For the past two years I have been doing research at the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas on the correspondence between John Steinbeck and President Lyndon Johnson about the Vietnam War. Steinbeck and Johnson were friends and communicated often. Steinbeck even helped write some of Johnson’s only inaugural address. I wondered how two great humanists got dragged into the Vietnam War, which became so unpopular that Johnson—like Steinbeck, a liberal—was forced to drop out of the 1968 presidential race. I also have questions about similar conditions in our time.
For the author of the Great Society, the expansion of the war ended the expansion of programs intended to provide opportunities for minorities, working people, and the poor that President Johnson had fought hard for and persuaded Congress to pass. For the author of The Moon Is Down, it created significant conflict and confused some readers. Steinbeck, who understood the power of informal social networks to address and survive oppression, wrote The Moon Is Down to demonstrate how members of such a network resist occupation by an enemy force in a democracy not unlike the United States.
From the point of view of Steinbeck’s writing of the 1940s, it can be seen that Ho Chi Minh’s mastery of informal networking contributed to North Vietnam’s defeat of the forces of South Vietnam and its American allies. This perception led Steinbeck to ask a critical question: “How could we lose a war against peasant rabble (informal networks) when we had all the modern advantages (formal system)?” There is a disconnect between the apologist who defended Johnson’s Vietnam policy in the 1960s and the advocate who wrote sympathetically about America’s “peasant rabble” in 1930s and their persecution by exploitative agricultural interests holding formal “ownership advantage” in California. Critics turned this against Steinbeck at the time, and it continues to trouble those of us who wonder why Johnson stuck with the policy and Steinbeck defended it.
I am curious to know how two of my favorite Americans, both domestic change agents, got sucked into such an ugly and damaging foreign war. I am also interested to learn what overlooking the lesson of Tortilla Flat, Cannery Row, and The Moon Is Down—about the power of informal networks—warns us about in our day. From Wall Street to the Arab street, citizen rebellions are organizing organically to overcome oppression and bring about change. As in Johnson’s time, formal systems are responding with overwhelming force that has the opposite of the intended effect. When authoritarian overreach becomes violent and protestors become victims, today’s Tom Joads also say, “I’ll be there.”
Several years ago I wrote about the lessons of Steinbeck’s Cannery Row, laying out the theory and practice of the informal networks that I saw there, and which I use in my own work as a consultant. Now I would like to hear from other admirers of Steinbeck and Johnson who share my curiosity about their folly and my concern about our future. Please share your thoughts on the subject in the comment box below.
Photograph of John Steinbeck with Lyndon Johnson courtesy Martha Heasley Cox Center for Steinbeck Studies.
About James Kent
I look forward to the publication of this research. You raise questions about Steinbeck’s thinking surrounding Vietnam that have vexed researchers for years, such as why Steinbeck, who must have understood Ho’s mastery of informal networking, failed to see how Ho’s techniques could defeat the US war machine. Also, why would John Steinbeck, champion of the downtrodden, take the side of the juggernaut instead of the freedom fighters? Steinbeck must have realized that the Ho Chi Minh trail was just the type of place that the ghost of Tom Joad might haunt.
Thank you Nick. I love your reference to the Ho Chi Minh trail “was just the type of place that the ghosts of Tom Joad might haunt.” Very insightful.
Jim
Fascinating question that could provide us an understanding of how difficult it is for policy makers to fight formal systems and/or entrenched interests at the highest level. Both LBJ and Steinbeck must have possessed the fundamental humanity and life experience to see the wrongness of the Vietnam War. If Mr Kent can answer this important question it may give some insight about how we as citizens can support our elected representatives to govern in a way that supports our democracy and citizens rather than special and/or ideological interests. Thank you for this thought provoking article.
Thank you Mr. Baker. Your comment goes to the heart of my concern. How can we prevent humanists who have the greater society in mind with their actions from getting pulled into the formal system. Can we assist them from becoming unattached from the people who they honor at the grassroots level and elected them? It has been said that we campaign in the bars, cafes, coffee shops but we govern from the top down once in office. That defect was present for both Steinbeck and Johnson with Vietnam. I hope to learn insights to that dilemma since the current grassroots demonstrations have the potential to chang the formal systems. We must understand that as new members arrive in the formal positions from the informal networks how they can govern in a new horizontal relationship rather than inheriting the top down inefficient and dehumanizing systems that we now have in most of our world.
