reagan to clinch the Presidency in 1980 and allow for GOP control of the White House until 1993.
Though there is an emphasis I believe on President Carter (because of his nature as the incumbent and also for having a larger swath of material to access) this book is also the story of the last Kennedy brother and his attempt at the Presidency following in the footsteps of Jack and Bobby.
A must read for those attempting to understand the post - Watergate American political arena, at the very least, the book provides a great layout of how American politics is simply cyclical in nature.
Though the title is slightly hyperbolic - this has not been “a civil war” in the Democratic Party, nor was it the last major schism the party has seen; Ward details the fundamental differences between the two men, and their rise to power and eventual face off that allowed for Ronald Reagan to clinch the Presidency in 1980 and allow for GOP control of the White House until 1993.
Though there is an emphasis I believe on President Carter (because of his nature as the incumbent and also for having a larger swath of material to access) this book is also the story of the last Kennedy brother and his attempt at the Presidency following in the footsteps of Jack and Bobby.
A must read for those attempting to understand the post - Watergate American political arena, at the very least, the book provides a great layout of how American politics is simply cyclical in nature.
January 6, 2021
Check out my reading vlog for this book!
Thank you to NetGalley and Twelve Books for an e-arc of this book in exchange for a fair and honest review.
I heard about this book on an NPR show and was intrigued by the premise. The story follows President Carter in his reelection campaign for president as he is challenged, as an incumbent president, by Ted Kennedy. This was news to me. Nobody challenges a sitting president. Except, this time, someone did. This comes before my time, but it’s recent enough to feel modern. That was why I asked for a copy to review. It ended up being even more relevant than I realized.
Ted was a Kennedy, raised like royalty with the privilege of his family, and this is in stark contrast to Carter came from a much smaller background. His father was a peanut farmer, but he left the farm for the Navy where he got a Bachelor of Science. After his father’s death, he left the Navy to return home. There was little money to be had from his father’s death, so we essentially a lowly farmer. He began having political aspirations that would drive him into the Georgia Senate and eventually governor. He ran on a platform of antisegregation, but it was still a very problematic one. He never really lied, but he worked really hard to mislead southern whites to make them think he was your traditional southern democrats. This was the first indication of his political mindset. He was not afraid to put on the fact that was needed.
I have to say, this was all mind boggling to me. I have had such an elevated view of Carter, but this turns him into a bit of a…well politician. I don’t hate the act of politicking, but I can’t help but question his authenticity. Did he believe what he said? He definitely fought for it, eventually, but was that because he wanted that or because he saw a path to victory with it? I don’t know the answer, but I need to learn more about him. This book really motivated me to do that.
On the flipside, Kennedy’s background was, as I said, like a Kennedy. He was designed for public office, and he was driven by much of the entitlement that came with being a Kennedy. It’s really interesting because he was arguably more progressive than Carter. That would end up being part of the platform he used against Carter. Although, I can’t help to ask how much was true convection versus entitlement.
I’m not as interested in delving into Kennedy’s background. I believe he joined the senate before he would challenge Carter (I read this a month ago now), but he was always seen as a potential contender. The only reason he didn’t challenge Carter in his first go was due to his history of major politic scandals. The biggest one being his, likely drunk, driving a car off a bridge into a lake. He escaped, but the same can’t be said for his girlfriend (or someone he had on the side, because he was a major womanizer). The real kicker here, is Kennedy just left the scene. If had a called for help, she would have a survived. Evidence suggest that she survived for, I believe, up to an hour after. Somehow, this did not end his career. He would go on to serve in the senate until his death. It is mindboggling but also too easy to believe given his race, gender, and class.
I left this book with a much lower opinion of both of them. Not that Kennedy was very memorable. They both had their problems, and this book spends maybe a third of its time talking about just this. I absolutely applaud it for that. I think it was necessary for Ward to give us sufficient context for everything that led to this challenge. Of course, a big player was also the many failures of Carter who was universally hated even by his own party, but understand, the feud between Kennedy and Carter was still fairly personal.
It was a tight campaign, but Carter managed to eventually pull though. I am less interested with the final details than the comparisons to today. Carter would go on to lose reelection to Ronald Regan. A racist celebrity with zero experience. I can’t help but see the contrast with a more recent campaign. Not long ago, a democrat ran for office. She was not an incumbent, but it was pretty well understood she’d win reelection. I am not critiquing her opponent for running. Primaries are a part of the process. However, this ideolog ran on a sense of purity, like Carter. He demonized and ostracized his opponent. Even as it was clear (more clear than even with Carter) that he would not win. Even after losing, he failed to really support his candidate. The result was we got a Regan-esk politician with not actual understanding of how to run.
