Profiles in Courage (slipcased edition): Decisive Moments in the Lives of Celebrated Americans

Ok, so J.F.K's authorship of "Profiles of Courage" remains dubious at best, particularly after principal speech writer Theodore Sorensen admitted in his autobiography that he was indeed the suspected ghost-writer and researcher. Fine: strip J.F.K of his Pulitzer Prize posthumously if you will, but this work is still an astute insight into the insoluble dilemmas of principles and politics that confront American elected officials.

In a time of rampant distrust for the integrity of our elected officials, reading this book reminds many of the courage and conscience of many distinguished men who once served America. However, since the book covers congressmen of a century ago or more, once waxes nostalgic for the time when such extraordinary and principled men represented this country. This demonstrates the need for a sequel which highlights modern Representatives and Senators who have exhibited the qualities of character and courage that earn them a place in the league of the men in this book.

Through the pages, doubtlessly the reader garners respect for men like Webster, Benton, Adams, and Houston. When a tumultuous and divisive political climate demanded each politician to exercise his influence for partisan preponderance, these men sacrificed their political existence rather than their indelible principles. But besides providing some fascinating anecdotes of the nature of the people and politics of earlier times (I particularly laughed about John Randolph), this book explores a crucial issue accompanying elected governance. Just what is the duty of an elected representative, and how does he/she best 'represent'? As Kennedy stated, Congressmen are not elected to simply "serve as a mere seismograph to record shifts in popular opinion." (15) Instead, it seems that they are elected because of their exceptional agency to determine and execute (in a vague sense) the best interests of their constituency.

Eschewal of constituent opinion is justifiable. Congressmen should not capitulate to the discordant and often misinformed cries of a constituency that does not always understand the issue at stake. To surrender absolute power to constituents is to abdicate the nature of the office itself (which is to represent the interests, not mimic the opinions of, constituents). This surrender also involves bestowing political power to a precariously erratic 'mob rule' - an anathema to the founding fathers. It must be noted that the elected representative does not typically ignore constituent will, nor is constituent will often contrary to that of the elected representative. However, the assertion that congressmen, in representing their constituency's 'true' interests must sometimes ignore their stated interests, is not without its faults.

Firstly, it implies a degree of Congressional "father knows best" paternalism problematic to democracy. What kind of democracy doubts the population's ability to effectively ascertain its best interests? Not to mention, if the Congressman does indeed 'know best,' why have elections at all? For in importing such discretion and power to an election, one must do so knowing that to devalue constituent judgment on issues is to devalue the very constituent judgment of that election. If one's constituency is ignorant enough not to command the principal sway in decision making, then who is he that is elected by them? He is the fool of fools. We would be better to consult Plato's Philosopher King mode of governance with 435 crowns. Understandably, this is probably why Jefferson called education the foundation of democracy.

While this book explores the salient dilemmas of Representative government quite well, the structure as well as the content becomes formulaic and redundant. After the first two accounts, the reader could easily predict the subsequent profiles: Senator/Governor X disagrees with constituency Y over issue Z. Senator X opposes Y and follows personal beliefs rather than political/partisan duty regarding issue Z. Senator X suffers political/partisan ostracism and dies a lonely political death by the sword of constituency Y, but lives on by the courageous defense of his personal principles regarding issue Z. The end. This book could benefit from deeper contemplation regarding those circumstances and their significance to American politics (honing in on the optimal relationship between representative and constituency), which is why I consider the introduction, rather than the historical profiles, the book's greatest section.

I read this book quite a while back and found some great food for thought. One of my primary takeaways was that be careful when judging others motives.

Kennedy (or whoever wrote the book) poses a primary question: Which is better...the man who will not compromise at all, or the man who bends but does not break?

The argument is that the man who does not compromise may be considered true to his cause, but may get little done. The man who compromises to get things done may not be 100% true to his cause but is able to forward some of his ideas.

The author(s) leave it up to the reader to decide (judge) if the path is right. Or, are both paths right? This is good food for thought for a critical thinker!

