The Best and the Brightest
The Best and the Brightest book cover

The Best and the Brightest

Price
$22.30
Format
Hardcover
Pages
816
Publisher
Modern Library
Publication Date
ISBN-13
978-0679640998
Dimensions
6 x 1.75 x 8.5 inches
Weight
1.9 pounds

Description

"For anyone who aspires to a position of national leadership, no matter the circumstances of his or her birth, this book should be mandatory reading. And anyone who feels a need, as a confused former prisoner of war once felt the need, for insights into how a great and good nation can lose a war and see its worthy purposes and principles destroyed by self-delusion can do no better than to read and reread David Halberstam’s The Best and the Brightest ."--from the Foreword by Senator John McCain"The most comprehensive saga of how America became involved in Vietnam. . . . [I]t is also The Iliad of the American empire and The Odyssey of this nation’s search for its idealistic soul."-- The Boston Globe "Seductively readable. . . . [I]t is a staggeringly ambitious undertaking that is fully matched by Halberstam’s perfor-mance."-- Newsweek "A rich, entertaining, and profound reading experience."-- The New York Times From the Inside Flap David Halberstamx92s masterpiece, the defining history of the making of the Vietnam tragedy, with a new Foreword by Senator John McCain.Using portraits of Americax92s flawed policy makers and accounts of the forces that drove them, The Best and the Brightest reckons magnificently with the most important abiding question of our countryx92s recent history: Why did America become mired in Vietnam, and why did we lose? As the definitive single-volume answer to that question, this enthralling book has never been superseded. It is an American classic. "For anyone who aspires to a position of national leadership, no matter the circumstances of his or her birth, this book should be mandatory reading. And anyone who feels a need, as a confused former prisoner of war once felt the need, for insights into how a great and good nation can lose a war and see its worthy purposes and principles destroyed by self-delusion can do no better than to read and reread David Halberstam’s The Best and the Brightest ."--from the Foreword by Senator John McCain"The most comprehensive saga of how America became involved in Vietnam. . . . [I]t is also The Iliad of the American empire and The Odyssey of this nation’s search for its idealistic soul."-- The Boston Globe "Seductively readable. . . . [I]t is a staggeringly ambitious undertaking that is fully matched by Halberstam’s perfor-mance."-- Newsweek "A rich, entertaining, and profound reading experience."-- The New York Times David Halberstam is the author of a number of books, including T he Powers That Be, The Reckoning, Summer of '49 , and Playing for Keeps . He lives in New York City. His new book, War in a Time of Peace , will be published in September, 2001. Senator John McCain is the author of Faith of My Fathers . After a career in the United States Navy and two terms as United States Representative, he was elected to the Senate in 1986, 1992, and 1998. He and his wife, Cindy, reside in Phoenix. Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved. Chapter One A cold day in December. Long afterward, after the assassination and all the pain, the older man would remember with great clarity the young man’s grace, his good manners, his capacity to put a visitor at ease. He was concerned about the weather, that the old man not be exposed to the cold or to the probing questions of freezing newspapermen, that he not have to wait for a cab. Instead he had guided his guest to his own car and driver. The older man would remember the young man’s good manners almost as clearly as the substance of their talk, though it was an important meeting.In just a few weeks the young man would become President of the United States, and to the newspapermen standing outside his Georgetown house, there was an air of excitement about every small act, every gesture, every word, every visitor to his temporary headquarters. They complained less than usual, the bitter cold notwithstanding; they felt themselves a part of history: the old was going out and the new was coming in, and the new seemed exciting, promising.On the threshold of great power and great office, the young man seemed to have everything. He was handsome, rich, charming, candid. The candor was part of the charm: he could beguile a visitor by admitting that everything the visitor proposed was right, rational, proper—but he couldn’t do it, not this week, this month, this term. Now he was trying to put together a government, and the candor showed again. He was self-deprecating with the older man. He had spent the last five years, he said ruefully, running for office, and he did not know any real public officials, people to run a government, serious men. The only ones he knew, he admitted, were politicians, and if this seemed a denigration of his own kind, it was not altogether displeasing to the older man. Politicians did need men to serve, to run the government. The implication was obvious. Politicians could run Pennsylvania and Ohio, and if they could not run Chicago they could at least deliver it. But politicians run the world? What did they know about the Germans, the French, the Chinese? He needed experts for that, and now he was summoning them.The old man was Robert A. Lovett, the symbolic expert, representative of the best of the breed, a great surviving link to a then unquestioned past, to the wartime and postwar successes of the Stimson-Marshall-Acheson years. He was the very embodiment of the Establishment, a man who had a sense of country rather than party. He was above petty divisions, so he could say of his friends, as so many of that group could, that he did not even know to which political party they belonged. He was a man of impeccable credentials, indeed he passed on other people’s credentials, deciding who was safe and sound, who was ready for advancement and who was not. He was so much a part of that atmosphere that he was immortalized even in the fiction of his class. Louis Auchincloss, who was the unofficial laureate of that particular world, would have one of his great fictional lawyers say: “I’ve got that Washington bug. Ever since I had that job with Bob Lovett . . .”He had the confidence of both the financial community and the Congress. He had been good, very good, going up on the Hill in the old days and soothing things over with recalcitrant Midwestern senators; and he was soft on nothing, that above all—no one would