What do you think?
Rate this book
Hubert Humphrey: The Conscience of the Country
One of the great liberal politicians of the twentieth century, rediscovered in an important, definitive biography
Hubert Humphrey (1911–1978) was one of the great liberal leaders of postwar American politics, yet because he never made it to the Oval Office he has been largely overlooked by biographers. His career encompassed three well†‘known high the civil rights speech at the 1948 Democratic Convention that risked his political future; his shepherding of the 1964 Civil Rights Act through the Senate; and his near†‘victory in the 1968 presidential election, one of the angriest and most divisive in the country’s history.
Historian Arnold A. Offner has explored vast troves of archival records to recapture Humphrey’s life, giving us previously unknown details of the vice president’s fractious relationship with Lyndon Johnson, showing how Johnson colluded with Richard Nixon to deny Humphrey the presidency, and describing the most neglected aspect of Humphrey’s his major legislative achievements after returning to the Senate in 1970. This definitive biography rediscovers one of America’s great political figures.
Hubert Humphrey (1911–1978) was one of the great liberal leaders of postwar American politics, yet because he never made it to the Oval Office he has been largely overlooked by biographers. His career encompassed three well†‘known high the civil rights speech at the 1948 Democratic Convention that risked his political future; his shepherding of the 1964 Civil Rights Act through the Senate; and his near†‘victory in the 1968 presidential election, one of the angriest and most divisive in the country’s history.
Historian Arnold A. Offner has explored vast troves of archival records to recapture Humphrey’s life, giving us previously unknown details of the vice president’s fractious relationship with Lyndon Johnson, showing how Johnson colluded with Richard Nixon to deny Humphrey the presidency, and describing the most neglected aspect of Humphrey’s his major legislative achievements after returning to the Senate in 1970. This definitive biography rediscovers one of America’s great political figures.
758 pages, Kindle Edition
First published August 21, 2018
15 people are currently reading
250 people want to read
About the author
Arnold A. Offner
6 books2 followersArnold A. Offner earned a B.A. from Columbia University in 1959, and an M.A. in 1960 and Ph.D in 1964 from Indiana University. He taught at Syracuse University, Boston University, and Lafayette College, where he is Cornelia F. Hugel Professor of History Emeritus at Lafayette College. He is a past president of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
June 11, 2019
This is a new biography of Hubert Horatio Humphrey Jr. (1911-1978). The book is well written and meticulously researched. The biography appears to be unbiased. The book covers the life of HHH but primarily focuses on his political career.
Offner points out that HHH had a great career, but his mistake was becoming Lyndon B. Johnson’s vice president. I found it interesting to compare in my mind how HHH compares to the situation of our current politics. Offner said HHH stated The Moral Test of any government is the way it treats three groups of citizens: Its children, the needy sick and handicapped and the third is the elderly.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this biography; it brought back memories and I also learned a number of things. Arnold A. Offner is a Professor Emeritus of History. I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is twenty-two hours and eight minutes. Jonathan Yen does an excellent job narrating the book. Yen is a voice actor and an Earphone Award winning audiobook narrator.
Offner points out that HHH had a great career, but his mistake was becoming Lyndon B. Johnson’s vice president. I found it interesting to compare in my mind how HHH compares to the situation of our current politics. Offner said HHH stated The Moral Test of any government is the way it treats three groups of citizens: Its children, the needy sick and handicapped and the third is the elderly.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this biography; it brought back memories and I also learned a number of things. Arnold A. Offner is a Professor Emeritus of History. I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is twenty-two hours and eight minutes. Jonathan Yen does an excellent job narrating the book. Yen is a voice actor and an Earphone Award winning audiobook narrator.
December 31, 2025
In
Hubert Humphrey: The Conscience of the Country
, Arnold A. Offner has written a political biography of a senator from Minnesota who would become in 1964 Vice President under Lyndon Johnson and the 1968 Democratic presidential nominee. He gained national notoriety with his 1948 Democratic convention speech on Civil Rights. Humphrey was said to practice the politics of joy. He was called the Happy Warrior and described as having one of the most creative minds in the Senate.
The crux of this book is Humphrey’s relationship with President Johnson. From his time serving in the Senate, Humphrey remembered that as Majority Leader Johnson was “extraordinarily self-centered, highly abusive of people, and given to paranoid reactions.” (Page 215) As Humphrey attempted to assert himself he would find himself undercut by the president. Early in 1965 as the president was considering a bombing campaign in North Vietnam, Humphrey wrote a memorandum to the president pointing out that military escalation was wrong and risked national and political tragedy. But a paranoid Johnson saw the memo as a political maneuver by Humphrey to gain political cover. An infuriated Johnson now excluded Humphrey from meetings that involved major foreign policy matters. This would burden Humphrey with the war in Vietnam for the rest of his political life. His choice to remain in Johnson’s good graces led to his being a “loudspeaker” for Johnson’s policies. This resulted in a splintering of Humphrey’s liberal constituency and the Democratic party.