I am a Vietnam combat veteran who was involved with the Combined Action Platoons; the U.S. Marines’ response to the “Other War” in Vietnam. A squad of Marines was teamed with the Vietnamese Popular Forces, and we patrolled a hamlet, usually around Route One; the Street Without Joy.
I will agree that the Northerners were very tough indeed; and that the Government in Saigon was rotten and corrupt to the core. That being said, the communist government of North Vietnam had full control over the media and other sources of information: the Americans allowed members of the American and international press full access; you could go anywhere you wanted. All you had to do was show the Americans your press card. The communists committed atrocities every bit as Americans and South Vietnamese did; if not more so.
Bottom Line: Viet Nam of 1945- 1975 was a tragedy that need not have happened
Thank you Mr. Peterson. I appreciate your insights and especially your bottom line: “Viet Nam of 1945–1975 was a tragedy that need not have happened.” I am hoping to gain an understanding with my research on how to prevent humanitarians from being pulled into such tragic events. Can we imagine what our country and world society would be like if President Johnson had been persuaded by Steinbeck to stick with the so called “rabble” that the Great Society programs were addressing? What a different world we would be inhabiting today.
Hello Michael,
I, too, am a Vietnam combat veteran – Army, grunt primarily in the Quang Tri/DMZ, and the areas around Hue. The press was indeed allowed to travel throughout the country and the Defense Department learned a lesson regarding controlling the message for future wars. The “embedded” journalists that we saw in the gulf wars proved effective regarding empathic reporting and staying “on message”, in terms of what was desired by the DoD. It’s not clear to me what our current journalistic policy is regarding covering our ongoing wars
I’m interested in learning your thoughts about why we don’t see more critical mainstream coverage today. Thank you,
I am glad you mention The Moon Is Down as a literary example of an informal network coming together to oust an occupier. To me, this short novel is the most underrated of Steinbeck’s books.Thebest on your research, James.
Thank you Steve. That novel when I first read it was an eye opener for me. I was searching for a way to assist powerless people in poverty as part of the War on Poverty. The only models were power on power scenarios. Saul Alinsky personified that model. However I knew that if you go power on power you have to win or you lose big. The Moon is Down revealed what became my informal network theory of how the poor could deal with the oppression of the formal system and still survive and prosper as empowered people. That was it. Steinbeck knew somehow about the power of informal networks. None of that was in the sociological literature in the form that he presented it in that book. I was very successful with my process working with Sargent Shriver, Kennedy’s pick to direct the War on Poverty. Eventually my informal network approach found ground in two of the key poverty programs still in existence today: Neighborhood Health Centers and Head Start. And with Native American tribes as they began to emerge to take charge of their own destiny.
Steinbeck knew, and I learned. Not a bad combination.
No doubt about it, Jim, this is masterful work and I very much appreciate your story.
Just some thoughts:I
I believe USA attitudes toward the war in Vietnam were influenced by the day’s anti-communism propoganda, the McCarthy hearings, and Etc. At that time there was little knowledge or appreciation for the plight of Vietnam citizens long oppressed under French colonialism and then under Japanese occupation during World War II. Given the same oppression, I believe freedom-loving Americans may have taken up the same fight. I believe Steinbeck suffered as a result of the opinions that he too was a communist sympathizer even though his support of the concept of the Jungian model of the “individual” would have sent him to a Siberian labor camp under Stalin, that is if ol Joe really understood Steinbeck’s heart. The communists mistook Steinbeck’s social responsibility as as socialism and that was quite a bit off of the mark. Unfortunately many still do mis judge Steinbeck’s social responsibilityleanings as that of a communist sympathizer.
According to biographer Bensen, Steinbeck considered the anti-Vietnam war demonstrations as evidence of a decay of our societies morals. He saw the war driven by idealism until near the end when he considered it misguided idealism.
The war in Vietnam was originally a French action to which we provided “advisors”. Steinbeck, like other literary giants was (is) admired by the French and his loyaltyI suppose was a bit of pay back. The ship I was on was just beginning to send black aircraft for offensive reasons to Vietnam in the early 1960s. The black aircraft had all of the markings removed for obvious reasons.
‘Regarding informal networking as they occured at that time in Vietnam compared to the little Norwegian fishing village of Steinbeck’s The Moon Is Down, I am sure There was networking as you described but with considerably wide social andcuiltural differences. After all, the Vietnam people had little say in their government under the French Colonialists. Then the Japanese took over with the same ambitions. They ran they govememt through the vichy French already in place but the oppressive political environment was harsher. So when the USA began providing “advisers” they did so on behalf of already hated French colonialists.On the other hand the citizens of the little Norwegian village had enjoyed years of freedom and liberty with an elected government dedicated to serving the needs of the people prior to the occupation by the Nazis.
