John F. Kennedy (1) (1917–1963)

This is a deeply problematic book, and the fact that it is so widely lauded as a classic by many very intelligent people is a sign that our political ideals are based more on the idea of winning some game than of producing the best outcome for our country. Although it's not entirely untrue that some of the senators Kennedy profiled did show enormous courage, this is not necessarily a good thing in and of itself. Indeed, a number of the senators in this book have explicitly negative legacies. show more The most egregious is Lucius Lamar, who Kennedy praises for giving a nice speech for his political enemy Charles Sumner (who has much more right to be praised than Lamar does) and for going against the Southern tradition of a senator's vote being dictated by the state legislature, on the issue of free silver. What Kennedy does not mention is Lamar's central role in the fight against abolition and reconstruction in Mississippi -- in fact, Lamar was responsible for the infamous "Mississippi Plan," in which black voters were massacred, terrorized, and kept from the polls to ensure a Democratic victory in the 1875 elections. Whether or not the person responsible for such an egregious violation of democracy (Lamar wrote of the "blackest tyranny" of the "brute masses") was a good orator is beside the point -- it is impossible for a learned observer to call such a person courageous.

Of course Kennedy can be somewhat forgiven on this front, because he didn't write the book himself. Instead he gave the task to his speechwriter Thomas Sorenson, who is clearly not invested in the book. The writing is melodramatic and childish, and the sourcing incredibly sloppy (at least for the Lamar chapter, which again is the one I am the most familiar with). I doubt that either Kennedy or Sorenson even knew of Lamar's role in the Mississippi Plan. Nevertheless, we do get some idea of Kennedy's own beliefs filtered through Sorenson -- particularly his fascination with big, aristocratic families and the superior morality of the "genius." There is a distinct anti-democratic strain in this novel, which blames the "masses" for expecting to know better than their educated leaders. That Kennedy's millionaire father bought the Pulitzer (over the Committee's misgivings) just goes to show how deeply the belief in money and genius ran in that family.

Falsely attributed, sloppily sourced, and illegitimately awarded -- this book is a prime example of the corrupt, selfish view of politics held by JFK and his father. It suffers, as does the legacy of Kennedy himself, from a sick conception of politics as noble struggle, a Nietzschean proving ground where young aristocrats (like Kennedy and many of the senators mentioned) can get the power and respect they feel like they deserve. Skip this book unless you want an insight into the Kennedy family (who, to be fair, did produce a few genuinely inspiring politicans). show less

Kennedy was, and still is, many things to many people, but one of his aspects that doesn't get as much attention as it should is his writing. Profiles in Courage is a focused review of eight Senators in US history, chronicling instances where that man defied the pressures of various forces - his party, his state legislature, his President, but above all his constituents the American people - in a moment of national crisis, enduring insults from all sides in the conviction that the fevers of show more the moment would eventually pass and their lonely stands would be vindicated by history. Now, I personally happen to believe that there are few institutions more contemptible than the Senate, and I think that this prejudice is rightly shared by anyone regardless of partisanship who has paid even a bit of attention to the almost unbelievably corrupt bargains that take place there (see: TARP, the stimulus, health care reform, financial reform), so I was less than thrilled at the prospect of reading a self-congratulatory (Kennedy was a sitting Senator when he wrote the book) paean to one of the sorriest gangs of grandées in history. But by the end of it I was extremely impressed, not only by its scholarship and writing quality, but that Kennedy had actually made me admire some Senators of the United States. The underlying theme is that in order to tell the difference between an actual act of courage and your everyday Lieberman or Collins-ish fit of unprincipled to-thine-own-lobbyist-be-true petulance, the Senator in question has to be acting out of loyalty to both the future of the country, and to their own inner moral voice. This is how Kennedy can group Sam Houston's refusal to vote for Texas to join the Confederacy with George Norris' filibuster of the Armed Ship Bill in the runup to World War 1: in each case, the Senator was confronted with the dilemma of a clash between their own carefully-reasoned personal convictions, and their sense that they should represent the wishes of the people in their states. Kennedy was elected after the passage of the 17th Amendment, and discusses it in the fascinating final chapter, where he raises many good questions: What's the most democratic method to counter the flaws of democracy? When should the need for compromise outweigh the need to take a stand? Does it really serve the national interest to allow one man to obstruct everyone else? Should men subdue their own consciences in the interests of their party and their cause, or vice versa? He also links his notion of political courage to the virtue that everyday normal people would consider courage, thus placing the book a step above a mere political biography. Kennedy's Pulitzer was well-deserved, even if his adviser Ted Sorensen wrote a good deal of it. I'd previously thought that Barack Obama's books were fairly well-written, but this blew them away. show less

If anything happens to me I have this knowledge that if I had lived to be a hundred I could only have improved the quantity of my life, not the quality.

I found this potted biography based on letters to and from JFK, sourced primarily from the John F Kennedy Library and Museum in Boston, interesting but also a little dry in places. Yes, I know Kennedy was the President and a politician but I would have preferred a more balanced reflection of the man and his profession. The first few chapters show more are fascinating and I picked up on quite a few quotes that I either haven't read before or have forgotten, while the White House years felt like a recap of the major events of Kennedy's brief term in office - Cuba, Khrushchev, Civil Rights and Vietnam, abandoning the correspondence of the title for political papers. Interesting, just not what I wanted to read. The letters included are an entertaining and informative mix of family, friends, acquaintances and fellow statesmen like Winston Churchill - Kennedy campaigned to have the former prime minister made an honorary citizen of the USA - and even the Queen.

A fair account of John F Kennedy's presidency based on primary sources, although probably better for readers who haven't already ploughed through multiple Kennedy biographies. show less

I picked up "Profiles in Courage" in July at the JFK Library in Boston where it was extensively praised in the video tribute. It also garnered a Pulitzer. I love US history and like JFK. Everything points to me liking this book. Unfortunately, I did not. This is a political book masquerading as history. JFK covers all the bases. Here a nod to intolerant Southerners, there a wink to isolationist Midwesterners and for starters some goodies for conservatives. The key message: Don't fear my show more presidency, I am not a Massachusetts liberal. This "inclusiveness" wrecks any kind of consistency in the cases selected.

It is not a surprise if senators do no come to mind if one imagines courageous people. Nay-saying is the chief function of the senate. It is a feature and not a bug. Senators have little to fear for nay-saying. Incumbents are nearly impossible to unseat, way past their shelf-life. Their six year terms leave ample time for amnesia to work. Courage for a senator according to Kennedy is voting against their party/state interest. I would divide JFK's examples into three categories: 1) Conscience voters: Thomas Hart Benton (MO, pro Union), Sam Houston (TX, against secession), Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar (MS, against currency debasing), George Norris (NE, filibustered WWI entry). 2) Legalists: Edmund G. Ross (KS, against impeachment), Robert A. Taft (OH, against Nürnberg death penalties). 3) Compromisers: John Quincy Adams (MA, pro Embargo), Daniel Webster (MA, slavery compromise). Among the decisions only Edmund Ross' refusal to vote for Johnson's impeachment had a historic impact. All the other events would have happened even if the senator under discussion had voted otherwise (the 1850 compromise is debatable, though).

Overall, a not particularly well written book which served its purpose in adding an intellectual halo to JFK but does not stand the test of time. show less