Among the tragedies of the Vietnam War during the Lyndon Johnson presidency is the destruction of the political career of Hubert Humphrey. Although there is evidence that Johnson sabotaged Humphrey’s campaign the fault for Humphrey’s loss in this election lies with Humphrey. Following the election “He asked himself repeatedly whether he should have distanced himself sooner from President Johnson on the war, The answer is obvious.” (Page 336)
The social programs developed during the New Deal by FDR were major accomplishments for liberals and progressives. These programs were sustained during the presidencies of Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy by something known as the “Liberal Consensus”. Johnson who was a great admirer of FDR wanted to become the next FDR, and his Civil Eights and Voting Rights bills along with his Great Society programs were steps toward fulfilling that wish. No one would have been a better choice as president to continue these programs than Hubert Humphrey.
Both Humphrey and Johnson share the blame for the election loss in 1968 to Richard Nixon. In the Nixon presidency we saw the first steps toward the unraveling of these programs. This is the tragedy that we are living with today.
The crux of this book is Humphrey’s relationship with President Johnson. From his time serving in the Senate, Humphrey remembered that as Majority Leader Johnson was “extraordinarily self-centered, highly abusive of people, and given to paranoid reactions.” (Page 215) As Humphrey attempted to assert himself he would find himself undercut by the president. Early in 1965 as the president was considering a bombing campaign in North Vietnam, Humphrey wrote a memorandum to the president pointing out that military escalation was wrong and risked national and political tragedy. But a paranoid Johnson saw the memo as a political maneuver by Humphrey to gain political cover. An infuriated Johnson now excluded Humphrey from meetings that involved major foreign policy matters. This would burden Humphrey with the war in Vietnam for the rest of his political life. His choice to remain in Johnson’s good graces led to his being a “loudspeaker” for Johnson’s policies. This resulted in a splintering of Humphrey’s liberal constituency and the Democratic party.
Among the tragedies of the Vietnam War during the Lyndon Johnson presidency is the destruction of the political career of Hubert Humphrey. Although there is evidence that Johnson sabotaged Humphrey’s campaign the fault for Humphrey’s loss in this election lies with Humphrey. Following the election “He asked himself repeatedly whether he should have distanced himself sooner from President Johnson on the war, The answer is obvious.” (Page 336)
The social programs developed during the New Deal by FDR were major accomplishments for liberals and progressives. These programs were sustained during the presidencies of Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy by something known as the “Liberal Consensus”. Johnson who was a great admirer of FDR wanted to become the next FDR, and his Civil Eights and Voting Rights bills along with his Great Society programs were steps toward fulfilling that wish. No one would have been a better choice as president to continue these programs than Hubert Humphrey.
Both Humphrey and Johnson share the blame for the election loss in 1968 to Richard Nixon. In the Nixon presidency we saw the first steps toward the unraveling of these programs. This is the tragedy that we are living with today.
July 10, 2021
It is not too often you read a biography that significantly changes your perception of the person you are reading about. This is likely for a variety of reasons. Selection bias would be the most significant. Rarely do we read a biography of someone we don’t already have knowledge and opinions about. Add into this our siloed news content ( and everything else ) and usually we read a bio slanted the way we feel. I am guilty as well. I have found books by Craig Shirley and Amity Shales ( both right leaning ) not to my taste.
So in picking up this biography of Hubert Horatio Humphrey I certainly did not expect to change my opinion of him. And I didn’t, really. The truth was I did not know that much about him. I’ve read about the speech at the 1948 convention, knew he was Johnson’s Vice President and then lost to Nixon. I knew my Dad said he was a good man when he died and I was aware that when the Minnesota Twins played in a domed stadium it was named after him.
There was much more. Humphrey was “ The Happy Warrior”, a classic liberal. What made him these things also crippled him in a way. An intense desire to be respected yes, but an even greater need to be liked. When he came into the Senate much of the Democrats strength resided in the hands of the Senators from the South. Racists like Richard Russell and James Eastland. It was a cold reception he gained. Over his first decade in office it was majority leader LBJ who gained him admittance to the club so to speak. In time even those Senators who fought his civil rights proposals tooth and nail, year after year, admitted “ I don’t know why but I just cannot help like Hubert.”
