Good afternoon, and welcome to the sixth and final week this year of the American presidency. Our series of conversations with noted historians and journalists about the people and events that have defined the most important elected office in the world. A program is brought to you by the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, the UT Osher Lot's Law Learning Institute, and Humanities, Texas. I'm Phil Barnes, and it is my privilege to chair the UT Ollie Sage Enrichment Committee. Mark Lawrence, the director of the LBJ Presidential Library, and himself a widely respected historian, is the host of our conversations. As a member of the audience, you may participate in the Q&A segment of our program by using the chat function to write and submit questions. And I would encourage you to do so. Our Q&A host today is my UT Ollie colleague and our friend, Sandy Press. The theme for this year's series has been the American presidency pivotal elections. I look back at six of our 59 presidential campaigns and elections deemed by many to be among the most consequential in our history. And all of this is a reminder that our 60th presidential election, the election of 2024, will not be the only consequential election that our nation has experienced. Our guest today is John Ward, an experienced journalist with more than two decades writing about American politics and culture. He has served as the city desk reporter in Washington, D.C., as a White House correspondent traveling on Air Force One all over the world, and as a national affairs correspondent traveling the country to write about presidential campaigns. He is the author of Camelot's End, Kennedy versus Carr, which is the story of the 1980 battle of the Democratic nomination for president. James Earl Carter and Edward Moore Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy were powerful Democratic politicians. Ambitious, driven and highly competitive, they fought a bitter battle for the Democratic Party nomination in 1988. In his widely acclaimed book, John Ward gives us thorough insight into the campaign and the men involved. Carter and Kennedy could hardly have been more different. A man from the South Carolina was born into poverty in his early years living in a house without running water. Ted Kennedy, a man from the North, was born into a wealthy, prominent family of international acclaim and privilege. Carter lifted himself up attending the U.S. Naval Academy and could have had a career in the Navy. He chose to stand to return to Georgia. Ted Kennedy, by contrast, virtually inherited the Senate seat left by his brother, John, when JFK was elected president. And his family name and the power of the Kennedy bloke machine really shielded Ted Kennedy from the consequences of his own careless, carousing and crosses filled life. And John Ward tells the story by the time in 1974 when three-term U.S. Senator Kennedy met with little known one-term governor of Georgia. Kennedy had little reason to know or even suspect that Carter was already planning a careful and thorough campaign for his party's nomination in 1976. Kennedy, as John's closest, chose not to run that year. Carter won the nomination and defeated Gerald Ford in the general election. But all along, Carter, like the rest of the bloke world, really believed Kennedy would eventually be compelled to run for president, seeking to return the glory of Camelot. And he did so in 1980, arrogantly challenging the incumbent president of his own party. So to learn more about this fascinating campaign and pivotal election, we welcome for today's interview John Ward, the author of Camelot's End, Kennedy versus Carter, and the fight that broke the Democratic Party. And now, to Mark Williams. Well, thank you so much, Phil, and welcome, everyone. Thanks so much for being here for this sixth and, sadly, final program in this year's series. And thanks especially to our special guest, John Ward. John, it's wonderful to have you. Mark, thanks for having me and Phil, thanks for that introduction. You got my juices flowing and ready to talk. John, you've written so eloquently about the 1980 race, but in an unusual way. You know, your book isn't focused on the man who generally stands out as the star of that particular show, Ronald Reagan. You've given us a book that deals with this fascinating battle within the Democratic Party between Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter precisely, as Phil has just mentioned. And we want to get deeply into these two characters and maybe pull Ronald Reagan into this as well at a certain point. But set the stage for us to get us going. It's almost a cliche, it seems to me, to say that the 1980 election was a pivotal election in American history. In what ways was it a breaking point in American political history? Yeah, I'm a child of the 70s. I was born there and Ronald Reagan was a big part of my childhood. My dad, as I've written about in my other book, which was about growing up evangelical, my father was raised Catholic, voted for McGovern, voted for Carter in 76, and then voted for Reagan in 80. And that was the household I was raised in. And you're right, this story, this chapter was was generally neglected, especially by Democrats in part because it's so painful. It was so painful because it was a shattering of a number of things. It was a shattering of sort of the party unity. It was a shattering of sort of the last gasp of the three Kennedy brothers and their attempts to run or to return to the presidency. Bobby being struck down in 69 and then Teddy, you know, at some point being obligated to kind of pick up the torch of his two older brothers, both of them slain. And then finally, it was a it was a shattering of the Democratic coalition. And this is where your question really takes us. Because a lot of what we're seeing in American politics today, in terms of the Democratic Party's problems with working class Americans, traces its roots to this part of our history. Donald Trump's appeal to the Rust Belt in a large part traces its roots to this part of our history. A couple of stats I looked up earlier today. I mean, the South had been voting Democratic in presidential elections forever before the Civil War. That changed in 64, 1964, after the civil rights legislation was passed. In 64 and 72 and went Republican in 68, the South went for George Wallace. So those three elections between civil rights and Jimmy Carter all went against the Democrats. Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, won the South back and no Democrat has done that since not even Bill Clinton. Clinton got part of the South, but not all of it. The other thing to keep in mind in terms of the Democratic coalition, because that's what I'm talking about when I talk about the South, is organized labor. You know, organized labor really gained a lot of strength out of the New Deal, which is where the Democratic coalition really gained strength under FDR. And by the 60s into the 60s, about a third of the American workforce was unionized. By the time Ronald Reagan leaves office in 1988, eight years after this part of our history that I'm writing about in this book, that number had been cut in half almost to about 17 percent. And a lot of this is written about in David Leonehart's new book. Excellent look at this question. So, you know, the decline of organized labor was really a bit a part of an even larger story of the Democratic coalition declining because it it was just a major sign of their connection to the working class being being severed and weakened and broken. And Carter's presidency contributed to that. He did not get some key legislation passed that would have helped organize labor. I didn't know this, but Leonehart's book talks about how Paul Volcker's approach to taming inflation was more helpful to Wall Street than it was to Main Street. And that, you know, that trend continued a lot under Clinton as well with the push for China to get into the World Trade Organization. So it was really the moment where the FDR coalition started to really founder on the rocks. But I could not agree more that David Leonehart's new book about the the history of the American dreams of a fascinating book that really lines up very well with many of the things that you write about. So much in that answer that you just gave to my very first question. You know, obviously, I want to unpack a lot of what you were just talking about as we proceed here. But maybe let's let's dial it back to a more granular level and talk about the fascinating cast of characters in your book, particularly, of course, Carter and Kennedy, the two the two stars of the show. I mean, let's start, I would suggest, with Jimmy Carter, who, of course, had been elected president in in 1976. Remind us of the source of his appeal in 1976 and where he stood within his party as as his presidency advanced. Carter's appeal was very much tied to the lack of appeal of Richard Nixon. Watergate and the impeachment or the resignation of of Richard Nixon. Sorry, he was not impeached, but the resignation of Richard Nixon after the Watergate scandal that was weighing heavily on the American psyche, as was the Vietnam War and a feeling of betrayal by the government in taking us into a conflict where we lost so many American young American lives. So those two things were really a burden on the American populace. You also had energy crises in the early 70s before you get to the gas lines of 1979. You have a gas shortage in, I believe, 73. There's a lot of anxiety in the country about our standing on the world stage. And so Jimmy Carter came along and in addition to appealing to the Democrats for his ability to win back the South, more generally, he was somebody who could renew a sense of hope, renew a sense of optimism and renew a sense of moral purpose, I think. You know, he talked about faith a lot. He was a born again Christian, which that was a very, you know, that that's part of my story. You know, my parents became born again Christians in the 70s. And that had a lot of appeal to a lot of young people. So Carter talked to his to the voters that he would see, you know, on the campaign on the campaign trail about wanting to have a government as good as its people. And, you know, there are echoes of that in George Bush's campaign in 2000, where he talks about trying to restore dignity to the office after Bill Clinton's scandal with Monica Lewinsky. But Carter was the one who kind of pioneered that message. So now let's let's move forward into, let's say, 1978, 1979. Jimmy Carter has been in office a few years. The story, I think that we know relatively well is why Jimmy Carter was vulnerable to Ronald Reagan and to the surging conservative movement. What you do such a great job of calling our attention to is why he was vulnerable to someone with Ted Kennedy's politics. So tell us why there was that opportunity for Ted Kennedy to get into the race and to, you know, do some serious damage to Jimmy Carter's election re-election prospects. Yeah, the fall of 79, the summer and fall, maybe even starting in the spring is a fascinating chapter because it was pretty shocking to me when I first discovered this that in the fall of 79, polling showed Ted Kennedy was up two to one on Jimmy Carter in terms of who would be the nominee of the party in the 1980 election. That was due to a couple of things, namely inflation and energy shortages. Inflation was in the double digits. And we can relate to that now because we've had very high inflation over the last few years that's come down now, but it is still sort of lingering. And it was really hurting the ability of the middle class to make major purchases of automobiles of a first home or second home. And so that was inflation price pressure. And then the summer of 79 things really fell apart when it came to energy. And one of the most famous chapters in Carter's presidency is what's known as the malaise speech, which happened in July of 79. Carter was traveling abroad in Asia. He had planned to kind of stop over in Hawaii for a night or two to kind of recover from jet lag. And his aides back in Washington were sending, you know, panic messages about the escalating chaos at gas stations around the country. There was violence. People were being stabbed and shot. People died at some of these gas stations. People were rationing gas. They had to pick a certain day to go to the gas station. So there was a real sense of desperation in the country.  