Of course, Drumpf is arguably worse than Regan. What’s more, Clinton was a woman, and it’s interesting to see how Bernie has played with Biden, likely in part because of the damage he sees he caused. To be clear, neither Carter nor Clinton were perfect, but we can’t ignore the role they played in this process. Clinton was far more prepared for office than Carter. I can’t help but question whether Carter was even prepared. Sure, he had a background in science, but he was still very new to politics. His identity as an outsider is part of what helped get him elected. Although, I can’t help but compare him to Pete Buttigeg, a sweet talking politician who easily loved but lacks much experience. I want to learn more about Carter’s time in office, and I intend to. Nevertheless, his time in office seems to be accept as a bit of a debacle.
All in all, I loved this book. It gave me everything I wanted and more. I felt engaged and eager to discuss what I was learning. What’s more, I felt the strong urge to continue learning even about Kennedy who I still don’t care much about. Lastly, this book shattered my opinion of Carter, and forces me to reckon with my own tendency to idealize politicians...
5/5!
Thank you to NetGalley and Twelve Books for an e-arc of this book in exchange for a fair and honest review.
I heard about this book on an NPR show and was intrigued by the premise. The story follows President Carter in his reelection campaign for president as he is challenged, as an incumbent president, by Ted Kennedy. This was news to me. Nobody challenges a sitting president. Except, this time, someone did. This comes before my time, but it’s recent enough to feel modern. That was why I asked for a copy to review. It ended up being even more relevant than I realized.
Ted was a Kennedy, raised like royalty with the privilege of his family, and this is in stark contrast to Carter came from a much smaller background. His father was a peanut farmer, but he left the farm for the Navy where he got a Bachelor of Science. After his father’s death, he left the Navy to return home. There was little money to be had from his father’s death, so we essentially a lowly farmer. He began having political aspirations that would drive him into the Georgia Senate and eventually governor. He ran on a platform of antisegregation, but it was still a very problematic one. He never really lied, but he worked really hard to mislead southern whites to make them think he was your traditional southern democrats. This was the first indication of his political mindset. He was not afraid to put on the fact that was needed.
I have to say, this was all mind boggling to me. I have had such an elevated view of Carter, but this turns him into a bit of a…well politician. I don’t hate the act of politicking, but I can’t help but question his authenticity. Did he believe what he said? He definitely fought for it, eventually, but was that because he wanted that or because he saw a path to victory with it? I don’t know the answer, but I need to learn more about him. This book really motivated me to do that.
On the flipside, Kennedy’s background was, as I said, like a Kennedy. He was designed for public office, and he was driven by much of the entitlement that came with being a Kennedy. It’s really interesting because he was arguably more progressive than Carter. That would end up being part of the platform he used against Carter. Although, I can’t help to ask how much was true convection versus entitlement.
I’m not as interested in delving into Kennedy’s background. I believe he joined the senate before he would challenge Carter (I read this a month ago now), but he was always seen as a potential contender. The only reason he didn’t challenge Carter in his first go was due to his history of major politic scandals. The biggest one being his, likely drunk, driving a car off a bridge into a lake. He escaped, but the same can’t be said for his girlfriend (or someone he had on the side, because he was a major womanizer). The real kicker here, is Kennedy just left the scene. If had a called for help, she would have a survived. Evidence suggest that she survived for, I believe, up to an hour after. Somehow, this did not end his career. He would go on to serve in the senate until his death. It is mindboggling but also too easy to believe given his race, gender, and class.
I left this book with a much lower opinion of both of them. Not that Kennedy was very memorable. They both had their problems, and this book spends maybe a third of its time talking about just this. I absolutely applaud it for that. I think it was necessary for Ward to give us sufficient context for everything that led to this challenge. Of course, a big player was also the many failures of Carter who was universally hated even by his own party, but understand, the feud between Kennedy and Carter was still fairly personal.