Much of his legacy for the layperson is as the failed candidate against Nixon in 1968. And it is here that we see him perhaps at his weakest. Having attached himself as a loyal Vice President to Johnson’s war policy he could not, as a candidate, bring himself to break for the administration. Johnson, tied and tangled up in the Vietnam War was all but openly hostile to his Vice President’s candidacy. Nixon, smooth as an oily salesman, promised not to embarrass him should he win in regards to Vietnam and made no bones of his plan to adhere more to a Johnson see the war thru strategy.
Still, by the last week of the race, Johnson ( and Humphrey ) knew of Nixon’s treasonous activity with the South Vietnamese. But, Johnson made it clear he would not provide proof should Humphrey talk publicly about the Nixon teams efforts to abort the peace process. There is much subjective thought as to why.
Firstly, one imagines that for a variety of acknowledged and not a few that he might not understand himself, Johnson did not want Humphrey to win the Presidency. If his policies were going to be reversed and altered it was easier on his psyche to have the opposition party do so.
Secondly, the relationship between the President and the former Senator was fraught. Johnson demanded total, subservient, loyalty but, conversely, disrespected Humphrey for being so.
I think, lastly, and perhaps underrated as a reason is that Johnson himself had pulled some well known tricks himself in elections. His Senatorial campaign in 1948 that really launched his career is widely acknowledged to have been stolen in the precincts near the Mexican border with ballot boxes stuffing. And that was not the only skeleton for Johnson. From the shady media empire built in Ladybirds name through Johnson’s efforts, to the Bobby Baker scandal dropped after President Kennedy’s assassination, Johnson had much to fear from a wounded, but still elected President Nixon.
As an aside I personally think Johnson might have admired In a man to man way Nixon’s win at all cost efforts. He could see that Nixon was willing to do anything to be President and saw himself in those actions.
A few other notes from and thoughts created by the book:
Is still is remarkable for a person of today’s world to see that in the fifties it was liberal Democrat Humphrey and liberal Republicans who co sponsored civil rights bills year after year. In those times, often it was regional sympathies and not party that predicated your vote.
Kennedy proposed a civil rights bill but having won in such a close race was unable to force the issue. It seems unlikely that he would have gained passage of his civil rights bill in a second term.
In the last year I read a biography of Che Guerra and it demonstrated amply what is touched upon here. In the mid century there was a battle for influence between Red China and the Soviet Union. Countries like Cuba and to some extent North Vietnam were able to play the two off each other.
It’s hard to imagine the changes in Humphreys life. Taking turns going to college with his brother he graduates from pharmaceutical school in an accelerated fashion to run one of his Fathers small stores. Less than twenty years later he is giving his famous key note address at the Democratic national convention and, in the next decade , will be visiting with and negotiating with Kruschev.
It should also be noted that in that your of Russia when he returned home the Republican Secretary of State lauded his statesmanship. Today an opposition member touring another country is there usually to act at cross purposes with the party in power.
In 1946 some wealthy Minnesota businessman, seeing his success as Mayor of Minneapolis and fearing his running for Senator tried to convince him to become a Republican. He would have instantly been made prosperous through gifts and advantages given. But, before the reader, can think too positively of him turning down those offers and sticking to his principles in 1948 after his election to the Senate we are told that a rich agribusiness friend sold him two lots on a lake for one dollar each and other friends made arrangements to build his house there. When we consider that four years later Nixon gave his “ Checkers “ speech is this much different.
It’s interesting and just horrifically sad that in the mid fifties Humphrey was trying to work out a solution to repatriate Refugee Palestinians ( from the 1948 war ) to Israel and now many descendants of those original refugees still have no real homeland.
I never lived thru the Red Scare. I’m a borderline socialist. But I have lived through the consistent raising of one boogeyman or another as the great threat to America. Watching Humphrey’s language and his votes through the late forties and fifties it’s easy to see why it’s so easy. There is no nuance to American political thought. Bender dead than red reads better on a bumper sticker than our constitution is built to withstand dissent. Humphrey voted to allow the FBI to arrest, if need be, suspected Communists. It is truly remarkable how great the fear was and how easily manipulated people are.
But…we still are. Mexican caravans, Black Lives Matter, Critical Race Theory. Much of America should just wave a flag that says “ We are white and we are scared. “. It would at least be true.
Humphrey was a good man. He, most likely, was just too good to be President.
So in picking up this biography of Hubert Horatio Humphrey I certainly did not expect to change my opinion of him. And I didn’t, really. The truth was I did not know that much about him. I’ve read about the speech at the 1948 convention, knew he was Johnson’s Vice President and then lost to Nixon. I knew my Dad said he was a good man when he died and I was aware that when the Minnesota Twins played in a domed stadium it was named after him.