So Carter signed back to Washington and plans to give a speech and then disappears to Camp David for 10 days. And nobody really knows where he is at first. He meets with all kinds of people and comes back to Washington and gives this speech where he talks about America's crisis of confidence in some really stark terms. The speech was actually really well received at first for the first few days and you never use the term malaise. But Hamilton Jordan, I uncovered a memo in which he was encouraging Carter to fire the entire cabinet as a show of strength. That was the moment where things really began to backfire. And and since then, that speech became known as the malaise speech. So Carter Kennedy is is reported to have watched that speech and decided that that was when he was going to challenge Carter because he didn't feel like Carter was providing the kind of leadership that the country needed. And if you want, we can get into how things turned around. I think we'll probably get to that in a moment. But it is fascinating just to watch the fortunes rise and fall in the fall of the night. Yeah, let's get there in just a minute. But before we do that, John, put into perspective, if you would, into historical perspective, the challenge to a sitting president by by a challenger, by Ted Kennedy in this case, how unique is that in the long flow of American history? How extraordinary a moment was that? Yeah, it's very extraordinary and very rare. And Democrats after that moment, you know, have not have not done that. There was talk of, I believe, Hillary maybe challenging Obama in 2012. And I'm sorry, actually, what I'm thinking of is 2008, even in 2008, the residue of this fight, because you had advisers who worked on this campaign in in in 80, who were still, you know, around, they were probably junior in 80. And now they're senior advisers in 19 or in 2008. But as the Democratic primary between Clinton and Obama, you remember, it was extended and Hillary Clinton really stayed around for a long time. The question at the end of that primary was, you know, does Hillary try to really press her advantage to make a case maybe at the convention for herself? And at the end of the day, her advisers really remembered how painful and how harmful it was to the party to have a sitting president be challenged from within your own party. This wasn't the same situation in 2008, but the level of acrimony and the damage that it did to the party. Those wounds were still fresh, you know, 20, 30 years later. Yeah. And you you write in such a compelling way in your book about the personal relationship between these two men in 1980, noting that they really came to to detest each other. And you say that they might have been raised on different planets. I wonder if you could fill in his introduction and touched on a bit of this, but talk a little bit of if you would about how their personal backgrounds made these two men so different and how this might have informed their rivalry. Yeah, I'll back up from this statement, but I just want to point out that when Carter ran in 76, he was one of the first candidates for president to really run against Washington. He ran as an outsider. He may not be too strong word to say despised, professional Washington despised sort of the political class here in Washington. And and that's been a winning message pretty much almost every election cycle since. Um, but yes, I mean, Phil alluded to it. Jimmy Carter grew up in the deep south on a farm before farming tools had really entered the the modern era. I mean, a lot of the farming tools that his family and their shop sharecroppers used have been in use for a very, very long time. I don't remember the exact number of years. It could have been decades. It could have been centuries. I mean, these were really kind of frozen in time places, you know, in rural Georgia. Phil mentioned there was no running water until he was about 12. They didn't have, you know, toilet paper. So very, very. Archaic, Carter's dad was not. I wouldn't say he was poor, you know, he had land. He was able to turn a profit with his farm. But they were certainly not wealthy. He had no political political connections. You know, in Carter's path to the state Senate and the governorship. Are really remarkable. He was elected to the state Senate after somehow getting a reporter from Atlanta, I believe from the journal Constitution to come out, you know, to West Georgia, to rural Georgia and investigate these stories of people intimidating voters at the ballot box in the polling place and stuffing the ballot box. You know, that was how Carter originally lost his race for the state Senate. And then when he runs for governor, he loses the first time, runs as a moderate on race and then runs in between his first and second run for governor, has sort of a spiritual awakening, becomes a born gang Christian. And then he runs a second time for governor with a with a message on race that's far more complicated.   He said, I never get anything to turn off the white supremacists. So he acknowledges that that was a factor. And there were certainly things done by people who work for the Carter campaign in that in that race that were that were not that were not right. So that's Carter's background comes from nothing has to, you know, claw his way into politics. Whereas Teddy Kennedy, of course, you know, he's a child living in the ambassadorial residence in London, you know, just this massive estate in the middle of the city comes from great wealth and is really pushed into politics. You know, his father has to tell him, you know, you're not going to go live out in Arizona, which is where in his first wife, Joan had talked about he was not interested in politics. But Joe Kennedy said, you're going to you're going to continue the family business and he sent him up to Massachusetts. So Kennedy over time, by the time you get to 1980, looks at Carter and sees somebody who's in over his head and Carter looks at the Kennedy and sees somebody who has had a lot of things handed to him. So it's a natural, natural recipe for mutual loathing. And John, just to push you one step further, how do you see those differences of background play out in the animosity between these two figures, you know, as the 1980 election approached? Kennedy wants Jimmy Carter to pass a health care law and Jimmy Carter doesn't really. Make that a priority. That's a big policy break. You know, there is some detente early in Carter's presidency. But the relationship grows colder over time. And by the time you get to 79 and 80, there's not much of a relationship there at all. And by the time you get to Kennedy kind of inching towards a run, Carter makes it well known. You know, he makes a comment to some members of Congress at a lunch at the White House that he's going to kick Kennedy's ass, you know, which is the kind of language that you might not expect from a from a born again Christian, you know, president, even if he did, you know, hang out with Willie Nelson and Bob Dylan. But but his aides, you know, made sure that the press found out about that comment. And one of the most interesting sort of anecdotes about Jimmy Carter or or details is, you know, Hunter Thompson, who is a famous writer, journalist. He he once called Jimmy Carter one of the three meanest people he had ever met. And I think the other two were the founder of Hell's Angels and Muhammad Ali. And what his point was that this is after Hunter Thompson saw Carter give a speech after Ted Kennedy in Georgia. It's called the Law Day speech, probably Carter's second most famous speech. Yeah, which he really kind of took apart not just Kennedy, but he took apart the the political elites, the ruling class of Georgia in a very populist speech. And Carter was willing to be ruthless. He really had a had a mean streak in him, even though he came across as gentle, his wife, you know, Rosalind. I mean, she rest in peace, having just passed away. She she once said something to the effect of don't pay attention to that smile. It doesn't mean a thing. And how did Ted Kennedy view Jimmy Carter, would you say?  And that just gets to the fact that Carter came into Washington really despising the political class. He didn't Carter didn't try to bring in counsel from people who knew who knew the city, you know, who had the relationships wired. And so he did spend that was a mistake. Like he spent a good amount of time trying to get up to speed on things that he could have adapted to more quickly if he had drawn on the resources of people who knew the city. I think that was one of Kennedy's observations. The other was it was just a difference in style. And I think that does get to Kennedy's experience in politics at the national level. I think he understood probably better than Carter did. Sort of had a project leadership. And Carter was definitely still learning that on the job. Would you go along, I wonder, with the assertion that Ted Kennedy was in a certain way the last gasp of great society, liberalism. Was that something that was also in play in the rivalry between these two figures? Carter, in other words, despite his hard scrapple background, was in many ways the more conservative figure, whereas Ted Kennedy, arguably through his support for health care and his connections, of course, to his his famous brothers from the 1960s might stand out as kind of the the the person who wore the mantle of that earlier generation of of liberal ambition. Yeah, I don't think you ever saw anybody come along after Ted Kennedy, even who really wore that mantle. One of the key things to know about this is, you know, another part of the the breakup, the Democratic coalition was the decline of power of city bosses and political machines. I think that does go in hand in hand with sort of the type of Democratic politics you talked about, because it wasn't until we all think of the way we elect presidents now as set in stone, or not all of us do, but a lot of people do. But we didn't have primaries until the 70s. You know, after the 68 convention, that was when the McGovern, I believe the McGovern-Fraser Commission took place and they instituted primaries. Primaries was a big part of how Carter won the nomination in 76. And that was taking power out of the hands of party elites and transferring it to the grassroots.  