Harry McPherson was special counsel to U.S. president Lyndon B. Johnson from 1966 to 1969. In this video segment, McPherson captures the thinking behind Johnson's internal stalemate: his anguish over the Vietnam War; his diminished political strength; his tension-filled relationship with newly appointed defense secretary Clark Clifford, who pushed to de-escalate; and Johnson's own inability to let go. In the interview he conducted for Vietnam: A Television History, 'Tet 1968,' McPherson provides an intimate portrait of that year in the White House. He describes conversations in which he participated; President Johnson's state of mind; and the impact on the administration as 'contributing nation' allies, Congress, advisers, and public opinion turned against the war. McPherson begins the interview by recalling the conflicted mood at the White House following the Tet Offensive. The optimism found in military cables and official information clashed with televised images showing the nation that the war was resulting in massive loss of human life and that a prisoner could be shot at point-blank range. McPherson's account also follows the internal politics of the Johnson administration from 1964 to 1966. President Johnson's domestic agenda was swallowed by a war he doubted privately; U.S. involvement in Vietnam deepened considerably even as public confidence eroded; Democrats suffered midterm-election defeats. Defense secretary Robert McNamara, who was a key architect of U.S. policy in Vietnam, became convinced that the war was unwinnable and resigned shortly after Tet. McPherson remembers a luncheon at which McNamara, his voice breaking, spoke of the 'crushing futility' of the air campaign that he 'had ultimate responsibility for.' The arrival of Clark Clifford as the new defense secretary set in motion a sea change of opinion in the White House-namely the recognition, finally, that continuing to escalate troop levels was doing nothing to stem North Vietnam's war of attrition with the United States. McPherson recounts his burgeoning alliance with Secretary Clifford, who stated, 'Together we'll get this country and our president out of this mess.' McPherson talks in great detail about the three-month process of writing the president's pivotal speech to be televised at the end of March. He recalls reworking drafts as the administration debated whether to continue, increase, or selectively arrest bombing as a prelude to peace talks a proposal that McPherson presented and that was eventually adopted. Given the change in policy, the speech required a new ending, which Johnson himself decided to write. On March 31, 1968, the president stunned the world with his announcement that he would not seek reelection. Reflecting on the Vietnam experience, McPherson probes the feasibility of fighting a limited war. He ends his interview with a personal sketch of President Johnson, a complex and tragic figure. McPherson considered him brilliant in 'sheer intellectual mental horsepower' and 'the smartest man I ever saw.'

This graduate seminar provides an examination of mass and elite political behavior in the United States, with an emphasis on political participation, political inequality, elections, voting behavior, and political organizations.

Dr. Randall Forsberg is executive director of the think tank she founded in 1980, the Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies. In this video segment, she recalls the moment during arms negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union when she determined that the arms race is not driven by basic deterrence but by the imperative to gain superiority in threatening to win-without actually waging-nuclear war.In her wide-ranging interview for War and Peace in the Nuclear Age: 'Visions of War and Peace,' Forsberg explores war-and-peace issues, military doctrine, the history and economics of nuclear-weapons development and policy, war-fighting capability and force structure, scenarios and resistance to arms reduction, the history of relations between the superpowers, and their interactions with developing nations. Seven countries, she asserts, account for 99 percent of nuclear weapons. The dispersal of weapons-in the form of the Rapid Deployment Force, tactical weapons, and missiles fitted with multiple warheads-heightens the risk of war in a world moving toward becoming what she calls 'a global nuclear porcupine.' Forsberg asserts that 'threatening to commit genocide as a way of conducting politics' is one of the most 'deeply immoral and subversive acts of government in the modern world.' Moreover, she maintains, a conventional military crisis could easily cross that nuclear threshold. Forsberg advocates the three Rs: 'reduce, restructure, and restrain' conventional forces-the other side of the military coin-that consume 75 percent of the U.S. military budget. She compares disarmament with abolitionism: most people understood that slavery was evil and didn't know when it would end, but they realized that they had to work until it was eliminated. Forsberg's analysis of the country's 'defense dependency' and of the shortcomings of the nuclear-freeze movement she spearheaded is laced with her optimism about Soviet Union general secretary Mikhail Gorbachev's reforms. She has never abandoned her vision of an educated public that will prevail in 'demilitarizing international relations" to achieve a "secure, stable permanent peace.'