It was a tight campaign, but Carter managed to eventually pull though. I am less interested with the final details than the comparisons to today. Carter would go on to lose reelection to Ronald Regan. A racist celebrity with zero experience. I can’t help but see the contrast with a more recent campaign. Not long ago, a democrat ran for office. She was not an incumbent, but it was pretty well understood she’d win reelection. I am not critiquing her opponent for running. Primaries are a part of the process. However, this ideolog ran on a sense of purity, like Carter. He demonized and ostracized his opponent. Even as it was clear (more clear than even with Carter) that he would not win. Even after losing, he failed to really support his candidate. The result was we got a Regan-esk politician with not actual understanding of how to run.
Of course, Drumpf is arguably worse than Regan. What’s more, Clinton was a woman, and it’s interesting to see how Bernie has played with Biden, likely in part because of the damage he sees he caused. To be clear, neither Carter nor Clinton were perfect, but we can’t ignore the role they played in this process. Clinton was far more prepared for office than Carter. I can’t help but question whether Carter was even prepared. Sure, he had a background in science, but he was still very new to politics. His identity as an outsider is part of what helped get him elected. Although, I can’t help but compare him to Pete Buttigeg, a sweet talking politician who easily loved but lacks much experience. I want to learn more about Carter’s time in office, and I intend to. Nevertheless, his time in office seems to be accept as a bit of a debacle.
All in all, I loved this book. It gave me everything I wanted and more. I felt engaged and eager to discuss what I was learning. What’s more, I felt the strong urge to continue learning even about Kennedy who I still don’t care much about. Lastly, this book shattered my opinion of Carter, and forces me to reckon with my own tendency to idealize politicians...
5/5!
January 3, 2022
This is a fascinating look at the inter-Democratic Party clash in the 1980 primary. While I'm not convinced it "broke the Democratic Party," the conflict between left and liberal Democrats is common enough in the 20th and 21st centuries that the fight between Carter and Kennedy is a valuable touch point for historical comparison. The author does a good job looking at the character of both men, and works to reveal the particular contexts of their wins and loses, while keeping an eye on the larger themes of Democratic Party politics.
June 28, 2020
A wonderfully entertaining, consistently hilarious political history of the arson that annhilated the oldest political party in the world four decades ago this August. Ted Kennedy comes off like The Brat Who Redeemed Himself, while Carter fares far better as The Puritan With The Underrated Presidency. This page-turning gem averages a laugh-out loud anecdote per page. Highly recommended.
July 1, 2019
While visiting our public library one afternoon, desperate for new reading material but not quite knowing what kind I wanted, I finally pulled this book off the new-books shelf and checked it out. I then spent the next few days pondering whether I really wanted to read a book about Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy; I am not particularly fond of either man, after all, and I find Kennedy to be especially reprehensible. At one point I even picked up the unopened book as I headed out the door, intending to return it to the library unread, but then I paused for a moment and decided to give it a chance.
I'm glad now that I did so. Jimmy Carter's presidency, which formed part of America's landscape and my own during my mid-twenties, does not evoke happy memories today, partly because I still see him as a spectacularly inept Chief Executive, and partly because underneath the toothy grin and outward charm, Jimmy Carter was an essentially humorless man, and often mean-spirited as well. This book chronicles the battle between Carter and Kennedy as the latter challenged him for the Democratic party nomination for president in 1980. I followed their internecine warfare while it was going on, and at the time it reminded me of nothing so much as watching a slow-motion train wreck. I relived those days four decades later, while reading Jon Ward's absorbing account of this half-forgotten tale, remembered today mostly by its surviving participants and history aficionados like myself. Ward covers the pivotal moments of the rivalry in intimate detail; for instance, he devotes an entire chapter to a vivid, blow-by-blow account of the infamous Kennedy interview with Roger Mudd, which CBS aired on the same day the Iran hostage crisis began. (In some places throughout the book, Ward does go into a bit too much detail, as in his rather tedious description of what Gerald Ford was wearing as he was interviewed during that year's Republican National Convention).
This is not a story that is going to interest everyone, and as I mentioned above, I nearly decided not to read it myself. But for anyone interested in the postwar political history of the United States, I highly recommend it. Come to think of it, I have a young nephew who might enjoy it very much!