We have, you know, 10 percent of the of the voters choosing 80 percent of our Congress, choosing who hundreds of millions of us get to choose from for president. But at the time, you know, the primary system was designed by reformers to get to kind of take party away from that party elite. You know, yeah, fascinating. And you mentioned a few minutes ago that. Early polling in the race for the Democratic nomination had Ted Kennedy way out in front. And yet Jimmy Carter closed that gap, obviously, and came out on top in the end. Explain that part of the the rise and fall of Ted Kennedy's fortunes. I guess the fall part. How was it that Jimmy Carter was able to make the comeback and ultimately prevail? So a lot of people remember. Why do you want to be president? The question from Roger Mudd that Ted Kennedy had trouble answering. That interview took place a few days before Kennedy's announcement for president, I believe. I didn't check this detail and spend a few years since I wrote this book, but I believe that the mud interview aired on a Sunday, the same day that the hostages were taken at the US Embassy in Tehran. So that happens right before Kennedy announces. The mud interview. There's a whole chapter in my book on the interview. Just a fast, you know, just a really interesting episode. The mud interview raises a lot of doubts and questions in the minds of political elites about Kennedy's preparedness for for this campaign. The hostages. Yeah, go ahead. Sorry, John, go please. The hostage crisis at the same time creates a rally around the leader dynamic in the larger country and it pushes Kennedy out of the news cycle, which at that time is, you know, three TV stations and a couple of major newspapers nationally and in each city. And it makes it pretty hard for Kennedy to criticize Carter as he's launching his campaign. So all of these things contribute to a freeze out. Carter's bull numbers turn upside down within the span of a few weeks. And then you've got Iowa. Iowa caucuses are upon them in the new year. And so Kennedy loses Iowa and loses New Hampshire. And from that point on, it's an uphill battle. He does, you know, make an effort and gain some momentum after that. But that two month period between his announcement and the New Hampshire primary are really critical for what happens next. And John, that that mud interview, as you point out, it seems to me to be so important in the changing perception of Ted Kennedy. What's your explanation for how poorly Ted Kennedy did in that particular moment? You know, it's sometimes been suggested. I think you you mentioned this in your book that there was a sense of entitlement there on Ted Kennedy's part, maybe even an uncertainty about whether he really wanted this you know, run for the presidency. That was a matter of kind of the momentum of being a Kennedy. It was almost an expectation that maybe he had had his own personal misgivings about. Anyway, what's your what's what's your explanation? Yeah, you know, Mark, after I really spent a lot of time with this story, it did look to me like. Teddy was was pulled and pushed into this race. By events and by advisors and by history in his family name, I did not I think at a certain point, once he was losing, he became. More of a participant, a willing participant. And I don't quite understand the psychology there. Maybe it was, you know, losing that kind of was the cold water that woke him up. Yeah. But there was this sort of glaze over, you know, this glazed look that he had for much of the mud interview that I think people caught on caught on to and it really did raise this question of, you know, why why do you want to be do you want to be president? Because there had been election cycle after election cycle. I mean, he almost ran in sixty eight. I believe, yeah, sixty eight. Sorry, I mentioned earlier that Bobby was killed in sixty nine, but sixty eight. He almost ran that year. And every year after that, you know, it was the same question over and over again. So, you know, we'll get to this probably later. But there was so much pressure on him to to do this at some point. And and I think I think he was happy to have it over and done with once it was all finished. Let me ask you what I'm sure is an unfair counterfactual. But these are the things that make history fun. Could Ted Kennedy, if he had performed more effectively, have gotten the nomination in 1980? Yeah, I mean, these are hard questions to answer. He didn't have a couple of things that were hanging around Carter's neck, namely the the hostage crisis.  So he wasn't, you know, totally responsible for that. He also had a pretty different leadership style. I think he would have been a better debater. Just a presentation on presentation, you know, a lot of Reagan's appeal was. You know, he had a he was a he was a former actor. He was able to present well on television. And I think Carter was earnest and sincere and authentic. And that stuff doesn't necessarily come through on television. Kennedy, as we talked about earlier, I think understood how to project leadership. So it's possible. But I think Kennedy would have would have had some real problems answering questions about Chappaquiddick. You know, there was a lot of, you know, other questions about his marriage and his personal life. So that that would have been an issue for sure. And I suppose another undoubtedly unfair counterfactual is could candidate Kennedy. The Democratic Party nominee have performed better against Ronald Reagan. Can I run that one by you and see if see what you think? I thought that was the question I just answered, whether. Well, I'm drawing, I suppose, a fine distinction here in the first place. Could a different Kennedy, could a different performance by Ted Kennedy have resulted in the Democratic nomination and then secondarily, you're asking a candidate being Carter. Yeah, it's a fine distinction. I mean, going back to the Democratic nomination, I just think once once you have what happened, the the hostages and the mud interview, you know, and once you lose Iowa and New Hampshire, it's it's pretty tough from there. But the other thing that really stood out to me was you go to the convention and there is a push, actually, to try to to get Kennedy to replace Carter. Which gains a little bit of steam because of, you know, Jimmy Carter's brother, Billy and a scandal he was involved with with Libya before the convention. But even though there is a push for that for Kennedy at the convention, there's also a significant portion of the Democratic party that's not really interested, even if they are not enthused about Carter. They they are not super interested in Kennedy either. There's a push for a senator from Maine who who's who went on to negotiate the peace agreement in Ireland. His name is escaping me at the at the moment. But that's people like him who are being nominated as an alternative to Kennedy. Yeah. And I think that goes to. Some of the discomfort with his with his personal life. You know, you know, now, your book, as we've acknowledged, is principally about the the struggle on the Democratic side. But let me just ask you a little bit about Ronald Reagan, an unavoidable figure in connection with 1980. He himself was perhaps not as clear-eyed, as consistent as we sometimes might think in retrospect, right? Of Reagan is sort of etched in marble in many ways, it seems to me in the way that many people talk about him. But if we put ourselves back in 1980, we see a Ronald Reagan who's also struggling to define exactly where he stands in the spectrum of opinion on the GOP side of the story. He surrounded himself famously, I think, with a wide array of advisers and even considered Gerald Ford as his running mate in 1980, something that certainly cut against the sort of conservative credentials that that he would come to be known for over the course of his presidency. At any rate, how would you describe Ronald Reagan's position within his his own party and the the the ways in which Americans' perceptions of Reagan evolved as the campaign advanced? Well, I mean, you mentioned the Ford co-presidency that going back and watching that footage was was eye opening. And it showed, you know, a level of uncertainty and indecision by Reagan, who ultimately ended up going with George H. W. Bush to try to to win over the evangelicals. You know, back in 76, Reagan was the renegade, the upstart talking about, you know, smaller government taking on the establishment. So he, you know, he did grow into this larger than life Kennedy-esque figure for the Republican Party. But at the beginning, he was really, you know, as you said, uncertain and and quite kind of undefined in a lot of ways. And I think you kind of your mention of his his advisers speaks to his malleability. He was sort of looking for a persona, which, you know, he was helped by the fact that the economy sort of turned around in his first term. And he was also helped by the fact that the Democrats were were adrift after a painful, you know, fight between Kennedy and Carter and and also adrift in terms of their their electorate. You know, they had lost the South to Reagan. Everything I outlined in the beginning about their connection with the working class, all of that was was was was kind of splitting apart. And they were changing. They were becoming a very special interest focused, activist focused party. And it took until Clinton to kind of patch it back together. So Reagan benefited from all that, I think. You know, and the result, of course, was something we can easily call a landslide. Reagan wins by a huge margin. Did the Carter camp see that coming? At least the full scale of that landslide. Talk about how they understood their chances as the election drew close. They thought it was close. I mean, Pat Caddell was was Carter's pollster. He passed a few years ago, was a larger life character. And I think it was the last rally of the campaign. They were still looking at numbers, seeing numbers that showed them within victory. You know, and I think it was that last weekend that they, according to their telling, saw the poll numbers start to go the wrong direction. You know, they blamed it on the TV networks. You know, focus on the one year anniversary of the hostages being taken. Yeah. So that's their telling of the story. But, you know, it was competitive. It was competitive. That's that's not debatable for much of the election. But it certainly was a competitive on Election Day. And turning back to Ted Kennedy for a second, you suggest, I think, a really fascinating part of the book toward the end that Ted Kennedy's loss was, in a certain sense, good for Ted Kennedy, who gave up finally on the presidency and devoted himself to the Senate, where he achieved, you know, genuine distinction. Talk a little bit about how that experience of running unsuccessfully in 1980 shaped Ted Kennedy's expectations and his career thereafter. Yeah, I I think it was painful to lose the election. You know, he certainly did fight for a very long time. I have kind of wondered whether that was him wanting to ring every last drop out of this one shot so that he didn't have to do it again.  I can see a scenario where later on in in 84, Democrats are saying, well, you know, maybe this time.  That I think, again, speaks to where Kennedy's head was at. And he does. He goes on. I think the Reagan presidency was a good foil or Kennedy, even though Kennedy, you know, he worked with Reagan on some things. But, you know, the Bork and and Thomas hearings are big moments for him to become a hero to the activists. But he also does a lot of just. Very. I don't want to say I was going to say pedestrian, you know, legislating. I don't know if that's the right adjective, but it's it's working like, you know, I think you I think it was Kennedy who talked about three yards in a cloud of dust. You know, that's how you get laws passed through dogged. Relentless effort year after year after year.  If there are people and there are. In Congress, who wanted to be legislators because many in Congress don't want to be legislators, they want to be TV stars. And that is again, going back to the primary system. A big reason why. But anybody who wanted to learn how to legislate, you know, would would learn a lot by studying Ted Kennedy's career. And a lot of that growth comes after this this experience. John, let me ask you about your attitude as an author who spent a lot of time digging into the lives of Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter into a much lesser extent, Ronald Reagan, for that matter. But where do you where do you stand on these figures?  