Call number
Collection
Publication
Description
Biography & Autobiography. History. Politics. Nonfiction. HTML: THE PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING CLASSIC OF POLITICAL INTEGRITY With a foreword by Robert F. Kennedy and introduction by Caroline Kennedy John F. Kennedy's enduring classic resounds with timeless lessons on the most cherished of virtuesâ??courage and patriotismâ??and remains a moving, powerful, and relevant testament to the indomitable American spirit During 1954-55, Kennedy, then a junior senator from the state of Massachusetts, profiled eight American patriots, mainly United States Senators, who at crucial moments in our nation's history, revealed a special sort of greatness: men who disregarded dreadful consequences to their public and private lives to do that one thing which seemed right in itself. They were men of various political and regional allegiancesâ??their one overriding loyalty was to the United States. Courage such as these men shared, Kennedy makes clear, is central to all moralityâ??a man does what he must in spite of personal consequencesâ??and these exciting stories suggest that, without in the least disparaging the courage with which men die, we should not overlook the true greatness adorning those acts of courage with which men must live. As Robert F. Kennedy writes in the foreword, Profiles in Courage "is not just stories of the past but a book of hope and confidence for the future. What happens to the country, to the world, depends on what we do with what others have left us." This special "P.S." edition of the book commemorates the fiftieth anniversary of the book's publication. It includes vintage photographs and an extensive author biography, and features Kennedy's correspondence about the writing project, contemporary reviews of the book, a letter from Ernest Hemingway, and two rousing speeches from recipients of the Profile in Cour… (more)
Subjects
User reviews
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 NĂĽrnberg 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.
Herbert Parmet, a historian who wrote a book on Kennedy, analyzing Profiles in Courage does believe Kennedy largely wrote the opening and closing thematic chapters, and those are I think the parts of the book of enduring historical interest given his presidency. In them Kennedy lays out a philosophy of governance. Elected representatives, Kennedy avers, should not "serve merely as a seismograph to record shifts in popular opinion." I've seen some reviewers lambast that view, claiming that for elected representatives to go against their constituencies, whatever their own views, is undemocratic. Personally, I'd counter that America is not a democracy, not a direct one, and was never designed to be. We're a republic. We elect representatives who are supposed to exercise their best judgement, then defend it to their constituencies who are then free to elect someone else if they don't agree. I'm with Kennedy on that.
Kennedy did apparently come up with the idea of the book: stories of eight United States Senators who cast unpopular, potentially career-ending votes. The profiles included some names I think will be familiar to anyone acquainted with American History: John Quincy Adams, Daniel Webster, Sam Houston and Robert Taft. The other names are much more obscure, although I found the story of Edmund G. Ross, who cast the deciding vote not to impeach President Andrew Johnson, the most memorable in the book. (Although not mentioned is that there is considerable evidence Ross was bribed for his vote. But that wouldn't make for a profile of courage, would it?) All in all, I did find the stories entertaining, but insightful, impressive works of history worthy of an award? No. But I think those opening and closing chapters, "Courage in Politics" and "The Meaning of Courage" well worth reading and thinking about for anyone interested in politics, particularly the American system. That's why in my estimation the book is worth a three-star rating, whatever its genesis and flaws.
The book is interesting because unfortunately in our time of partisan politics it is rare when someone bucks the majority and votes their conscience or what the country really needs. We need more politicians who look out for the country first and their narrow minded partisan groups last, right/left, Republican/Democrat, Liberal/Conservative.
A must read for the history major.
There are many other examples of courage in this book. We ought to take a deep breath and listen to these words by a Democrat who would no longer be welcome in his own party. It might make a difference.
Kennedy struggles with, but ultimately flounders, in trying to describe the balance needed to represent constituents, and exercise political and moral judgement. I agree that we need the latter, and I vote for people who's judgement I think i can trust, but, unfortunately, I think that a lot of the turn to the right in both the United States and Europe is from too much confidence on the part of the political class that they know best and the unenlightened can be safely ignored. They are still on the voting rolls, a fact which too many people prefer to ignore, and if they feel too ignored, they are likely to find someone who pays more attention. I would suggest reading Eric Wilson's Running Against the Devil : A Plot to Save America from Trump -- and the Democrats from Themselves.
My other problem is that for a long time, histories of the Civil War period were dominated by Southern writers. What Kennedy says reminds me of what I learned in school in Maryland (I was born in 1953), that I have come to believe, reading history as an adult, was largely wrong.
Andrew Johnson, who is often regarded as one of the worst presidents, was supposedly trying to follow Lincoln's humane direction, whereas the nasty Republican Congress was trying to punish them. One of the chief points of conflict is that the Congress wanted to prevent the people who had led the South into secession from dominating politics after the war, whereas Johnson was busy pardoning them so that they could. I think that repeatedly referring to Benjamin Butler as "Butcher Butler" is totally unwarranted -- who is he supposed to have butchered? He was certainly a stringent military governor in New Orleans, and extremely unpopular, but on the whole, he did a fairly good job, taking heretofore unheard of precautions against yellow fever and reducing street crime.
Robert A. Taft may have been brave, but his timing was exasperating. As one of his colleagues commented, if Taft thought the Nuremburg Trials were of dubious equality, why didn't he say so at the beginning, instead of waiting until the trials were over and the convicted sentenced to hanging? Apparently, despite his arguments, it was actually the death penalty that bothered him, but again, his timing was poor. If the Allies had no legal right to execute leading Nazis, under what law would they send them to exile on an island (like Napoleon)?
Keeping these things in mind, the book is still interesting to read.
When I finished the book, I wrote to the Library of Congress and nominated Liz Cheney for an award. It is too soon for her, but she spectacularly exemplified an elected official who stood for something all the while knowing it was her death knell.