I'm glad now that I did so. Jimmy Carter's presidency, which formed part of America's landscape and my own during my mid-twenties, does not evoke happy memories today, partly because I still see him as a spectacularly inept Chief Executive, and partly because underneath the toothy grin and outward charm, Jimmy Carter was an essentially humorless man, and often mean-spirited as well. This book chronicles the battle between Carter and Kennedy as the latter challenged him for the Democratic party nomination for president in 1980. I followed their internecine warfare while it was going on, and at the time it reminded me of nothing so much as watching a slow-motion train wreck. I relived those days four decades later, while reading Jon Ward's absorbing account of this half-forgotten tale, remembered today mostly by its surviving participants and history aficionados like myself. Ward covers the pivotal moments of the rivalry in intimate detail; for instance, he devotes an entire chapter to a vivid, blow-by-blow account of the infamous Kennedy interview with Roger Mudd, which CBS aired on the same day the Iran hostage crisis began. (In some places throughout the book, Ward does go into a bit too much detail, as in his rather tedious description of what Gerald Ford was wearing as he was interviewed during that year's Republican National Convention).
This is not a story that is going to interest everyone, and as I mentioned above, I nearly decided not to read it myself. But for anyone interested in the postwar political history of the United States, I highly recommend it. Come to think of it, I have a young nephew who might enjoy it very much!
April 19, 2019
This book was rich with details about both Carter and Kennedy, and the author worked hard to portray the two rivals as they really were. There is no sugarcoating the ugly race. Where I quibble with the book is it does not deliver the promise of how this race changed the Democratic Party. It certainly impacted both men but there was a lack of detail on how the Democratic Party as a whole was impacted either in policy or style.
August 22, 2020
Each time I read a book about a former president, I am always astounded by what I did not know. The amount of details that I either did not pay attention to at the time (because I was young and not really interested in politics) or because we are not privy to the whole picture. The nuances of character between President Carter and Senator Kennedy couldn't be more different and yet are much the same. Each was driven to succeed, to do their best, and had something to prove to themselves. Neither of these men could see in the other the strengths they had to offer only perceived weaknesses. Was it because they themselves internalized the same failings? I learned a lot about each mans beginnings and the roads which led them to DC. Their inner struggles, character, dedication to lead and achieve more, but most of all their legacies. It takes a special kind of person to put themselves out in the public eye of politics to be praised by one side and yet reviled by the other and the ever changing mood of the press. Never quite able to please everyone, having to choose your words so carefully, and for all to see your actions judged not just daily but every second of the day. It is a wonder anyone puts themselves through such a trial. But these men are noble men (no one is perfect and yet we expect them to be) who show us in the end that they care about making the US and the world a better place for them having giving so much of themselves.
I tried to remember when things went so wrong in Congress with each side not willing to work together. I was glad Mr. Ward wisely included this piece of history for us all to see. Things have gotten worse since then, it is not just recently we have become so divided.
I am surprised we are fighting the same issues about racism, healthcare, cuts to social services and woman's issues. These issues were as important then as they are today and yet it feels as if little progress has been made.
There were a lot of things I didn't remember such as President Reagan using the phrase "Make America Great Again" (and here I thought it was a new thought slogan.) Nor did I remember the Republicans Convention VP controversy with Ford and Bush, and the list goes on. I am glad to see that I was right that President Carter was a good man. But the idea that he was angry does not feel right to me. My impression now is that he so driven and felt he had so much to accomplish and as he learned so little time to do so, He actually has achieved more accolades for his efforts after leaving office. I am glad to have been able to read this book and look forward to reading many more books about our President's lives.
I tried to remember when things went so wrong in Congress with each side not willing to work together. I was glad Mr. Ward wisely included this piece of history for us all to see. Things have gotten worse since then, it is not just recently we have become so divided.
I am surprised we are fighting the same issues about racism, healthcare, cuts to social services and woman's issues. These issues were as important then as they are today and yet it feels as if little progress has been made.
There were a lot of things I didn't remember such as President Reagan using the phrase "Make America Great Again" (and here I thought it was a new thought slogan.) Nor did I remember the Republicans Convention VP controversy with Ford and Bush, and the list goes on. I am glad to see that I was right that President Carter was a good man. But the idea that he was angry does not feel right to me. My impression now is that he so driven and felt he had so much to accomplish and as he learned so little time to do so, He actually has achieved more accolades for his efforts after leaving office. I am glad to have been able to read this book and look forward to reading many more books about our President's lives.