With the passage of time? Well, sympathize is an interesting word. I mean, I think I sympathize more with Kennedy. And I look up to Jimmy Carter. I look up to Kennedy, too, but he's more of a tragic figure. I do admire his. Fortitude in this election. Um, you know, I think he. He shows some some real sort of backbone and what's the word? I don't know. He really does show some some character. And even though I'm sure a lot of Carter people would would not like that characterization, in sort of persisting in his speech at the convention, you know, the dream will never die. It's it kind of carries so much weight because of that. I think I think it remains one of the great kind of moments in American rhetoric. Yeah. And Carter, somebody I've come to really look up to. As I mentioned, I was raised evangelical. I've written a book about that whole journey. And I really do see Carter as somebody who. More than anyone in my lifetime, more than any president, I can think of or or know of. Who tried to really. Not bring faith into the presidency in a way that was oppressive or beating people over the head, tried to live out his Christian faith in public life. With a level of nuance and complexity and selflessness that that I find to be really compelling and integrity. I mean, the guy has no incongruous integrity and just the way he's conducted himself as an ex president, I find inspirational, not just the philanthropy and the alleviation of disease and suffering and the election monitoring, but also the modesty and the simplicity. I just find it incredibly inspiring. Yeah, thank you. Thank you for that. And by the way, let me pause just for a moment and invite members of our virtual audience to please put your questions into the Q&A or the chat function at the bottom of your Zoom screen. And John, I'll just ask you a couple more quick ones before I turn things over to Sandy Kress and the Q&A part of our program. You mentioned close to the beginning of the book that there are some striking similarities between the 1980 race and our own political movement, and especially the 2016 election, which was, you know, I suppose the freshest political the freshest presidential election when you were working on this book. What are the the similarities that you would point to between 1980 and our own moment? Well, when I started the book, it was just after Obama had been reelected. By the time I finished it, former President Trump was, you know, ascendant, I would say, in the party. It was published in 19, but I was largely done, I don't know, sometime in 16, 17, maybe 18. So there was just a a darkness, a despair in our in our political discussion. By the time I finished the book, that seemed similar to some of the ways I heard and saw people talking about the 70s and the way I hadn't experienced before that.  You know, I stood, I was on the floor of the convention in 16 in Cleveland. And I was standing three feet away from Senator Mike Lee of Utah, who people may have forgotten this. He was leading the effort to try to replace Trump as the nominee. And I was standing a few feet away from him when he was yelling out his objection to a procedural vote that was basically going to quash that rebellion. Um, you know, that's that was the first time you really had that at a convention since 1980 with the Democrats. Um, if you look at today, I think one of the big similarities is inflation. You know, Carter battled that during his presidency. It was it was one of the big reasons he lost. And, you know, President Biden has been battling this.  But, you know, the economy is always huge in how presidential elections go. And, um, I would say that's one of the big, big similarities now. Are there any lessons from the 1980 race that you think either party would do well to bear in mind in 2024? I mean, the most obvious one is that you don't know what's going to happen. You know, if you're if you're Ted Kennedy in the fall of 79 or if there's one of his advisors, you're thinking you're thinking ahead to the general election. Yeah.  So that's that's a big lesson in politics in general. But the the 70, the 80 primary is is a stark example of that. Well, John Ward, I want to thank you very sincerely for spending time with me this afternoon and congratulations again on Camelot's end. The Democrats last great civil war. A book I highly recommend to all of our listeners. Thank you so much for being with me. Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate it. And let me now turn things over to my friend and colleague, Sandy Kress, who will pose some additional questions. Thank you, Mark. John, so good to be with you. I have been looking forward to this interview for several reasons. One, just it's a fascinating topic for all people interested in political science or history. But personally, I was in the Carter administration and a fan of Ted Kennedy. In fact, I negotiated no child left behind for President Bush forty three with with Ted Kennedy and grew to know him and admire him a great deal. So your take on these issues is something I've been looking forward to a great deal. Glad to have this chance to ask you a few questions. Right. Thank you. I want to focus first because this is this is part of so many different questions in your interview so far with Mark. I don't know that I've ever seen a president who had such fluctuation in the polls as Jimmy Carter did during that 18 month to two year period twice in the high fifties and twice in the 20s. I guess I want to ask you generally. But let me round, let me surround it with a question. What how much the answers to all of this depend upon those that up and down? You know, I've had there's an anonymous question and Mike Pistorius asked a question around the hostage crisis. What what role did the hostage crisis play in the election? Mike asking what was the role specifically of the failed rescue mission? And I guess as I look at these polls, I've just got them right here in front of me. Right after Kennedy announces there is this and you've talked about it, this real nice rise in Carter's popularity out of sympathy, I guess, for the president rallying around the flag and then this deep decline that takes place largely beginning with the failed crisis. That made a big difference, didn't it, both of those events? Yeah, the the hostage crisis and then followed by what again? By the failed rescue mission. Yeah, yeah. I mean, the failed rescue mission, I think, was April, I want to say. And that did certainly.  You mentioned Carter's numbers going up and down. I'm looking at the Gallup numbers right now. You know, the Camp David Accords were a big reason why he had that second spike. And and the economy was kind of driving things down and down and down. And then Camp David happens, pops back up and then the economy keeps pulling back down, which goes to my point at the end against with Mark, it's it's it's often the economy that is sort of the baseline. And if you have something really big that happens, you know, that can move things a different direction. You know, foreign policy today, I don't it doesn't seem to drive numbers in a similar way. But, you know, if we were to have major conflict that involved our own military, I think that would that would move the needle for sure. Yeah, exactly. I think you're right. But that was such a unique situation where it was embarrassing. I mean, deeply embarrassing to the country. And then this failed mission, which I think was as Mike is suggesting in his question, very troubling. So that fall that began, it was almost a steady fall, although Carter studied things. And this leads me to my next question. As you suggest, he he actually was leading Reagan in the polls before the debates. I think he was eight points ahead. So even with these problems, he pulled himself out and pulled it into a lead. And as you say, he was in the polls showed he was a few points ahead among among likely voters and even more among registered voters the weekend before the election. I guess I want to I want to use those facts to ask you this question. Given Carter's being competitive and even being ahead, yeah, toward the end, does that suggest that perhaps this fight did not break the Democratic Party, that he was still competitive, still possibly able to win even after this intra-party fight and that maybe it was all it was all these other things that caused his defeat instead of what? Instead of being hurt by the intra-party fight. I guess I'm asking how much was he hurt by the intra-party fight as opposed to inflation, as opposed to the failed rescue mission, as opposed to Reagan's competitive strengths and so forth. Yeah, I mean, I think the the Kennedy Challenge. You know, there's no question that hurt him when you try to kind of weigh up, when you try to look at the scale and say, what's the what's the thing that that went on the scale that tipped it at the, you know, into a loss? That's really hard to do, but there's probably not arguable to say, oh, you know, he would have been better off or he was he was made stronger by the Kennedy Challenge. You know, I just think there's no question that that weakened him, in particular, what happened at the convention.  And what should have been a moment of victory and strength becomes a moment of embarrassment and humiliation. So, you know, the hostages probably and the economy and inflation are probably more consequential, but the Kennedy Challenge really played up the idea that he was weak and that that was not helpful. Well, I certainly I was there at that convention and it was it was embarrassing to be sure. And you're absolutely right. It was of no help to have had the challenge. But how much hurt he was by it, I guess, is what I was driving at. I was active in that campaign. And I remember it just seemed to me that most people who were campaigning for him felt that that it didn't it didn't it didn't hurt him as much, I think, as as it might be supposed. It was embarrassing. But I think it was as embarrassing for Kennedy as it was hurtful to Carter. And let me let me go on to the next question. I'm just stunned at how far off that final poll was. Ten point a ten point loss as opposed to being a few points ahead. That seems to be about as much as Gallup was ever off that I'm familiar with. And the do you have any do you have any sense in you talked about this a little bit with Mark, but I want you to focus a little bit on. Why do you think it was that far off? I don't have a strong opinion on that. I mean, I haven't looked at these polling numbers any time recently. The only real tangible thing I can remember. Pat Cadell and Carter's adviser saying was they felt like the the network. You know, focus on the the year anniversary of the hostage crisis was a big reason why the numbers kind of the basement or the floor fell out. I remember talking about that. You know, at this last rally, somewhere out west, I think. And, you know, is that why? I don't know. It seems plausible, but it's also possible that the pollsters miss something. We certainly seen plenty of that in the last few years. Yeah, I was just curious if you had to take on it, that it sounded more like a pollster. You know, a thought of an insider who was saying it was going to be close and it wasn't. But be that as it may. I want to talk to you a little bit, ask you a little bit about the Reagan campaign. The I was interested during that year at how far he went. John Sears did this with him and some others did to try to make him look more moderate because I recall that being a real concern that he was perceived as an extremist. And he went out of his way to show himself to be an environment, to be pro environmentalism. I remember there was a week where that was his focus. He went to the Urban League and gave a speech on how pro civil rights he was. To what extent did those efforts help Reagan become more competitive in the election? Yeah, I think they helped. I think the debate, though, was probably a bigger factor. But, you know, all of those efforts to kind of chip away at a candidate's weakness, play a role. I think when people were actually able to see him next to Carter, that was pretty late in the campaign, as I remember. And that that, I think, moved the numbers. I think that was part of Reagan kind of reassuring people that he wasn't at least people who voted for him. You know, he was able to convince a lot of people that he was not what his critics said he was, whether that was you know, a warmonger or whether that was, you know, not serious.   