There was much more. Humphrey was “ The Happy Warrior”, a classic liberal. What made him these things also crippled him in a way. An intense desire to be respected yes, but an even greater need to be liked. When he came into the Senate much of the Democrats strength resided in the hands of the Senators from the South. Racists like Richard Russell and James Eastland. It was a cold reception he gained. Over his first decade in office it was majority leader LBJ who gained him admittance to the club so to speak. In time even those Senators who fought his civil rights proposals tooth and nail, year after year, admitted “ I don’t know why but I just cannot help like Hubert.”
Much of his legacy for the layperson is as the failed candidate against Nixon in 1968. And it is here that we see him perhaps at his weakest. Having attached himself as a loyal Vice President to Johnson’s war policy he could not, as a candidate, bring himself to break for the administration. Johnson, tied and tangled up in the Vietnam War was all but openly hostile to his Vice President’s candidacy. Nixon, smooth as an oily salesman, promised not to embarrass him should he win in regards to Vietnam and made no bones of his plan to adhere more to a Johnson see the war thru strategy.
Still, by the last week of the race, Johnson ( and Humphrey ) knew of Nixon’s treasonous activity with the South Vietnamese. But, Johnson made it clear he would not provide proof should Humphrey talk publicly about the Nixon teams efforts to abort the peace process. There is much subjective thought as to why.
Firstly, one imagines that for a variety of acknowledged and not a few that he might not understand himself, Johnson did not want Humphrey to win the Presidency. If his policies were going to be reversed and altered it was easier on his psyche to have the opposition party do so.
Secondly, the relationship between the President and the former Senator was fraught. Johnson demanded total, subservient, loyalty but, conversely, disrespected Humphrey for being so.
I think, lastly, and perhaps underrated as a reason is that Johnson himself had pulled some well known tricks himself in elections. His Senatorial campaign in 1948 that really launched his career is widely acknowledged to have been stolen in the precincts near the Mexican border with ballot boxes stuffing. And that was not the only skeleton for Johnson. From the shady media empire built in Ladybirds name through Johnson’s efforts, to the Bobby Baker scandal dropped after President Kennedy’s assassination, Johnson had much to fear from a wounded, but still elected President Nixon.
As an aside I personally think Johnson might have admired In a man to man way Nixon’s win at all cost efforts. He could see that Nixon was willing to do anything to be President and saw himself in those actions.
A few other notes from and thoughts created by the book:
Is still is remarkable for a person of today’s world to see that in the fifties it was liberal Democrat Humphrey and liberal Republicans who co sponsored civil rights bills year after year. In those times, often it was regional sympathies and not party that predicated your vote.
Kennedy proposed a civil rights bill but having won in such a close race was unable to force the issue. It seems unlikely that he would have gained passage of his civil rights bill in a second term.
In the last year I read a biography of Che Guerra and it demonstrated amply what is touched upon here. In the mid century there was a battle for influence between Red China and the Soviet Union. Countries like Cuba and to some extent North Vietnam were able to play the two off each other.
It’s hard to imagine the changes in Humphreys life. Taking turns going to college with his brother he graduates from pharmaceutical school in an accelerated fashion to run one of his Fathers small stores. Less than twenty years later he is giving his famous key note address at the Democratic national convention and, in the next decade , will be visiting with and negotiating with Kruschev.
It should also be noted that in that your of Russia when he returned home the Republican Secretary of State lauded his statesmanship. Today an opposition member touring another country is there usually to act at cross purposes with the party in power.
In 1946 some wealthy Minnesota businessman, seeing his success as Mayor of Minneapolis and fearing his running for Senator tried to convince him to become a Republican. He would have instantly been made prosperous through gifts and advantages given. But, before the reader, can think too positively of him turning down those offers and sticking to his principles in 1948 after his election to the Senate we are told that a rich agribusiness friend sold him two lots on a lake for one dollar each and other friends made arrangements to build his house there. When we consider that four years later Nixon gave his “ Checkers “ speech is this much different.
It’s interesting and just horrifically sad that in the mid fifties Humphrey was trying to work out a solution to repatriate Refugee Palestinians ( from the 1948 war ) to Israel and now many descendants of those original refugees still have no real homeland.
I never lived thru the Red Scare. I’m a borderline socialist. But I have lived through the consistent raising of one boogeyman or another as the great threat to America. Watching Humphrey’s language and his votes through the late forties and fifties it’s easy to see why it’s so easy. There is no nuance to American political thought. Bender dead than red reads better on a bumper sticker than our constitution is built to withstand dissent. Humphrey voted to allow the FBI to arrest, if need be, suspected Communists. It is truly remarkable how great the fear was and how easily manipulated people are.