accuse Robert Lovett of being soft. He was a witty and graceful man himself, a friend not just of the powerful, the giants of politics and industry, but of people like Robert Benchley and Lillian Hellman and John O’Hara. He had wit and charm. Even in those tense moments in 1950 when he had been at Defense and MacArthur was being MacArthur, Lovett had amused his colleagues at high-level meetings with great imitations of MacArthur’s vanities, MacArthur in Korea trying to comb his few strands of hair from side to side over his pate to hide his baldness, while standing in the blast of prop-plane engines at Kimpo Airfield.They got along well, these two men who had barely known each other before. Jack Kennedy the President-elect, who in his campaign had summoned the nation’s idealism, but who was at least as skeptical as he was idealistic, curiously ill at ease with other people’s overt idealism, preferring in private the tart and darker view of the world and of mankind of a skeptic like Lovett.In addition to his own misgivings he had constantly been warned by one of his more senior advisers that in order to deal with State effectively, he had to have a real man there, that State was filled with sissies in striped pants and worse. That senior adviser was Joseph Kennedy, Sr., and he had consistently pushed, in discussions with his son, the name of Robert Lovett, who he felt was the best of those old-time Wall Street people. For Robert Lovett understood power, where it resided, how to exercise it. He had exercised it all his life, yet he was curiously little known to the general public. The anonymity was not entirely by chance, for he was the embodiment of the public servant–financier who is so secure in his job, the value of it, his right to do it, that he does not need to seek publicity, to see his face on the cover of a magazine or on television, to feel reassured. Discretion is better, anonymity is safer: his peers know him, know his role, know that he can get things done. Publicity sometimes frightens your superiors, annoys congressional adversaries (when Lovett was at Defense, the senior members of the Armed Services committees never had to read in newspapers and magazines how brilliant Lovett was, how well he handled the Congress; rather they read how much he admired the Congress). He was the private man in the public society par excellence. He did not need to impress people with false images. He knew the rules of the game: to whom you talked, what you said, to whom you did not talk, which journalists were your kind, would, without being told, know what to print for the greater good, which questions to ask, and which questions not to ask. He lived in a world where young men made their way up the ladder by virtue not just of their own brilliance and ability but also of who their parents were, which phone calls from which old friends had preceded their appearance in an office. In a world like this he knew that those whose names were always in print, who were always on the radio and television, were there precisely because they did not have power, that those who did hold or had access to power tried to keep out of sight. He was a twentieth-century man who did not hold press conferences, who never ran for anything. The classic insider’s man.He was born in Huntsville, Texas, in 1895, the son of Robert Scott Lovett, a general counsel for Harriman’s Union Pacific Railway, a railroad lawyer, a power man in those rough and heady days, who then became a judge, very much a part of the power structure, the Texas arm of it, and eventually a member of the Union Pacific board of directors and president of the railway. His son Bob would do all the right Eastern things, go to the right schools, join the right clubs (Hill School, Yale, Skull and Bones). He helped form the Yale unit of pilots which flew in World War I, and he commanded the first U.S. Naval Air Squadron. He married well, Adele Brown, the beautiful daughter of James Brown, a senior partner in the great banking firm of Brown Brothers.Since those post-college years were a bad time for the railways, he went to work for Brown Brothers, starting at $1,080 a year, a fumbling-fingered young clerk who eventually rose to become a partner and finally helped to arrange the merger of Brown Brothers with the Harriman banking house to form the powerful firm of Brown Bros., Harriman & Co. So he came naturally to power, to running things, to knowing people, and his own marriage had connected him to the great families. His view of the world was a banker’s view, the right men making the right decisions, stability to be preserved. The status quo was good, one did not question it.He served overseas in London, gaining experience in foreign affairs, though like most influential Americans who would play a key role in foreign affairs entering government through the auspices of the Council on Foreign Relations, the group which served as the Establishment’s unofficial club, it was with the eyes of a man with a vested interest in the static world, where business could take place as usual, where the existing order could and should be preserved. He saw the rise of Hitler and the com- ing military importance of air power; when he returned to America he played a major role in speeding up America’s almost nonexistent air defenses. He served with great distinction during World War II, a member of that small inner group which worked for Secretary of War Henry Stimson and Chief of Staff George C. Marshall (“There are three people I cannot say no to,” Lovett would say when asked back into government in the late forties, “Colonel Stimson, General Marshall and my wife”). That small group of policy makers came from the great banking houses and law firms of New York and Boston. They knew one another, were linked to one another, and they guided America’s national security in those years, men like James Forrestal, Douglas Dillon and Allen Dulles. Stimson and then Marshall had been their great leaders, and although they had worked for Roosevelt, it was not because of him, but almost in spite of him; they had been linked more to Stimson than to Roosevelt. And they were linked more to Acheson and Lovett than to Truman; though Acheson was always quick to praise Truman, there were those who believed that there was something unconsciously patronizing in Acheson’s tones, his description of Truman as a great little man, and a sense that Acheson felt that much of Truman’s greatness came from his willingness to listen to Acheson. They were men linked more to one another, their schoo... Read more