But Carter didn't help himself either. You know, he got a lot of criticism for the way he talked about his decision, whether or not to use nuclear weapons and having discussed it with his young daughter at the time, Amy, you know, all that stuff. But, you know, Reagan's I think also was effective in that other famous line, which is, you know, are you better off now than you were four years ago? Yeah, that really tapped into all of the economic troubles, inflation, energy, it tapped into the the the sense of I don't know, vulnerability, maybe that that was taking place because of the hostage crisis. What role did do you think John Anderson made played in this in the election? Did did he turn votes one way or the other?  It couldn't have been that much either way. But what role did he play? Yeah, you surprised me at that one. I had a strong opinion about this when the book came out. And now I'm trying to remember what it was. He's a fascinating guy, you know, his whole arc as a person and as a politician. But I believe. When I was deep in this material that I felt like the Anderson candidacy did not play a major role. That was that's what I remember thinking and saying at the time.  I just was, you know, whenever you have a third party candidate who gets any votes more than a percent or two and he got almost seven, you'd think could this have made made a difference. I want you to return to I just can't get it out of my system because I remember watching the Roger Mudd interview. And I know Mark visited with you about that. But I want to ask you whether you think there might be another possible explanation of it, because I certainly thought at the time that it was exactly what you said. But, you know, Kennedy did come on after that, giving very strong speeches. You know, and I think he showed that he at least to me that he really wanted it. I mean, he was powerful, strong, tough. He gave good speeches, gave a great speech at the convention. One person in the Wall Street Journal just a few weeks ago. Talking about CBS and they were going after the way CBS had treated Nikki Haley using the same issue, a fellow raised the possibility that CBS had held this interview for a while and that they pushed it out there at a time when Kennedy was that it was done. I'm sorry that the interview was not was done way ahead of the announcement and that it surprised Kennedy a little bit. I don't know whether that's true or not, but I want to ask you about it. And I want to ask you whether it's possible that he just wasn't prepared that he wasn't prepared and politicians have to be prepared, even Ted Kennedy, that it may have just been not being prepared for that question. Do either of those make any sense? Well, this I can talk about it.  Mud, you know, has probably at least a whole chapter in his memoir about this. Whether or not he was prepared, you know, one detail signals to me he was not taking it seriously enough. That is most people don't know this. The mud interview actually took place in two installments. The first installment, two interviews, the first interview was up on Cape Cod. The second interview was at his Senate office in Washington. And at that first interview on Cape Cod, there were no staff present. That to me signals that Kennedy was was expecting a softer interview. Yeah. And and he afterwards, Kennedy, you know, told said publicly that he had been told by mud that it would be a soft interview. Mud said, no, that's not true. But, you know, the idea that you would have an interview with a major network correspondent without an aid present is unthinkable now and was then, I think, also. Now, as far as CBS and whether they held it, my recollection, and again, you can go check this in Mud's memoir and in Kennedy in some of the literature about Kennedy, but my recollection is that the interview in the Cape went horribly. And that's, you know, the question about why do you want to be president was the second interview. The first interview was in Cape Cod. It was all about Chappaquiddick. I mean, to me, that's really what is the striking thing about the mud interview, which, by the way, was an hour long special. This was an hour long special, not just interviewed, but mud kind of going through every detail of what happened in Chappaquiddick in 69. And Kennedy's performance with those questions was atrocious. And so, you know, that first interview happens, there's no aid present. And so Kennedy, I believe, asks for a second interview to do to get a do over. And I think, according to Mud's telling, they're, you know, working on getting the package ready. Maybe there was some stuff going on at CBS with executives. There's a whole side story about the mud trying to get, you know, the the main anchor job after getting his name. I can't remember. I can't believe I'm forgetting his name, but. Mud's story is that they're they're getting ready to put it to air. And then Kennedy sort of tries to move up his announcement so that they can't air it without giving Kennedy sort of sort of fair use, I think, or fair reply. Anyway, it had some impact on how they could air it, according to FEC laws, I think.  So that's my right. Well, that's so fascinating. And isn't it amazing, as you suggested a moment ago, and it turns out you're absolutely right. That interview takes place the very day our hostages are taken in Iran. You were you were absolutely right about that, which leads me. And I know this is a counterfactual question to ask. But Kennedy for Kennedy to decide to run as much as he wanted to run being 20 points ahead or whatever it was, had he had that had it been two or three weeks later as Carter's making this rise in the polls? Would Kennedy do you think Kennedy would have run if it were five points or close or Carter ahead? Yeah, I think if the hostages are taken a month before they were, I do think that that's a that's a that's a strong likelihood that he doesn't pull the trigger at that point. Don't you? It's fascinating, isn't it, that those two things happen the same the same day. It's funny how history. Yeah, it is weird. Yeah, it is totally weird. Final question. I just I've learned a lot from you on a lot of things, and especially this idea of the two sides of Jimmy Carter, which I did not know as much as I was in his campaign. I worked for him. I did not know as much about that other side. But it certainly explains, doesn't it? I just was surprised to see him hitting Kennedy hard after Kennedy died on this issue of the health bill. However much he may have felt about it, that seemed to be. Did that surprise you that that he came and hit him that hard on that on that? I mean, I know a little bit about what was going on politically between the two. But that seemed to be kind of a low blow. Did you have a take on that? I'm not familiar with that. Was that around President Obama's health care law? No, no, no, I'm sorry. When Carter and I think you you may have mentioned this, but when when Kennedy passes away, Carter's interviewed about it and Carter criticizes Kennedy for not not negotiating with him, taking his legislation seriously and actually suggests that he would have passed his health initiative had Kennedy been supportive instead of resistant among the various chairs in the health committees back during the time he was president. Yeah, I mean, it just it goes to one of Carter's. Weaknesses, you know, he he held a grudge, I think, for the campaign. And he could be he could be exacting. He could be sort of sensorious.  But, you know, I think that that's a common characteristic is when people are really hard on themselves and really driven. They can they can take that same thing out on other people. But, you know, he did have a bit of the. I don't know the fair. I don't want to say ferricy. That's not quite right. But. Yeah, he just he couldn't bite his tongue at times when it came to saying what he thought he never wanted to really play politics, even as president, you know, he wanted to. Say what he thought was right and persuade people that way. And, you know, he he continued that way. I think what you were seeing primarily, though, is just sort of his. Resentment of Kennedy's challenge in 80, I saw that, too, when I spoke to him. Yeah, even after publicly and even after Senator Kennedy had just passed away. Yeah, listen, I've learned so much from you and I'm grateful. I know our audience is so grateful for having this opportunity to learn about this election and to learn about significantly about President Carter. John, thank you so much. I'm going to turn this now back to Phil Barnes. Thanks for having me. Well, thank you, John, for a very special afternoon. It's a splendid book and I commend it to our audience. And thank you, Mark and Sandy as well. Today's program brings to a close the third year of this series on the American presidency. During 18 programs over three years, we have had conversations with historians and journalists about 14 of our 46 presidents. These conversations have given us new insights into some of the iconic figures in our history and also insights to some of the presidents who might not have been as well done. The conversations took us through the challenging and difficult decisions that presidents made for peace and war. And we were made to feel, as you were today, a part of certain consequential and pivotal elections. For those of us interested in American politics, this series has been very special. Mark Lawrence and Sarah McCracken and Sandy Kress have served as her hosts for these programs throughout the three-year period. I respond behind the scenes as the technical communication specialist supporting each of the webinars. And I want to extend a special thank you to Mark Lawrence. This series was possible only because of his efforts, his thoughtful planning of each year's theme his ability to reach and successfully invite world-renowned historians and journalists as our special guests, and then his engaging interviews of each of them. And I would remind our audience that Dr. Lawrence knows all of this while it has a full-time job running the nation's premier presidential libraries. And in addition to this, please note that Mark Lawrence and his colleague, Mark Uptegrove, the president of the LBJ Foundation, will be leading a special six-week seminar on the years of Lyndon B. Johnson. It begins on Monday, September the 30th. It runs each Monday through November 4th in 2024. And that Monday on November 24th is the day before Election Day, and should be a fascinating program. So, offered as a part of the UT All-In-Sains curriculum for next fall, the seminar will be held in the LBJ auditorium on campus and all members of UT All-In, friends of the LBJ Library and if you're mad at us, Texas are invited to attend. It will be a unique opportunity to learn more about LBJ's life and legacy from two of the nation's eminent presidential scholars. I hope you will attend. And thank all of you for joining us each week. After all, the series was planned with you and mine. And I hope you have enjoyed the programs as much as we have enjoyed bringing it to you. Thank you again and goodbye, at least for now.