But…we still are. Mexican caravans, Black Lives Matter, Critical Race Theory. Much of America should just wave a flag that says “ We are white and we are scared. “. It would at least be true.
Humphrey was a good man. He, most likely, was just too good to be President.
August 21, 2018
Although I have never been nearer than three thousand miles to the USA I have nevertheless always had a deep fascination with its history, culture and politics. The first American presidential election that I remembered and followed was that of 1968 which was the year that finally saw the end of that sense of hope and change that developed in the early sixties and it was arguably also the beginning of the end of that existential concept the "American Dream". The 1968 election dominates this wonderfully written and thoroughly researched biography by Arnold A. Offner which places it into the context of the political and geopolitical situation at that time and also explores how the personalities and motivations of the two Democratic Party main players Humphrey and Johnson effected the outcome of it.
Hubert Humphrey was one of if not the greatest legislators in American history. He represented Minnesota in the Senate from 1949 to 1964 and 1971 to 1978 before that he won election as mayor of Minneapolis in 1945 serving until 1948. He was an early active campaigner for civil rights fighting tirelessly for this in the face of ferocious obstructionist opposition principally from the southern segregationists within his own party. Even to achieve some fairly basic legislation he needed to display his political dexterity in securing non partisan support and showing the need to compromise. He became an expert not only in domestic but foreign policy travelling around the world in the fifties meeting world leaders including Khrushchev.
So why was it that this remarkably gifted and knowledgeable politician never made it to the Oval Office? Well after reading this book the seminal moment that might go some way to explaining this was in 1964 when Johnson offered him the Vice Presidency. This was seen after Truman and Johnson acceded through this route as perhaps the easiest and obvious next step to the Presidency but in reality for Humphrey it was a poisoned chalice due to Johnson's manipulative, controlling, paranoid nature and of course the thing that overshadowed everything else, Vietnam. Although initially he had reservations about escalating the war, as Vice President he had not only to adhere to the policy but sell it to the nation which would lead to the fragmentation of his support amoungst liberals.
Even when nominated in 1968 and running for election Johnson did everything to impede and obstruct him leading to Offner's not unreasonable assumption that he secretly favoured Nixon. Like a character from Shakespeare, Humphrey so near to achieving the ultimate prize was unable and unwilling to do the thing that was required to achieve this which was distancing himself and repudiating Johnson who he mistakenly despite the documented ritual humiliations saw as some kind of father figure.
So what lessons can be learnt from Humphrey in a world that in my humble opinion needs liberalism more than ever. Well I would say stay true to your convictions but be prepared to compromise to get things done for the benefit of society. It can be argued that Humphrey has been somewhat overlooked but this absorbing and for me quite unputdownable book goes someway to correct this.
Hubert Humphrey was one of if not the greatest legislators in American history. He represented Minnesota in the Senate from 1949 to 1964 and 1971 to 1978 before that he won election as mayor of Minneapolis in 1945 serving until 1948. He was an early active campaigner for civil rights fighting tirelessly for this in the face of ferocious obstructionist opposition principally from the southern segregationists within his own party. Even to achieve some fairly basic legislation he needed to display his political dexterity in securing non partisan support and showing the need to compromise. He became an expert not only in domestic but foreign policy travelling around the world in the fifties meeting world leaders including Khrushchev.
So why was it that this remarkably gifted and knowledgeable politician never made it to the Oval Office? Well after reading this book the seminal moment that might go some way to explaining this was in 1964 when Johnson offered him the Vice Presidency. This was seen after Truman and Johnson acceded through this route as perhaps the easiest and obvious next step to the Presidency but in reality for Humphrey it was a poisoned chalice due to Johnson's manipulative, controlling, paranoid nature and of course the thing that overshadowed everything else, Vietnam. Although initially he had reservations about escalating the war, as Vice President he had not only to adhere to the policy but sell it to the nation which would lead to the fragmentation of his support amoungst liberals.
Even when nominated in 1968 and running for election Johnson did everything to impede and obstruct him leading to Offner's not unreasonable assumption that he secretly favoured Nixon. Like a character from Shakespeare, Humphrey so near to achieving the ultimate prize was unable and unwilling to do the thing that was required to achieve this which was distancing himself and repudiating Johnson who he mistakenly despite the documented ritual humiliations saw as some kind of father figure.