Features & Highlights

  • David Halberstam’s masterpiece, the defining history of the making of the Vietnam tragedy, with a new Foreword by Senator John McCain.Using portraits of America’s flawed policy makers and accounts of the forces that drove them,
  • The Best and the Brightest
  • reckons magnificently with the most important abiding question of our country’s recent history: Why did America become mired in Vietnam, and why did we lose? As the definitive single-volume answer to that question, this enthralling book has never been superseded. It is an American classic.

Customer Reviews

Rating Breakdown

★★★★★
60%
(799)
★★★★
25%
(333)
★★★
15%
(200)
★★
7%
(93)
-7%
(-94)

Most Helpful Reviews

✓ Verified Purchase

A Journalist's Journalist

"The Best and the Brightest"
By David Halberstam (1934-2007)
Reviewed by Philip Henry

David Halberstam survived wars, literal and figurative landmines, popular acclaim, political opponents and the Fifties and Vietnam. Ironically, after all of that he was killed in a car crash near San Francisco April 23, 2007. Characteristically, he was on his way to an interview for a new book.
Halberstam was one of the pioneers in Vietnam reporting (along with Neil Sheehan)--posted there several times in the `60's by The Times. His `The Making of a Quagmire " accurately forecast the course of an unwinnable war. "The Best and the Brightest" focused on the irony of well-qualified but ill-advised policy makers in a thicket of foreign policy.

Halberstam didn't confine himself to one area or one period: he was equally at home with major league baseball and high-level foreign policy debates. Like George Will, his ideological antithesis, he appreciated a good story, a good ballgame, and had an infallible nose for lies and evasion.

Halberstam received 20 Honorary degrees, spoke at many college commencements, and received the Pulitzer in 1964 at the age of 30 for his Vietnam reporting for the Times. Five of his 15 bestsellers have been about sports, and it reflects the breadth of his work and the public's response to it that both The Best and The Brightest and Summer of '49 (on an epic pennant race between the Yankees and the Red Sox), were #1 New York Times bestsellers.
If one were to replace "Vietnam" with "Iraq"; "President Lyndon Johnson" with "George Bush'; and Robert McNamara with Donald Rumsfeld, one would read exactly the same facts into the current fiasco in Iraq. If there is one book that all Presidents and Candidates should be required to read, it's "The Best and The Brightest." That would be Halberstam's greatest tribute.