yesterday we were about to derive the formulas and then left them in graphical design also we need this formula, Ok some equations we have to derive and then we will go for graphical design, Ok but I have drawn now some graphs, Ok so in the last class we have given some graphs where we have to plot you know there are 3 variables in whatever way you want you can always try to plot them changing x, y, y, x and all that but logically there is only one way to draw logically where we are convenient with that kind of drawing so that only we plot but before doing that how do you get those graphs which I have given there, right someone going like this someone increasing decreasing and all kinds of things are there but how do you get those actual lines there that is what first we will decide and for this we will take irreversible reactions first and in this case it really does not matter whether you have first order reaction or second order sorry whether you have exothermic reaction or endothermic reaction, Ok irreversible only temperature decreases with endothermic temperature increases with exothermic, Ok and but the rate lines will be increasing only all the time so for irreversible reactions let us first take that I have a very simple thing like it is going to products it is irreversible so products will not affect anything there so then minus r A for this one is k C A to the power of n and of course as usual we are going to get k C A for n equal to 1, right so now it is a non-isothermal reactor where I can write this equation minus r A equal to k 0 e power minus e by r T C A not 1 minus x A and we are also telling that you know there is no volume change, Ok this is the equation 1 and equation 2, Yeah so this equation I would like to arrange in terms of x A not in terms of x A x A and as a function of the other two then you will get that by re-adjusting this equation you will get minus r A e power minus e by r T whole thing divided by k not C A not this is equation 3 so this is one equation, right so now I have 3 variables that is x A as a function of now minus r A and T all other things are constant what is k not I think I do not have to derive that equation you know very simply you can write this equation so k not is the frequency factor which I know and C A not initially I know and e and r activation energy you have to measure before you start this, Ok it is a first order reaction and for second order reaction also you can write this but only thing is that will be more complicated so that is why we are writing in the simplest form first order you are taking and now how can I draw this graph which minus no no no I think that is plus only that is plus only yeah you check it yeah that is plus only right yeah so now yeah like the graphs which I have shown you the other day yesterday now I can plot x verses T or x verses r or r verses x all combinations are possible but most convenient way of drawing this one is in terms of x and T so when I say when I have x A and T in x axis and x as in y axis conversion is in y axis Ok so now what is the parameter for us now r is a parameter Ok and anyway the maximum conversion because I am plotting conversion it cannot be more than 1 so that line can be shown something like this so now I have to calculate this x every time I have to substitute for a T that means I should know the range of temperature and that is the reason why thermodynamics you know when we are talking about Gibbs free energy and all that you know so at that time I know definitely what is the corresponding temperature and then equilibrium conversions right equilibrium conversions so then I will know the range of temperatures where I will get this that means equilibrium conversion is if it is 60 percent that itself is x A equal to 1 for us because beyond that it cannot go Ok yeah unless otherwise of course you have very very large k values right so but anyway now I can assume minus r A as let us say 0 of A 0 of A put nothing will happen you know we should not use that then a small value for minus r A then calculate for various T's then I will get x verses T so I will have lines like this going this is the kind of lines this is for each one r so how r is increasing or decreasing this way or increasing this way or is this is r 1 r 2 r 3 r 4 so from the graph can you tell I mean because you have the idea as temperature increasing rate must so this will be in this increasing order Ok so this is minus r A 1 minus r A 2 etc Ok yeah or maybe I think you know this will be 1 r A equal to 1 this may be 10 this may be 100 this may be 1000 just give you some physical feeling exothermic endothermic does not matter yeah even endothermic as the temperature is increasing irreversible what will happen to rate even endothermic you are increasing the temperature so it should increase so that is why it is irreversible exo r endo does not matter Ok only irreversible you will have problem sorry reversible you will have problem Ok good so this is very simple then we will see later how do we use this for our graphical design but this is the first one then the second case is I have uhh yeah reversible endothermic reversible Ok first I will write exo r endo because the equation is same only sign changes endothermic exo r endothermic now it is irreversible simplest scheme which we can uhh write without getting confused with mathematics is this scheme where C r not equal to 0 much simpler Ok only C r not is there and uhh for exothermic endothermic you also know that you know E 1 E 2 depending on those two values you can find out which is endo which is exo r endo that I will tell you a little bit later right yeah so now what is the rate equation here minus r A equal to K 1 C A minus K 2 C r so this is equation number 4 yeah so this equation I can write in terms of uhh it is activation as a R Heine's equation this is K 1 0 yeah E power minus E 1 by R T into C A not 1 minus X A correct for the first part second part K 2 0 that is the frequency factor E power minus am I crossing my boundaries Ok E power minus E 2 by R T into C A not X A so this is equation 5 Ok yeah this is minus R A so this also I would like to write in terms of X A this algebra you have to do on your own very simple it is L K J algebra separating X A and writing in terms of you know minus R A and temperature that is all Ok so if I do that you know all these things can be again I have to blackmail you saying that this may come in the surprise test otherwise you do not do it know that is the problem so but anyway this X A can be written as K 1 0 E power minus E 1 by R T minus minus R A not by R A not by C A not again whole thing divided by K 1 not E power minus E by E 1 by R T plus K 2 0 E 2 by R T Ok so this is just separation and I can also write that in a much nicer way where X A yeah 1 minus minus R A E power E 1 by R T E 1 by R T this divided by K 1 0 C A not again this whole thing divided by 1 plus K 2 0 K 1 0 yeah E power minus E 1 minus E 2 by R T yeah so this is a nice form equation 6 thank you oh yeah yesterday I made a mistake in writing uhh that Vantop's equation Vantop's equation you remember no yeah that K 1 K 2 I have written small small K 1 K 2 actually both of them are capital K 1 K actually it should be K K by K not but both are capital the other side we have T and T not know so that is corresponding to that K not and K I am sorry capital K right yeah so that is please correct that Vantop's equation I think raise me or someone where is raise me oh there yeah I think they found out that sir it must be K 1 that is right capital K capital K 0 and capital K then only that limits will be satisfied otherwise no because normally our convention is small case are for rate constants and capital K are for equilibrium constants so that is why yeah Ok good so this is the one and now right you are right E 2 minus E 1 yeah otherwise I should have removed minus there that is all E 1 minus E 2 yeah so now uhh actually this E 1 minus E 2 is is what E 1 minus E 2 E 2 of reaction do you remember that reaction coordinate diagram I think which I have told you sometime back also Ok yeah so I think may be I have to draw for some other people who do not want to remember so that is why I just again I write once more so that they will remember I think may be I will draw here as a small one yeah what are the coordinates energy and it is not reaction rate actually yeah it is actually reaction path reaction path Ok yeah so when you have this kind of may be this is activated yeah this is one same thing reaction path verses E then I may have another one not so much correct no so what is this one yeah this is E 1 E 2 please remember this is a nice problem to be asked a nice question to be asked in the interviews Ok yeah so then this one will be E E 1 E 2 so which is endothermic which is exothermic here this is this means E 1 minus E 2 this will be negative value so this is exo Ok I have also write here delta H yeah Ok I write here itself in general delta H R equal delta H R equal to E 1 minus E 2 right so if E 2 is greater then this becomes negative then it is exothermic reaction and yeah the other one is endo so this is exo yeah this is the one no E 1 minus is E 2 the top one is endo yeah you are right where is my yeah Ok sorry yeah this is endo this is exo no no E 1 greater than E 2 oh yeah yeah what I wrote is right is this one you are telling yeah yeah no sir E 1 minus E 2 what is this you are playing with me no I think I do not want to listen to you so I think I have written E 1 minus E 2 does not matter yeah that is right yeah do not play because I started listening to you that is very bad I think I have to take my own decision I have everything here Ok good yeah so this is the one Ok so now this one will be now accordingly the values of E 1 and E 2 this will be either exothermic or endothermic that is why as far as derivation is concerned I have written here exothermic or endothermic right if delta H R is negative then we have exothermic and if delta H R is positive we have endothermic Ok so now let us plot those graphs so now I will take endothermic case this is 2 delta H R is yeah positive good yeah so what kind of graph I will get if I want to plot again same thing X A versus T this is what the question which I asked you long time back in 0th exam yeah tell me how do I draw that so how do I draw it tell me ok first what you have to do it is a reversible reaction that means R equal to 0 also possible right R equal to 0 so that means I can substitute here R equal to 0 for reversible reaction then I will worry about delta H R equal to positive or negative thus so this term will be there for R equal to 0 this will vanish so this will be 1 by all these Ok so now R equal to 0 it is a function of only T I mean R equal to 0 now calculate for different T is what will be the X straight forward so then you will get what line equilibrium line or some other line you will get equilibrium line how the equilibrium goes there you are telling increase like this you said decrease or decrease you are telling increases like this as T goes on 10 kilometers like this and 1 micrometer like this so as T increases X decreases Ok tell me of the Decrease the Temperature huh recently also I have plotted I say even yesterday I plotted it is there Abdul see yesterday's notes yeah I saw that where where where is it increasing or decreasing increase see I can happily draw there without asking you but by asking you I thought some of you will think that is the reason why I am again asking many many times same thing yeah Abdul now you tell decrease increasing and decreasing Ok now you tell you draw you tell me now I will draw I will draw do not be operated I say all of us can make mistakes I also made many mistakes you played with me also Ok tell me very good so it goes no no you have shown me as it goes like that is enough correct what is that is right so this is and finally anyway this one will be yeah that maximum you know equilibrium yeah I mean on the extreme conditions it can go to 1 also Ok good so this is the 1 this is R equal to 0 not below that is right only yeah so then if I take R equal to 1 for example R equal to 1 see as temperature is increasing what will happen to the rate it is increasing here but I know you can actually calculate anyway I am going to give you an exercise also which you have to do on XL and then you will know yourself Ok so depending on delta HR value you have to calculate X versus T and then plot Ok you take this this value delta HR once positive once negative so then you will know actually you feel it when you do it so that is the reason yeah this is ok I mean you can write the way you want it can be there it can be there the absolute value only I have to find out whether positive or negative that is all once you subtract one from the other Ok yeah the total is negative total is positive I say yeah delta HR right so that is why I think that is no problem yeah you tell me the other one R equal to 1 below that how it goes same shape yeah it is not exactly same shape it goes something like this something like this trying to reach so this minus R A here equal to 1 10 100,000 like this Ok this is for endothermic Ok good so exothermic here also I have to write a reaction Ok same again X A versus T Ok so this one first R equal to 0 same equation but I think depending on this values you will get yeah so it starts from almost to the top like this it goes Ok good this is R equal to R A minus R A equal to 0 now for very smaller R equal to 1 for example yeah it increases and decreases because for exothermic reaction forward reaction till some point it will increase then backward reaction starts dominating so it will come back again so that is why it reaches a maximum and then goes like this not touching that if it touches then again 0 it cannot because this is a value for R so you also have another line like this another line like this another line like this so this is minus R A equal to 1 10 100 good so actual optimization problem is only with exothermic reaction that optimization thing we will talk later little bit later yeah Ok so now how do I use this information for the graphical design Ok so we will take the simplest one for graphical design that is yeah we will take some general curves for graphical design Ok so this is the information we will discuss again later for as far as optimization concern how do you use this this this and all that but now you take any one of those general figures like this figure I will take first right so that figure I will just exaggerate and then try to draw here X A versus T so then we have something like maximum is 1 there like this this is rate minus R A equal to 1 10 100 1000 like this Ok so what I have here is I just used only now the material balance equation I think you know without talking about any reactor but this is the equation what I have used and now I have generated that information now to get this volume of the reactor now I have to use pot another minus R A why various minus R A is there you have not no one told you this one in your B Tech or M Tech this design around Krishna no really I mean this pot is really wonderful pot in Levenspiel and most of you would have used only Levenspiel book you also yeah you avoid because you know if you learn you have to write in the exam so that is why I think what do you mean by reaction path yeah it is not reaction path from energy balance you should now get the relationship between conversion and temperature if you have no I told you that for simplest case adiabatic you will get a straight line assuming that delta H R equal to constant so if you plot that then that line will intersect all those rates Ok if you take for example adiabatic right but it need not be adiabatic all the time that means you may have sometime the non adiabatic case where if you are talking about reactor you know plug flow reactor along the length you have various temperatures and also you have various rates are conversions various rates and also various conversions but energy balance gives this conversion versus temperature so and the way I remove heat any shape of line I can get it is not straight line the way I get adiabatic case adiabatic is a special case right adiabatic is a special case so the conversion versus temperature line or you know that relationship Ok I think I will also tell you here energy balance will give me energy balance gives X A as a function of temperature Ok and of course we are taking here for simplicity delta H R is constant and all that over that way range Ok so this relationship if I have adiabatic case and also delta H is not varying with temperature not only delta H R there is another thing also which varies with temperature in energy balance C P C P can also vary with temperature right because in that relationship you get definitely delta H R and also definitely C P when I also derive one equation just to give you a sample but this one as just simple analysis so this relationship I can plot whatever way I can plot whatever way I want it right so for example I may say that I have a relationship something like this this is crazy you will scold me but still it is okay like this it is really crazy Ok but I can have that kind of crazy also because it is only depends on how I am removing heat along the length of P F R this is P F R this line is for P F R Ok so now I have drawn this now I have entire design information on that graph can you identify that information I have the entire design information on that graph now Krishna have you thought about this this is very beautiful one I said that is what indirectly you are solving that minus R A temperature and corresponding rate that is what no when you are plotting that each intersection will give you only that information so that is why I may take for example here this is X A right and correspondingly this is R A so this is X A this is R A means 10 Ok this X A this X A may be I mean just let me say that this is 0 to 1 so this may be point 2 point 2 and this may be not this may be exactly 10 correct no it is cutting here then it is going here no there are many many lines in between you can draw any number of lines you can take any number of R's and any number of X's Ok but here from this graph only I have few so I am just trying to draw that in fact there is another line also which goes here R equal to 5 for example so then again you have to take this line and this line and of course when you are going systematically with conversion right so Ok now just ignoring that now you have this point where I may say that Ok that is equal to point 5 what is the value 1 R equal to 1 and again it is coming to this point where this may be point 6 X equal to point 6 and what is this value 10 Ok yeah so then next value somewhere here so somewhere here it should increase then it should go yeah like that so this one may be point 7 point 8 point 9 Ok I think approximately I can say that this is touching here yeah touching here that may be point 7 5 Ok so then what is the value 100 and finally this may be around point 9 right point 9 and what is the value again 1 so now I have to I have to I will remove this one function Ok this is 1 by minus R A so if I simply plot point 2 equal to point 1 this is 1 this is again point 1 this is again point 0 1 and this is 1 how do I plot that I think very Savita Savita is there Ok yeah so Savita what you asked yesterday I just want to give this one that is why I have drawn that crazy line so now I can plot 1 by minus R A versus X A I have that information right it is a plug flow reactor so it is starting with point 1 minus R A equal to point 1 somewhere here what is the maximum value 1 Ok so this may be point 2 point 4 point 6 point 8 and then 1 Ok so now point 1 point 2 X A this also point 2 point 4 point 6 Ok this is point 2 point 4 point 6 point 8 this is 1 Ok so just approximately trying to draw that so then for point 2 it is point 1 so somewhere here the point Ok good so then what value next one is point 5 point 5 is somewhere here and 1 ah jumped here this is the one afterwards point 6 point 6 point 1 point 1 means again point 6 this is 1 so it has come to this point Ok then point 7 5 point 7 5 is somewhere here so this is again point 0 1 still less Ok then point 1 again increase it to point 9 here this is 1 how do I draw now of course here to start with may be somewhere here that means corresponding to X equal to 0 also I have to calculate that value Ok or I had X equal to 0 how do I get from here X equal to 0 is this line no X equal to that means there is another line which is also going through like that right so that value also I know understood no or last hope Ok last hope because I started putting values there if I have not put values generally probably you could have been in the class Ok yeah but anyway corresponding points we have to take and then print out and then plot then you will have some value here definitely so you will have like this like this like this yeah so now what is the volume of the reactor because we have plotted for plug flow so area under the curve all this area is really crazy place and you know if I take this is my conversion is point 9 Ok so this one equal to P of r so area under the curve will be V by F A not Ok I mean this is really crazy as I told you Ok this is really crazy but I just want to tell you but it can be really crazy also depending on the way you remove heat that depends on what is the functionality between X and T but nice guy will be adiabatic reactor where you will get a nice way of that 1 by minus r A versus X A you will get some other very nice way for this kind of increase in the rates because again if you go to this kind of increase in rates then you will have a different kind of I mean graph that means I am talking about X A versus 1 minus 1 by r A versus X A graph but what you have learnt here is that the extra thing is that even with non isothermal reactors the final area under the curve only will give me the that cannot go wrong right but instead of calculating I mean integrating now I can find out those points correspondingly the intersection point and then corresponding X right and I have drawn here how many points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 only but you can draw any number of lines in between so that you will know again another point here may be another point here another point here all that right because between this and this Abdul how many lines I can draw infinity so that is why you can draw whatever you want and then get that for smooth curve so that you can join nicely right so that is the procedure graphical procedure and now if I just want to know that for adiabatic case what kind of okay this is for PFR none of you are asking me what do I do for CSTR okay that is what I told you know I have to question I have to answer but you do not answer I think now it is beautiful PFR now you tell me how do you do MFR okay Anupriya ask like that okay so now how do I do it for MFR how do I do it for MFR I think may be these equations you have noted down I will remove these let me say that I have the same minus no no XA versus T graph yeah so R is increasing anyway in this fashion this is R A equal to 1 10 100000 like that okay 1000 like that okay tell me you have a yeah how do I find out what is the what is the problem I am asking is it volume of the reactor you have to find out volume of the reactor no area under the curve so that means what you should know how many times I repeat this if you know the volume what you can find out conversion if you know conversion what you can find out volume so that means what I am asking here volume okay that means you should know conversion definitely you should know conversion let us say I have 80 percent conversion so that means I can draw that line 80 percent conversion line there okay yeah right so it is exactly same thing you know even if this graph graph is crazy so it going like this you know this is XA as a function of T now you see this graph is cutting at only one point which is yeah this point able to see that point right yeah so this line of course there is I mean I put 10 there but it may be 8 line 8 this is also of course this 10 is also continuing like this okay I think I will also plot nicely we have different colors here so my X verses T graph is okay and I have another nice color this is XA equal to so now you see this line this line that means you know this R this is okay this red line this is minus r i equal to 8 8 8 8 okay that is 8 minus r a line and this is XA line equal to 0.8 and this line it is going and cutting here so that means this is the point another color that is the point okay because in a mixture flow reactor there will be only one point I think you know one rate corresponding to one conversion conversion we fixed already now you can also get correspondingly what is the temperature from this graph so all the outlet conditions you have now right you know XA that is the line which you have drawn and you know minus r a now where it is cutting right and also you know corresponding temperature so that is how you do even for recycle reactor also so recycle reactor what you have to do is you will draw a line something in between like this I mean if it is a straight line need not be straight line so it can be like this but you know that conversion is not 0 in a recycle reactor when it is entering reactor that part you have to remember but whereas there and here X equal to 0 right I mean the entry X equal to 0 right so that is why you can now also extend this one for recycle reactor right even batch reactor I mean all reactors whenever you have temperature versus conversion relationship and you have this information this kind of graph we have done it for simplest case like you know a going to minus r first order reaction right but you can plot these graphs and also those all those graphs for any kind of rate but only thing is you have to separate XA and then you have to write that in terms of minus r a and T temperature so plot this way because this is the most convenient convenient way of getting the information for the design okay understood no I think not that happy you know I do not know why because you lost somewhere please tell me if you not understood why lost somewhere that is any car that is that means any kind of heat exchange I have see I told you that this XA versus XA as a function of temperature that relationship you get only from the energy balance right so that energy balance when you are writing may be probably I have to write that and then tell you okay I will write it and then tell it may be that still there may be some people who may not be understanding that okay so now I will write for exothermic reaction sorry not exothermic yeah adiabatic reaction okay I think this is equation not required okay I will just may not be following but any other people also not able to follow how do you get that line you are you are also not able to follow okay so then what did I tell I mean what is the meaning of writing there energy balance gives XA as a function of temperature what is the meaning of that no meaning yeah may be you tell that if there is no meaning sir you can write sir there is no meaning that is all and what kind of relationship you can expect tell me what kind of relation you can expect you cannot expect any kind of you know specific kind of relationship okay but only for adiabatic case you can expect a straight line so that is why I just want to give you know that adiabatic you know the energy balance and for the simplest reactor mixture flow then you will know that energy balance for MFR okay so let me give you this we this is the one and here I have volume volumetric flow rate volumetric flow rate constant density and all that we are assuming and also I have here the density is rho that also is required in one way of writing and I have CP and T not here also I have rho is in a way constant and then CP T but okay XA this is 0 XA not equal to 0 and of course I can also get a CA not and all that also yeah CA not I can write here CA also I can write there so if I want to write this equation you can also write in terms of FA not or FA FA means molar flow rate okay but now we are writing in terms of volumetric flow rate V is the volumetric flow rate okay good so now energy balance what is the time energy balance what we have is input input equal to output plus energy generated or consumed due to reaction okay if it is exothermic reaction it is generated if it is exothermic reaction absorbed okay yeah plus it is unsteady state it is steady state only it is not unsteady state yeah plus we have heat removed by external means so that means I may have here jacket and some amount of heat is this is T okay TC also TC that means you have the heat capacity of this fluid so high the temperature increase in that I am practically not seeing assumption it is simply an assumption okay it may be there may be one degree increase okay but as an engineering as an engineer first I want to simplify the problem understand and then the remaining things I can follow later okay so that is what this is what then this is when I am writing this I can write here this heat input is okay first of all heat input should be what are the units I have to balance it is kilo joules per time okay that is what is the heat all right right so this is V rho Cp T not that is what is entering here equal to V rho Cp T right that is coming out and reaction if I take I have exothermic reaction then this becomes negative so that means you know I should have written input because that also becomes input inside so that is why okay I write here plus R minus minus RA into delta HR what are the units of that into into volume and what are the units of this this is kg this is a meter cubed per second and this one is kg per meter cubed and Cp is okay joules okay kilo joules per yeah this is where you make the mistake you know that depends on this flow rate okay if it is kg per meter cube this will be expressed per kg no Cp you can express based on your molecular weight either and based on mole or kg so that is why please be careful in the examination we will make that mistake that is why better write that but in this case it is kg per degree Kelvin or may be degree centigrade I will put here okay that does not matter okay so then I have degree centigrade so now what is this is cancelled this is cancelled this is cancelled I have kg per second correct no kg per second so that is the balance what we are making plus I have this external means as simply q where q a q equal to ua delta T what is a all this heat transfer area okay u what is u the heat transfer coefficient between this liquid and overall heat transfer okay that ua and delta T is this because everywhere you have the same temperature T because here you have T right everywhere you have temperature so T minus TC T minus TC everywhere and that is why we assumed that we have a fluid where it can absorb any amount of heat without increasing its temperature that means Cp must be Cp must be very very high yeah that means you know I have to write here negative this entire quantity as negative if I have exothermic that means that will become input here okay yeah I think that is fine no problem yeah that is fine depending on delta HR value I thought you will write that okay so now this is the equation now what we are saying is if I take that this is 0 what I have adiabatic system there is no heat removal right or adiabatic no rho and Cp we are assuming that is they are not changing with temperature because I think all these are assumption otherwise unnecessarily the equation will be so complicated I told you you will forget about actually what we are discussing and worried about the big equations that is the reason why we are simplifying to understand the concepts okay good so now if I separate this and yeah I have another equation here this is delta HR and what is that what we need we need a relationship between conversion and temperature but is it this is the material balance equation but is it relating conversion versus temperature yeah so I have now the material balance equation where minus R A into V equal to F A naught X A or F A naught I can also write in terms of V by C A naught correct no yeah V into C A naught because I have not used to the F A so that is why I am writing that okay so now I can substitute that here so what we get here V rho Cp T naught equal to V rho Cp T then I have here for minus R A delta V I have V minus V C A naught yeah V C A naught X A delta HR into X A right so this equation I can now write T minus T okay here I will write T minus T naught equal to see the writing I am creating correctly or not C A naught delta HR by rho Cp into X A check this you will get it no good very good so now this is what this is what we are what we are calling as beta so T minus T naught equal to beta into X A okay okay T minus T equal to beta X A now how do I plot this information on this graph or shall I draw a fresh graph X A versus T yeah I mean what is the slope do I know the slope 1 by X A right it is 1 by beta right because X A is Y this is T so I can write this equation only as X A equal to 1 by beta okay this is T by 1 by beta minus T naught by beta not 1 by beta so that means this is Y this is MX and this is C okay plus here okay that depends on that okay good so now this is the one what is slope now for me 1 by beta so when I plot that here if it is exothermic reaction the temperature must increase right right so okay good so this now it goes something like this right so this is minus r A equal to may be 1 10 100,000 like this sorry 1000 like this so this is energy balance right so then I can also draw number of lines here for exothermic for exothermic it is positive in fact for endothermic it is negative it comes like this it goes like this it goes like this for endothermic okay yeah you know how can you say that because for exothermic as temperature is increased I mean as conversion is increasing temperature must increase or as temperature is increasing conversion must increase okay good so so this one yeah now here this is a point this is a point this is a point this is a point and in between another line here this is a point so now you can see this point X A versus minus r A X A versus minus r A X A minus r A X A minus r A list out like that exactly and then plot 1 by minus r A versus X A then area under the curve that will give you the diagram how is it okay yeah because this is the functionality what you are telling this we say now T you know X A this one this one this one as X A as a function of T this is what what you are telling now if I add this Q and then solve that equation because there is another T also here because that is T minus T C in this Q okay did I write that okay this Q is U A delta T which is nothing but T minus T C that I have to substitute there yeah yeah in this one now then depending on my Q values how I am operating sometimes you know I may operate sometime only with some Q afterwards some other Q afterwards some other Q then it may take any other part crazily yeah so that is the one what you are talking that energy balance gives X A as a function of energy balance giving you know the functionality the relationship between conversion and temperature this is what is the simplest case what you have taken and I will draw for each reactor and we will derive for each reactor the energy balance equations material balance equations and then we will try to find out how do you solve the those equations for finding out the actual volume of the okay so that is what we will do in the next class and I know you will be unhappy if I include this in examination Monday right yeah so I think Monday all this will not be included and shall I include very simple no third test you will have a okay good so then I think till multiple reactions you will have you know it doesn't mean that I am giving only multiple reactions multiple reactors and multiple reactors also only we have done so portion for the second quiz is from zero to multiple reaction from beginning to what is the other thing once you understand multiple reactors and multiple reactions the other one is LKG single reactors is single reactors are LKG only so that you should not crib okay yeah