The oppression in Vietnam (Indo China) stunted individual growth and maturity. The same affect one may witness with keeping education from a slave population. The suppressed population was mainly unconscious with vast communities having herd mentality (a negative phalanx) and no ambition.The more matured citizens of the little Norwegian village included individuals who recognized their social responsibilities and actively attended to their civic duties. No doubt the social networking occured but the conversations and discussions must’ve looked quite a bit different. The occidental minds in the Norwegian village under occupations with their emerging Egos visualized linear plans to resist the occupation. The Oriental minds of the Vietnese were blessed with a holistic perspective also resulting in dramatically different networking goals and dialog.
I feel that if the Russian MOB continues to enjoy success in capturing our democracy, their goals will be the same as the occupying forces described. Did you know that the medium income of people in Petersburg, Russia, is $300 per month?
‘
Wes Stillwagon, North Carolina, USA
Thank you Wes. As usual you have shared some incredible history in your story. It is interesting to note that during the last 3 years it can be observed that our informal networks have become stronger in addressing executive oppression by improving our caretaking at the neighborhood level. It seems like we have had an explosion at the local level or the level I call geographic democracy. And not only in this country but internationally from Hong Kong resistance to Climate Change demonstrations. All grass roots organized at the bottom pushing up. It is as if Tom Joad’s “I’ll be there” speech has come to life. Because Tom Jode’s speech “I’ll be there” was mentioned in my article I have included it below for reference. It is delivered as he says farewell to his mother. It is performed by Henry Fonda in John Ford’s 1940 film of the book. If possible one should view the speech on YouTube for impact.
“You don’t aim to kill nobody, Tom?”
“No. I been thinkin’, long as I’m a outlaw anyways, maybe I could — Hell, I ain’t thought it out clear,Ma. Don’ worry me now. Don’ worry me.”
They sat silent in the coal-black cave of vines. Ma said, “How’m I gonna know ’bout you? They might kill ya an’ I wouldn’ know. They might hurt ya. How’m I gonna know?”
Tom laughed uneasily, “Well, maybe like Casy says, a fella ain’t got a soul of his own, but on’y a piece of a big one — an’ then —”
“Then what, Tom?”
“Then it don’ matter. Then I’ll be all aroun’ in the dark. I’ll be ever’where — wherever you look. Wherever they’s a fight so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there. Wherever they’s a cop beatin’ up a guy, I’ll be there. If Casy knowed, why, I’ll be in the way guys yell when they’re mad an’ — I’ll be in the way kids laugh when they’re hungry an’ they know supper’s ready. An’ when our folks eat the stuff they raise an’ live in the houses they build — why, I’ll be there.”
Steinbeck wrote for the ages. Amazing.
Thanks Jim,
Since I’ve known you for the last few decades, you’ve been the experienced optimist and I appreciate your wisdom and positive outlook. .
Wes
James Kent’s closing request on the future:
“Now I would lie to hear from other admirers of
Steinbeck and Johnson who share my curiosity
about their folly and my concern about our future.”
One of my worries about the use of the informal networks using gathering places as an organizing tactic is the rise of social media. In times gone by, the oppressors did not—could not effectively–combat the oppressed in the myriad gathering places throughout the country. Therefore, in the past (and continuing) corporations and wealthy individuals could/would easily purchase candidates for government and judicial offices and keep them in line by the threat of financing a replacement in a party-primary election. Networks of individuals meeting in gathering places could often successfully challenge certain issues backed by the monied interests.
However, nowadays, a mere handful of online anti-social activists can muster opposition simply by posting statements—or having robots post statements–on social media. Websites such as YouTube, WeChat, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, Reddit, etc., have millions of postings daily on both national and local issues.
Additionally, the growing use of the social media tends to be favored by the younger citizens as opposed to the traditional, face-to-face interactions in a gathering place. It’s not that face-to-face meetings in a gathering place to discuss issues is passé, but stories about our youth having a hundred on-line friends, but only 1 or 2 personal friends, are common now.
The oppressors and their supporters can easily spread disinformation and actively challenge the legitimacy of the oppressed—in the online environment. However, the viability of the gathering place as an organizing mechanism centered on issues remains an effective tactic–when it is used.
How often over the years I fantasized about how great it would have been to be a part of the little Cannery Row network that gathered in Doc’s Lab, the Bear Flag, The Palace Flophouse, or Wide Ida’s especially when the community was facing a challenge or problem. At one time I thought perhaps in a past life I was one of the “girls” who worked at the Bear Flag. Jim Kent once suggested that he thought this was a likely possibility. How rich and fulfilling a social experience that would have been.
Would the gatherings have been as much fun or productive if communication between members was only by text message, Twitter, or Sype? I don’t think the interpersonal experiences could even be compared. The elements of individual character would be gone – it would be more difficult to determine if one of our fellows was joking, kidding, or making a serious point and this may lead to resentment or distrust. Words may have very different meanings depending on how they are used or within different context. We would not be able to observe body language or facial expressions in communication. It would be much more difficult to get to know an individual who serves a key role in the community. The social network or the positive influence of (steinbeck) phalanx would be weakened dramatically and the negative influence enhanced. “It is the face of our own shadow that glowers at us across the Iron Curtain.” C. G. Jung, Approaching The Unconscious, Man and his Symbols, Pub Doubleday Windfall.What is diminished with modern interpersonal communication is the vast scope of the interchange highway that includes the collective unconscious.
The reduced importance of philosophy in education is at fault in my opinion. The current emphasis on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) puts humanity in great peril. Scoundrels will be elected to serve but will only serve those who pay for their influence. There’s something to be admired by the local tavern or bordello “where everybody knows your name.” (from Cheers).
I’d still would have loved to be a part of the Cannery Row social body even if I was one of the girls at the Bear Flag.
Wes Stillwagon, North Carolina USA
You were there Wes, you are part of the Myth of Cannery Row!!
Good luck on your research, James. I’m no expert, but during my quick journalistic dip into the ocean of John Steinbeck in 2010 for my book ‘Dogging Steinbeck,’ I learned a lot about Steinbeck’s complex and often contradictory politics. Obviously, I have no deep understanding of why early in his career he warned writers — sensibly, wisely — to stay away from people in power but then became enamored of JFK and became a sleep-over buddy with LBJ. I suspect it was his stanch anti-communism that made him a hawk on Vietnam and a fan of JFK and LBJ. Steinbeck, as his long letters to and from his hero Adlai Stevenson show (they’re at the Mudd library at Princeton), was a very partisan Democrat who encouraged Adlai to play dirty politics in the summer of 1960 to prevent Nixon from winning in 1960. Steinbeck desperately wanted Stevenson to win in 1952, 1956 and 1960. I’d like to think Stevenson wouldn’t have gotten us so deeply mired in Vietnam but we’ll never know. I’m a libertarian who is against all foreign and domestic wars waged by governments and the slippery politicians of both major parties in charge of them — including wars on drugs and wars on poverty. For what’s it’s worth, here’s some of what I wrote about Steinbeck’s tricky politics from ‘Dogging Steinbeck’:
“By today’s definitions, Steinbeck was a ball of political contradictions. He was a highly partisan FDR big-government Democrat who went ape for Adlai Stevenson in the 1950s and became a White House-sleepover friend of LBJ and frequent weekend guest at Camp David. Like most of his New Deal generation, he had a naïve trust in the federal government to solve massive social and economic problems.
“But Steinbeck was never close to being the true-believing commie or socialist both his rightwing enemies and leftwing friends liked to claim he was. He was what we call today “a Cold War liberal.” He supported labor unions, the civil rights movement and LBJ’s war on poverty. He was also a staunch anti-communist who believed in containing the Soviet Union and what then was so impolitely called “Red China.”
“He was a sincere patriot, which, along with becoming too friendly with LBJ, may have blinded him to the folly of Vietnam and the fallacy of the Domino Theory. He was a loud public hawk on Vietnam in its early stages, but became a quiet dove when he realized the war was unwinnable. Intolerant of anti-war protestors, whom he thought were stupid and cowardly, he despised hippies and the ‘60s youth culture.
“Steinbeck the man had personal issues that didn’t appeal to me…. Yet whatever his faults as a father and husband, personally and politically Steinbeck was a living saint compared to many celebrities and famous writers of his era.
“Despite our differences, I had grown to like the grouchy, contradictory guy. Underneath his New Yorker magazine limousine liberalism, he hid an admirable libertarian streak. He wrote fine paeans to individualism, understood the importance of private property rights and hated bureaucrats and government bullying. Plus he didn’t moralize about things like prostitution. He treated prostitutes kindly in his books and thought they provided a service to the community, which of course they do.