What the author(s) is pointing at is that each man and woman must choose their own path in a situation according to their beliefs, values and morals, even if it may cause political and/or other ruin.

[[ASIN:0595437087 The Re-Discovery of Common Sense: A Guide to: The Lost Art of Critical Thinking]]

What President Kennedy shows in this book is a series of examples to all our modern politicians. It's a book to read and keep in mind.

Much has been made of Profiles in Courage's authorship; this is understandable, as the subject is legitimate and indeed fascinating. However, the focus has been so great that it has unfortunately overshadowed the excellent work itself. Thus, - other than saying it is now near-certain that although the book was Kennedy's idea and he did some of the planning, most or all of it was written by speechwriter Theodore Sorensen, credited as "research assistant" - I will focus entirely on the book. The bottomline is that it is great, one of the most intriguing and readable popular histories ever; it is essential for those interested in history, politics, or the moral concept of courage but written in such a way that it truly has mass appeal.

Profiles begins with a twenty-page Introduction exploring the meaning and ramifications of political courage, which is defined as politicians' determination to follow conscience despite outside pressure. This is an interesting - and indeed challenging - subject, because politicians are almost universally loathed as immoral and otherwise thoroughly despicable; calling them courageous is not only brave but seemingly perverse. However, the book soon makes a strong case that they make a truly courageous act at least every generation or so and shows that there is much to admire in those standing by their resolve in the face not only of constituent, lobbyist, party, and media pressure but often threats of termination, violence, or even death. The Introduction does a good job of describing the pressures that politicians, particularly senators, regularly face - a rare inside look at an often veiled world. It also makes a legitimate, if perhaps not fully convincing, argument for politics as simply non-moral rather than moral or immoral.

We then get to the meat - sections focusing on courageous acts by eight individual senators. They are about twenty pages each preceded by a few pages of background. The choices cover nearly the whole historical gamut of the senate up to that point, but while some are well-known (Daniel Webster, Thomas Hart Benton, George Norris, Robert A. Taft), some are less so (Lucius Lamar), and others are nearly obscure (Edmund G. Ross). More interestingly, others are famous but not for being senators (John Quincy Adams, Sam Houston), and the acts focused on are never obvious. The book makes clear that it does not champion the acts, presenting the issue neutrally while admiring the courage. Cynics may scoff at this as a lame attempt to prove the non-moral thesis or avoid political controversy, but it serves the book well, letting us take the stories and the courage on their own terms rather than getting bogged down in political sniping. Profiles then closes with a roughly ten-page section briefly detailing more political courage examples and a few closing remarks underscoring what has been said and beginning to put it in a larger political context.

If this sounds textbook-esque or otherwise boring, worry not; it is written in such a way that it is nothing less than fully engrossing. Incredible as it seems, this is as much of a page-turner as any pulp work; the scenes are painted so vividly and the stories told so well that it is near-impossible to put down the book. Profiles makes history and politics positively fascinating in a way that very few books can; even those who think they hate the subjects cannot help being pulled in. The book is thus extremely valuable for letting general readers dip a cautious toe in these frigid waters, possibly leading them to learn more about the senators or subjects generally; it is in fact so well written that it has inspired some to enter politics. Anything that can do this is truly incredible. Even those truly apathetic about the subjects can enjoy the book, though, as the stories are well worth reading in themselves.

One would be very hard-pressed to find any book about similar subjects that is so absolutely readable. A large part of this is that it is not scholarly in the strict sense. The text has no notes and rarely gives sources, meaning academicians will find it inadequate. However, this will bother very few, because the book is accurate, and there is a ten-plus page bibliography. After all, though, this is a popular book and must be judged on that front - in which case it is excellent. It is hardly hyperbolic to say that if general readers even remotely interested in history or politics - and even many who are not - read only one book about them, it should be this. The focus may be narrow and the scholarly acumen not top-notch, but it is enlightening and eminently readable - in short, all that most could ask for and far more than they will expect.