So what lessons can be learnt from Humphrey in a world that in my humble opinion needs liberalism more than ever. Well I would say stay true to your convictions but be prepared to compromise to get things done for the benefit of society. It can be argued that Humphrey has been somewhat overlooked but this absorbing and for me quite unputdownable book goes someway to correct this.
September 25, 2018
This is a sensitively written and brilliantly analyzed portrait of a key figure in 20th century American politics. An outstanding liberal with a legislative record to match, Humphrey failed to reach the presidency despite several attempts. His initial failure to secure the party nomination in 1960 and then only to gain it in 1968 when his support for the Viet Nam war made his name anathema to the young and to anti-war activists assumes the proportions of a tragedy. Offner's chapters on Humphrey's relationship with LBJ and his apparent betrayal of liberal ideals in clinging to LBJ's Viet Nam policy are the most compelling part of the book, laying the groundwork for the disappointment from which he could never really recover. Offner successfully rehabilitates Humphrey's reputation without seeking to exonerate him from those fateful political decisions. A model political biography which should be a strong contender for the Pulitzer Prize.
December 16, 2018
Humphrey was one of the significant figures in American politics from the 1940s through his death in the late 1970s. Like many who never achieve the presidency, his legacy gets overlooked because of this fact. This book is a good review of his life and his career, and objectively looks at the good he did and some of his failings. A recommended read for anyone interested in American history and politics.
September 21, 2022
This book is about Lyndon Johnson's Vice President (and Minnesota's own liberal lion), Hubert Humphrey.
It wasn't a bad read, but all rather depressing. Humphrey probably wasn't as liberal as he was cracked up to be (he had no problem taking money from big business, and was offered a place in the Republican Party when he started in politics, despite his Civil Rights bent), but he stuck to the things he believed in, catching considerable grief for doing that.
He also seems to have low self-esteem. LBJ had a reputation, but Humphrey put up with far more nonsense from than I would have accepted. I know he wanted to be President, but still...
I'm also dubious of accuracy in places. The author is critical of Johnson (understandably), and dubious of elements of Robert Caro's biography of him. Given Caro's biography of him has been universally praised, you have to question the book in places. This said they truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
So all-in-all it's an interesting read, just don't expect it to be a barrel of laughs.
It wasn't a bad read, but all rather depressing. Humphrey probably wasn't as liberal as he was cracked up to be (he had no problem taking money from big business, and was offered a place in the Republican Party when he started in politics, despite his Civil Rights bent), but he stuck to the things he believed in, catching considerable grief for doing that.
He also seems to have low self-esteem. LBJ had a reputation, but Humphrey put up with far more nonsense from than I would have accepted. I know he wanted to be President, but still...
I'm also dubious of accuracy in places. The author is critical of Johnson (understandably), and dubious of elements of Robert Caro's biography of him. Given Caro's biography of him has been universally praised, you have to question the book in places. This said they truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
So all-in-all it's an interesting read, just don't expect it to be a barrel of laughs.
October 26, 2018
Why was HHH “the conscience of the country”?
In his words: The ultimate moral test of any government is the way we treat three groups of citizens. First, those in the dawn of life - our children. Second those in the shadows of life - our needy, our sick, our handicapped. Third, those in the twilight of life - our elderly.
Arnold Offner does us a service by writing a detailed and fact filled recollection of the life of a public man. From his days as mayor of Minneapolis, to his speech for civil rights at the 1948 Democratic convention, to his runs for the presidency and his renowned career as a U.S. Senator, Hubert Horatio Humphrey was indeed a “happy warrior”.
In his words: The ultimate moral test of any government is the way we treat three groups of citizens. First, those in the dawn of life - our children. Second those in the shadows of life - our needy, our sick, our handicapped. Third, those in the twilight of life - our elderly.
Arnold Offner does us a service by writing a detailed and fact filled recollection of the life of a public man. From his days as mayor of Minneapolis, to his speech for civil rights at the 1948 Democratic convention, to his runs for the presidency and his renowned career as a U.S. Senator, Hubert Horatio Humphrey was indeed a “happy warrior”.
October 4, 2018
An excellent, if ironically titled biography of one of the most accomplished and pathetic figures in modern American politics. Offner does a powerful and painful job of portraying how this man of conscience made a Faustian bargain with LBJ over Vietnam that ruined the nation and reduced Humphrey to a piteous shell who was arguably inferior to Nixon in 1968. Offner delivers a definitive look at this important figure while providing a cautionary tale worthy of Shakespeare at his darkest and most tragic.