In the 1970's, I was an enlisted man serving with American Forces Vietnam Network (AFVN). One of my assignments was to record and report on the daily briefings by MACOI ( Military Assistance Command Vietnam/ Office of Information) Briefers. The idea was to give the troops the Pablum from the Command; not the truth, which would have been counter-productive to the political objectives of the administration.
Thankfully, Halberstam, Neil Sheehan, George Esper (AP Saigon Bureau Chief);
John Laurence (CBS News) and others were there to refute the official line. David
Halberstam was a role model, a true professional, and an American Institution.
*I nominate Halberstam for the Baseball Writers' Hall of Fame. That would be appropriate.

*****
31 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

ON THE QUESTION OF THE IRAQ (OOPS!) VIETNAM QUAGMIRE

As the current Bush Administration-directed quagmire continues in Iraq it is rather timely to look at a previous bout of American imperialist madness in Vietnam if only in order to demonstrate the similar mindsets, then and now, of the American political establishment and their hangers-on. This book, unintentionally I am sure, is a prima facie argument, against those who see Iraq (or saw Vietnam) as merely an erroneous policy of the American government that can be `fixed' by a change to a more rational imperialist policy guided by a different elite. Undeniably there are many differences between the current war and the struggle in Vietnam. Not the least of which is that in Vietnam there was a Communist-led insurgency that leftists throughout the world could identify with and were duty-bound to support.

Mr. Halberstam's well-informed study of the long history of struggle in Vietnam against outsiders, near and far, is a more than adequate primer about the history and the political issues, from the American side at least, as they came to a head in Vietnam in the early 1960's. This book is the work of a long time journalist who covered Southeast Asia from close quarters. Although over thirty years have passed since the book's publication it appears to me that he has covered all the essential elements of the dispute as well as the wrangling, again mainly on the American side , of policy makers big and small. While everyone should look at more recent material that material appears to me to be essentially more specialized analysis of the general themes presented in Halberstam's book. Or are the inevitably self-serving memoirs by those, like former Secretary of War Robert McNamara, looking to refurbish they images for the historical record.

The bulk of the book and the central story line is a study of the hubris of American imperialist policy-makers in attempting to define their powers, prerogatives and interests in the post-World War II period. The sub-text of the book, which the current inhabitants of the Bush Administration obviously have not read and in any case would willfully misunderstand, is how not to subordinate primary interests to momentary secondary interests in the scramble to preserve the Empire. Be clear that Halberstam was no vocal opponent of the war but rather sought to see it successfully completed by a more rational approach. However, apparently, commonsense and simple rationality are in short supply when one goes inside the Washington Beltway. Taking into account the differences in personality among the three main villains of the piece- Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon- the similarities of response and need to defend some sense of honor, American honor, are amazingly similar, individual rhetoric aside. There thus can be little wonder that the North Vietnamese went about their business of revolution and independence pretty much according to their plans and with little regard to the `subtleties' in American foreign policy (or military doctrine, for that matter). But, read the book and judge for yourselves. Do not be surprised if something feels awfully, awfully familiar.
16 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

A number of similarities with Iraq 40 years later.

I read this book when it was first published and then found it to be an excellent description of the failures of the Kennedy-Johnson administration as it incrementally entered a war with North Vietnam. I have read it again after I read of Mr. Halberstam's death a few weeks ago.

I had been very bothered by the actions of the US in Iraq. After reading The Best and Brightest I know what was bothering me. It is a repeat although with different characters, different enemies, different locale but the same thinking process and lack of thought for the many "what ifs" that war produces. It would have been nice if a few of the planners of the Iraq fiasco could have read Halberstam's book and taken note of the mistakes that were made in 1963 before launching the war in Iraq in 2003.