August 18, 2019
Ward has a light style with the subject of Ted Kennedy's primary campaign against Jimmy Carter. He skips a lot of the nitty-gritty details of the primary calender and focuses on the personalities of the two rivals, with ample time given to their respective personal histories. The narrative is compelling because it deals with both men during a time when they were not at their best. Ward gives a good and thorough explanation of why Kennedy ran and how Carter was able to defeat him. The real poignancy comes from the fact that the victory proved so hollow, as Carter got crushed by Reagan and the New Deal coalition of the Democratic party was killed in the process.
But both Carter and Kenney went on to have impressive third acts of American life and Ward puts that in proper perspective in the final chapter of the book.
One real highlight was a chapter devoted to the disastrous interviw Kennedy gave Roger Mudd. Everyone remembers that Kennedy whiffed on the question of why he wanted to be president, but I didn't appreciate just how dogged Mudd was in calling out the bullshit explanation that Kennedy has put forth in response to the death of Marry Jo Kopekne at Chappaquiddick. The subject of that chapter could probably make a compelling book of its own.
But both Carter and Kenney went on to have impressive third acts of American life and Ward puts that in proper perspective in the final chapter of the book.
One real highlight was a chapter devoted to the disastrous interviw Kennedy gave Roger Mudd. Everyone remembers that Kennedy whiffed on the question of why he wanted to be president, but I didn't appreciate just how dogged Mudd was in calling out the bullshit explanation that Kennedy has put forth in response to the death of Marry Jo Kopekne at Chappaquiddick. The subject of that chapter could probably make a compelling book of its own.
May 16, 2021
Absolutely fascinating. It seems like a very balanced and honest portrayal of the two mens’ trajectories: Carter the practically self-made, hard working, obsessive, unassuming southerner is a stark contrast to the entitled rich kid with unbearable expectations to carry whilst being without the talent or vision to fulfil them.
At times the two men could be equally petty. Carter was a control freak in the White House whose struggles with wit and self-deprecating humour hurt him electorally. The pressure of the Kennedy legend, his ego and boundless sense of self belief led Kennedy to mount a ridiculous challenge to a sitting and objectively successful Democratic president. And even when it was clear that Kennedy could not win the nomination he let the contest drag on and on, then tried to change party rules to clinch it. Like his older brothers he tried to be all things to all people, but he was less effective at it.
Although he could be as competitive and pragmatic as the rest, Carter lacked a ruthless and strategic edge that ultimately, I think, contributed to his loss of the 1980 election. However, I also believe he is the most decent and honest man to have sat in the Oval Office in modern times. Kennedy was one of the most effective senators ever and, if somehow one manages to ignore Chappaquiddick and the other questionable aspects of his personal life, you could feel sorry for a man who was saddled with such a heavy burden of expectation that he never asked for.
At times the two men could be equally petty. Carter was a control freak in the White House whose struggles with wit and self-deprecating humour hurt him electorally. The pressure of the Kennedy legend, his ego and boundless sense of self belief led Kennedy to mount a ridiculous challenge to a sitting and objectively successful Democratic president. And even when it was clear that Kennedy could not win the nomination he let the contest drag on and on, then tried to change party rules to clinch it. Like his older brothers he tried to be all things to all people, but he was less effective at it.
Although he could be as competitive and pragmatic as the rest, Carter lacked a ruthless and strategic edge that ultimately, I think, contributed to his loss of the 1980 election. However, I also believe he is the most decent and honest man to have sat in the Oval Office in modern times. Kennedy was one of the most effective senators ever and, if somehow one manages to ignore Chappaquiddick and the other questionable aspects of his personal life, you could feel sorry for a man who was saddled with such a heavy burden of expectation that he never asked for.
July 8, 2019
This was a great pick from Beach (aka book club member Branden Beachy).
Sometimes political books are dangerous - as part of your group might be Conservative, and part might be Liberal. Even histories can get bogged down with bias. But this had something for everybody. It didn't paint Ted Kennedy or Jimmy Carter in an inappropriately negative light. And kind of lauded them both. So, the Liberals were happy. But it was also about the destruction of the Democratic Party... so the Conservatives were happy: win-win!
I knew quite a bit about both Kennedy and Carter. But it turns out (as is the case with most things) there was a lot that I didn't know.
For instance, I knew the Iran Hostage Crisis more or less gave was the nail in the coffin of Carter's presidency. What I didn't know was that it was what secured him the nomination - keeping it out of the hands of Ted Kennedy.