November 29, 2018
It would be hard for me to imagine that a book about anyone could be more detailed and well researched than this one. It took me a long time to read this, but as a massive Minnesotan I thought it important to understand the contributions of HHH as the occurred largely before I was born. In light of today's politics, it's easy to think that all politicians only care about themselves and their political parties. This book is evidence that this was not always the case and a reminder of what governing once was.
July 21, 2022
America’s Chance To Be Led By A Social Democrat Spoiled By the Undemocratic Left
It’s heart breaking to read this book’s detail of the undemocratic left’s impact in ensuring that America would not be led by this compassionate extremely qualified social democrat. I thoroughly enjoying this book.
One criticism, the author was too easy on McGovern. He never mentioned that McGovern supported Henry Wallace for President in 1948, even after he allowed the Communist Party USA to take over his Progressive Party campaign. The ADA was first established to oppose Wallace’s “dough faced” supporters or least appeasers of Stalin. McGovern never expressed regret for supporting Wallace or for opposing Truman. McGovern also refused to speak out against anti-democratic groups that slowly destroyed once vibrant liberal-left organizations such as the SDS and SNCC. With this history, McGovern had no chance of winning in 1972 or any other time.
Note: It’s outrageous that the audiobook didn’t include the epilogue. It was one of the best chapters.
It’s heart breaking to read this book’s detail of the undemocratic left’s impact in ensuring that America would not be led by this compassionate extremely qualified social democrat. I thoroughly enjoying this book.
One criticism, the author was too easy on McGovern. He never mentioned that McGovern supported Henry Wallace for President in 1948, even after he allowed the Communist Party USA to take over his Progressive Party campaign. The ADA was first established to oppose Wallace’s “dough faced” supporters or least appeasers of Stalin. McGovern never expressed regret for supporting Wallace or for opposing Truman. McGovern also refused to speak out against anti-democratic groups that slowly destroyed once vibrant liberal-left organizations such as the SDS and SNCC. With this history, McGovern had no chance of winning in 1972 or any other time.
Note: It’s outrageous that the audiobook didn’t include the epilogue. It was one of the best chapters.
January 21, 2024
A good book about a good man> I remember my Union activists leaders deeply admired his liberalism. Liberalism is not a bad word. However, in today's environment, it is considered by some. Please read this book about a man who was a brilliant politician, a decent man, who had one noticeable weakness, he appeared to be more weak than worthy. To win the presidency, you must be formidable; in this book, he is portrayed as decent. Nice guys finish last.
June 11, 2020
The author was clearly a fan of Hubert Humphrey but can’t disguise the fact he was the ultimate political operative. He gives Humphrey a lot of the credit for the civil rights advances during the 1960s, which is likely justified. It is this period of Humphrey’s career - when he served as Vice President under Lyndon Johnson - that I found most interesting.
April 1, 2024
An excellent biography of one of America's greatest leaders. Although he never became President (not without trying), the biography excellently shows how he became one of the most admired politicians in America, with everyone giving him praise by the end of his life. A lifetime of continuing to fight the good fight was worth it for the Greatest President we never had.
June 11, 2020
An informative read, but the author had trouble coalescing Humphrey's many Senate battles and Presidential campaigns into a biographical narrative of much interest. Hardly a sixpence about Humphrey as a man, not just a Senator.
March 18, 2023
An important examination of a man who exemplified the promise of post-WW2 liberalism. Gives proper looks at both his faults and his virtues.
October 6, 2021
An understandably sympathetic biography of one of the US presidency's also-rans. Offner provides enough details to flesh out the eventful life, especially the political life, of the Minnesotan politician whilst keeping things moving at a good clip.
August 12, 2018
Hubert Humphrey
The politician from Minnesota pushed, pulled and prodded the enactment of Federal laws for civil rights in the US, to be enforced by Federal law enforcement, and linked the goal of equal rights of all in the US firmly to the Democratic party.
Social Democrats and Progressives also owe much to Humphrey for paving the way for them, and showing that their work is far from Socialism and Communism, but rightly embedded firmly in a Capitalist system. Arguments happening today are deja-vu of all the arguments Humphrey fought and largely won decades ago.
This book is a biography, but the real focus of the 500+ pages is Humphrey's political career in Minnesota and Washington, described in sometimes minute detail. While the decent, intelligent man is to be admired, I found the accounts of his political battles in Washington, and his life, to be very depressing, especially because of the following.
His voice of decency and reason was lost in the winds of hatred, bigotry, ignorance, partisanship, and rampant political egos, especially from the Dixiecrat Democrats. That faction was so horrible, so vile, that one wonders, if not for making slavery illegal, if the Civil War was really worth it. The Southern faction destroyed justice in America for generations, with their damage continuing to this day.