Halberstam quotes Henry Kissenger as saying something to the effect of "we won't make the same mistakes . . . we'll make our own mistakes." It looks like the current planners and executors of Iraq strategy are making the same ones that were made in 1963 - and learning the same lessons about a counterinsurgency war being fought with traditional troops, equipment and strategy.

The Iraqi insurgency in Iraq will go the same way as the insurgency in Vietnam - they will wait us out but without the large scale battles that took place in Vietnam once the army of North Vietnam entered the action in large numbers.

Vietnam was disaster and tragedy for the Vietnamese as well as the Americans. What seems to be preventing the same level of disaster in the US is the fact that this war is being fought by non-draftees. That is one dissimilarity with Vietnam which has prevented the large scale protests across the nation which were seen as the presidency of Lyndon Johnson unraveled.

I recommend this book to all students of political and military strategy. It is an exceptional read and I would predict you won't come away angry - just saddened that so much talent brought forth so little in the way of return for Vietnam and the United States.
14 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

A Great Epic

This is a well written epic that chronicles in great detail the American decision to go to war in S.E. Asia. One thing that strikes me is that this is a non-partisan work which is refereshing given the recent series of books (left and right)on Iraq. I have read about 20 books on the subject of Vietnam and this is by far the best.
13 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Disorganized brilliance

I finally got around to reading this classic work, and I was both enthalled and disappointed.

Enthralled by the energy, prescience, and prescription with what's wrong with American foreign policy, a preview of our never ending mistakes of hubris and conviction that as a country we still are the best and the brightest and know what is best for the world.

The parallel with Iraq and Afghanistan today is eerie. Poor Obama, making the same mistakes, coddling the conservatives and the Establishment, oh well.

On the other hand, the books suffers from rambling, free association, and repetiveness. It really needed a better editor and better organization. It flips back and forth from its own past and present with confusing effect. It's portraits have a taint of predisposed bias, a desire to pigeonhole its characters in one dimensional anti-Communist baitin, true enough perhaps, but also suspect.

As a liberal, I suppose, I have always resented our country's penchant for wanting to fix whatever is wrong with the world, but the author's obvious bias against that preconception often gets in the way of the objective reporting he so proudly proclaims. Also, as a study in power run amok, I think Caro's Johnson trilogy (and of course his bio of that New York meglogmaniac, Moses) is far superior in thematic relevance and cogent analysis, to say nothing about the power of literary non fiction and plain powerful language and description.

I think Halberstrom never made up his analytical mind about war and policy(read The Coldest Winter.)

Still in all, as a vivid document of our country's too many mistakes, it will stick with you. Read it for valuable lessons about our past and still more valuable lessons for the future.

Kennedy wasn't so great, after all, and Johnson was only half bad, and so typically American. On the other hand, how bad can anyone be compared to Acheson, Dulles (both of them) Rostow, Bundy, and the rest. I always had wanted to attend Yale and Harvard, but now I think I was better off just going to Brandeis, putting up with John Roche's Vietnam hawkish views and retaining my independent bent of mind.

We have translated our anti-Communist fanatic atitutes for our anti-Terrorist paranoia. A fair trade, I suppose, if you are of a frame of mind that we live in a world of enemies, but this book is a good object lesson that after all we're just not that smart.

A final word. Halberstrom's work is seminal, readable, and bright. Hey, that's the best or close to the best, for all its disorganization.
4 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Better than Advertised

Got about 1/4 of the way through, then realized I needed to read 'The Making of a Quagmire'. Stuff you read 4 or 5 pages, then you put it down, and think about it. Especially if you are a Vietnam veteran. Great read. Book was in excellent shape
2 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

The Best!

The care taken to get this PERFECT copy to me was over and above what any other bookseller has ever done. My books are my treasures. Thank you for treating it as such.
✓ Verified Purchase

Ford 55

This Book Has Significant History That Has Made This Book Into A Classic Book About A Difficult And Powerful Subject That Occurred In Our Fairly Recent Past. It Should Be Mandatory Reading For All History Majors.
✓ Verified Purchase

EXCELLENT BOOK

YES A VERY GOOD BOOK HAVE ENJOYED READING IT I ALSO WAS A VERY GOOD PRICE I'VE SEEN ASKING ALOT FOR THESE BOOKS