I knew about Chappaquiddick of course, but even with the media bringing it up every time Ted Kennedy's name is invoked, there was still much I didn't know.
Some of the group came away thinking less of Carter. Some of the group came away thinking more of him. For some of us, it was a little of both.
Personally, I think that in the future, historians will be a little bit kinder toward his (and Nixon's) presidency, and I think they'll be a little bit more critical of Reagan.
But who knows.
Last thought: I thought it was cool that Hunter S. Thompson made so many cameos in the book, since I had already decided upon Fear and Loathing as our next book.
Sometimes political books are dangerous - as part of your group might be Conservative, and part might be Liberal. Even histories can get bogged down with bias. But this had something for everybody. It didn't paint Ted Kennedy or Jimmy Carter in an inappropriately negative light. And kind of lauded them both. So, the Liberals were happy. But it was also about the destruction of the Democratic Party... so the Conservatives were happy: win-win!
I knew quite a bit about both Kennedy and Carter. But it turns out (as is the case with most things) there was a lot that I didn't know.
For instance, I knew the Iran Hostage Crisis more or less gave was the nail in the coffin of Carter's presidency. What I didn't know was that it was what secured him the nomination - keeping it out of the hands of Ted Kennedy.
I knew about Chappaquiddick of course, but even with the media bringing it up every time Ted Kennedy's name is invoked, there was still much I didn't know.
Some of the group came away thinking less of Carter. Some of the group came away thinking more of him. For some of us, it was a little of both.
Personally, I think that in the future, historians will be a little bit kinder toward his (and Nixon's) presidency, and I think they'll be a little bit more critical of Reagan.
But who knows.
Last thought: I thought it was cool that Hunter S. Thompson made so many cameos in the book, since I had already decided upon Fear and Loathing as our next book.
April 30, 2021
This was a really fascinating read and it was hard for me to put it down. Jon Ward peels back the layers of a complex relationship between Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy. I am a conservative Republican who is a SBC minister. There would be many differences between myself and Jimmy Carter. Yet, as a Southerner, I sympathize a lot with the difficulties President Carter faced in office. The President encountered many who labeled him as "weird" and I think much of that stemmed from him being a Southerner and an evangelical. Carter and Kennedy were from two dramatically different worlds but driven by ambition. If you are curious about political history and how culture shapes us in so many ways, read this book.
March 11, 2019
Ward masterfully tells a story about which I only knew the most general outline. (Cut me some slack — I was 8 the 1980 presidential election!) Having met or heard stories about a number of the folks involved in that campaign made it even more interesting. Anyone interested in politics should read this book.
August 2, 2022
This is not a genre or a subject I would have picked for myself, but when a mystery one-dollar book is purchased, you have to go with it! For a non-fiction book about 1980s American politics, this was an easy read, although not one I raced through. (I struggle with non-fiction unless it's about something I'm really interested in.) I learned a lot about Teddy Kennedy and Jimmy Carter, and about the US political landscape during their battle. So yeah, surprisingly engaging!
October 12, 2019
I didn't know anything about the 1980 election other than Carter lost badly to Reagan. Not only was this book an eye opener, but it also explained the ebb and flow of politics through the years. I only hope that we will swing back to a time of promise and hope, away from despair and "malaise."
October 15, 2023
I really liked this. Really interesting back and forth comparisons between Carter and Kennedy - their upbringing and life experiences were night and day. It’s also insane to think Ted Kennedy literally killed a woman and got to keep serving in the senate for 40 years. Much to think about!
February 21, 2025
I really enjoyed this book. The author gave a detailed description of the story of the Kennedy/Carter primaries of 1980. I feel like I learned a lot about Carter. I did not know, and I’ve read a lot of his books and books about him. It was insightful.
January 31, 2019
The 1980 election marked the beginning of the Democrats gradual drifting to the right, culminating in its present state of Republican Light.
February 23, 2019
Fascinating read.
February 13, 2019
A marvelous account about the fight between two giants that ultimately shaped the face of the
modern Democratic Party.
modern Democratic Party.
July 29, 2019
Covering what is now a historical period, which encompassed the presidential nomination contest between Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy, this book eerily mirrors today's Democratic party with its familiar establishment versus progressive tensions. Jon Ward provides an interwoven exposé of two very different persons, from their family backgrounds to their approach to governing. Each learned to survive in the political world he grew up in. Both were ambitious, and each pursued his advancement in different ways as fit his own personality.
The procedural changes in the early 1970s, that allowed George McGovern to secure the Democratic nomination in 1972 and Jimmy Carter to do the same in 1976, played a role in the relationship between Carter and Kennedy in 1980 when Carter was the incumbent president. Comparing those events with an earlier period in which party bosses negotiated in the proverbial smoke filled rooms, the author speculates about the downside of too much democracy, citing Donald Trump's incitement of racist and xenophobic elements to wrench the 2016 nomination from the Republican establishment. Carter had won the popular vote in the 1980 primary, and the nomination to run for re-election. Kennedy had eventually hunkered down with only the carry over staff from his father's and brother's campaigns—mostly older men who were ill equipped to manage under the new Democratic party rules. Would it have really been better to return to the old ways? All things considered, I think not! Certainly not now in the 21st Century—a democratically run primary process is the only way the Democrats can self-correct with greatly needed new blood. The skills needed are those that communicate with voters, who are not as clueless as some campaigns appear to think they are.
At different points in 1979 and 1980, the nomination and likely the presidency were Carter's or Kennedy's to lose. In the end, the both stumbled in ways that ensured neither of them would win in the general election. Kennedy's health care plans would have to wait for the election of Barack Obama in 2008. Although Carter had actually achieved the deal with Iran for the release of the hostages, he was out of office by the time they returned home and Ronald Reagan took credit for Carter's accomplishment. The whole series of episodes was like a Shakespearean tragedy—Camelot's end indeed.
Kennedy's less than stellar character was a perennial campaign issue, and in spite of his seeming preachiness Carter had his moral failings as well (though of a different nature). Today we're on the flip side of that coin with the Republican base embracing the documented sexual predator in the White House, apparently believing he will in the end protect them from the monsters they fear—while in 1980 the progressive base of the Democratic party viscerally wanted Ted Kennedy to be president in spite of his cheating in college, the tragic death of a young woman in a car he abandoned, and his infamous personal behavior somewhat similar to that of Trump today, expecting that the senator would deliver for them more progressive policies that President Carter had little enthusiasm for.
Does character count in political office? The honest answer is probably "only if it delivers the desired results." We should be candid with ourselves about that.
The procedural changes in the early 1970s, that allowed George McGovern to secure the Democratic nomination in 1972 and Jimmy Carter to do the same in 1976, played a role in the relationship between Carter and Kennedy in 1980 when Carter was the incumbent president. Comparing those events with an earlier period in which party bosses negotiated in the proverbial smoke filled rooms, the author speculates about the downside of too much democracy, citing Donald Trump's incitement of racist and xenophobic elements to wrench the 2016 nomination from the Republican establishment. Carter had won the popular vote in the 1980 primary, and the nomination to run for re-election. Kennedy had eventually hunkered down with only the carry over staff from his father's and brother's campaigns—mostly older men who were ill equipped to manage under the new Democratic party rules. Would it have really been better to return to the old ways? All things considered, I think not! Certainly not now in the 21st Century—a democratically run primary process is the only way the Democrats can self-correct with greatly needed new blood. The skills needed are those that communicate with voters, who are not as clueless as some campaigns appear to think they are.
At different points in 1979 and 1980, the nomination and likely the presidency were Carter's or Kennedy's to lose. In the end, the both stumbled in ways that ensured neither of them would win in the general election. Kennedy's health care plans would have to wait for the election of Barack Obama in 2008. Although Carter had actually achieved the deal with Iran for the release of the hostages, he was out of office by the time they returned home and Ronald Reagan took credit for Carter's accomplishment. The whole series of episodes was like a Shakespearean tragedy—Camelot's end indeed.
Kennedy's less than stellar character was a perennial campaign issue, and in spite of his seeming preachiness Carter had his moral failings as well (though of a different nature). Today we're on the flip side of that coin with the Republican base embracing the documented sexual predator in the White House, apparently believing he will in the end protect them from the monsters they fear—while in 1980 the progressive base of the Democratic party viscerally wanted Ted Kennedy to be president in spite of his cheating in college, the tragic death of a young woman in a car he abandoned, and his infamous personal behavior somewhat similar to that of Trump today, expecting that the senator would deliver for them more progressive policies that President Carter had little enthusiasm for.
Does character count in political office? The honest answer is probably "only if it delivers the desired results." We should be candid with ourselves about that.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 133 reviews