With 20-20 hindsight, one can see that if Humphrey had been listened to, the present-day US and the world would be a much better place in so many ways. The Cold War would have had fewer hot wars, and more nations would have strong democracies and true independence.
If his measures had been acted upon, race relations in the US would be in a better place than they are now, and all Americans would enjoy a much higher standard of living. There would be less hypocrisy in US policies and philosophy today, less failure to live up to her high ideals, and she could be at the top of the well-being tables that the Nordic countries enjoy, instead of lingering in the middle, and at the bottom for so many indicators.
Old boy structures are shown to be so entrenched, with myriad ways of blocking women's access to power, that one despairs reading about it, and seeing the situation not much better today. His wife's role was not as his partner, but an assistant, an appendage for the hyper-ambitious man, and she only found a happy, joyful partner in life in her second marriage.
However, most depressing is the truthful depiction of the workings of the US government, and the US Senate, showing the self-serving, narrow interests, nastiness, dirty money-infused environment populated by so many corrupt, egotistical creeps, who have zero interest in doing for Americans what they can't do for themselves, doing what the central government was created to do, which is improve the quality of life for all Americans.
This is an important book, especially for Democrats, but is also a horribly depressing book. I received a review-copy; this is my honest review.
The politician from Minnesota pushed, pulled and prodded the enactment of Federal laws for civil rights in the US, to be enforced by Federal law enforcement, and linked the goal of equal rights of all in the US firmly to the Democratic party.
Social Democrats and Progressives also owe much to Humphrey for paving the way for them, and showing that their work is far from Socialism and Communism, but rightly embedded firmly in a Capitalist system. Arguments happening today are deja-vu of all the arguments Humphrey fought and largely won decades ago.
This book is a biography, but the real focus of the 500+ pages is Humphrey's political career in Minnesota and Washington, described in sometimes minute detail. While the decent, intelligent man is to be admired, I found the accounts of his political battles in Washington, and his life, to be very depressing, especially because of the following.
His voice of decency and reason was lost in the winds of hatred, bigotry, ignorance, partisanship, and rampant political egos, especially from the Dixiecrat Democrats. That faction was so horrible, so vile, that one wonders, if not for making slavery illegal, if the Civil War was really worth it. The Southern faction destroyed justice in America for generations, with their damage continuing to this day.
With 20-20 hindsight, one can see that if Humphrey had been listened to, the present-day US and the world would be a much better place in so many ways. The Cold War would have had fewer hot wars, and more nations would have strong democracies and true independence.
If his measures had been acted upon, race relations in the US would be in a better place than they are now, and all Americans would enjoy a much higher standard of living. There would be less hypocrisy in US policies and philosophy today, less failure to live up to her high ideals, and she could be at the top of the well-being tables that the Nordic countries enjoy, instead of lingering in the middle, and at the bottom for so many indicators.
Old boy structures are shown to be so entrenched, with myriad ways of blocking women's access to power, that one despairs reading about it, and seeing the situation not much better today. His wife's role was not as his partner, but an assistant, an appendage for the hyper-ambitious man, and she only found a happy, joyful partner in life in her second marriage.
However, most depressing is the truthful depiction of the workings of the US government, and the US Senate, showing the self-serving, narrow interests, nastiness, dirty money-infused environment populated by so many corrupt, egotistical creeps, who have zero interest in doing for Americans what they can't do for themselves, doing what the central government was created to do, which is improve the quality of life for all Americans.
This is an important book, especially for Democrats, but is also a horribly depressing book. I received a review-copy; this is my honest review.
August 28, 2018
A must read for anyone trying to understand today's political situation. Well researched and well written.
Read
March 25, 2019Was the Cold War liberal Hubert Humphrey the “conscience of the country,” as a mostly admiring new biography would have it? Or was he a “shallow, contemptible, and hopelessly dishonest old hack” who was “the purest and most disgusting example of a Political Animal in American politics today,” as Hunter S. Thompson judged him in Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ’72?
I incline to the latter view, from a drug-addled Kentuckian, despite my having wept as an eight-year-old when HHH lost to Nixon. But Arnold A. Offner, a Lafayette College professor of history emeritus, makes the best case he can for Humphrey as the Happy Warrior of the guns-and-butter set.
Read the rest: https://www.theamericanconservative.c...
I incline to the latter view, from a drug-addled Kentuckian, despite my having wept as an eight-year-old when HHH lost to Nixon. But Arnold A. Offner, a Lafayette College professor of history emeritus, makes the best case he can for Humphrey as the Happy Warrior of the guns-and-butter set.
Read the rest: https://www.theamericanconservative.c...
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews