Profiles in Courage: JFK's Pultizer Prize-Winning Classic

Though I had seen many citations from the book over past decades, I never read it before now. The book as well as the many Amazon reviews offers important insights to me. First, already the introductory pages surprised me by the the colorful, punchy but sophisticated writing. This was especially true given that much of the description dealt with politicians who were obscure names in history even in the mid 1950s when the book was first published. It turned out that my surprise was a valid reaction. As one reviewer put it, the book was really written by a Kennedy speechwriters and researchers (primary the work of Ted Sorenson, according to his biography). In short, Kennedy could more accurately be regarded as the editor rather than author. I had not known that. I nevertheless credit Kennedy for his interest in an important subject and the stimulus to get the book done. In browsing authentic quotes from him in the Kennedy library, I found him a nuanced and balanced politician - unusual for presidents and leading politicians in the post World War II period. The idea of putting skilled speechwriters normally engaged in making ordinary politicalese sound interesting and memorable to work in articulating history seems to me to be inspired and original. And from interviewing Ted Sorenson a couple of years before his passing, I also realize that he did not necessarily have deep scholarly knowledge or interest in his subjects beyond ideological aspects - so Kennedy had to have been the primary integrator of research and exposition for the book. Besides the fascinating vignettes of courageous senators who paid the price of defeat for sticking with their principles, the book offers often jarringly candid quotes. For example, consider this quote from Walter Lippman, a leading columnist with a half century of experience observing the American political scene: "With exceptions so rare that they are regarded as ..freaks of nature, successful politicians are insecure and intimidated men. They advance politically only as they placate, appease, bribe, seduce, bamboozle, or otherwise manipulate the demanding and threatening elements in their constituencies." As a born-again student of American history for practical rather than intellectual or cultural reasons, I think that Lippman's corrosive picture - and Kennedy's reservations about it [from his ten-year exposure to high politics Kennedy felt the challenges and complexities of serving as a U.S. Senator had to be taken into account in judging senators' performance] deserve serious attention from people who care where America is going. Turning from five to 3-star reviews to 1 and 2-star reviews, I got another surprise. Many of these negative reviews were by ninth graders. It turned out that Kennedy's book has been widely incorporated in mandatory reading lists in high school classes. Here are excerpts that to me tell a not unexpected but disturbing story. *"This book may have been written very well, but as a kid I found it boring. There Really wasn't anything in there to keep my attention. It was basically all facts about Senators that were alive many years ago. I don't think this book should be required reading because it really doesn't have any relevance to today's world. JFK should have made the book on the Senators that were in office durring the time that he wrote it and not on the Senators of the past." (and it gets worse) *" J.F.K. was a great man and wrote a very good book. It was true, well written, and informative, but a book about dead senators doesn't really interst a 14 year old 9th grader. I must admit that some parts, VERY few, were interesting, but I don't really care for this book. Actually, I hated it and would never bother to read it again! * *"A review titled "A kids review: Being a President doesn't make you a good witer", December 27, 2005 John F. Kennedy might have been a good president, but he was not a good writer. He had good intentions when he wrote this book, yet the way it was written made it a three snoozer on my scale. When he was writing this book he forgot that a audience needs to be grabbed, not put into a never ending slumber" *"My friend and I had to read this book this summer for our sophomore English Class. We hated this book with a passion. Who cares about senetors a long time ago. Certainly not two teenage girls. This book was the worst book either of us had ever read. We don't recommend this to anyone even a senetor who cares. [Incidentally, the above review earned several putdowns. The best one follows: 'I agree. Your summer hours would have been better spent in a remedial English class. You were not ready for 10th grade'." To me these students' rejection of the Kennedy book has a good and bad side. One the good side they exemplify De Tocqueville's finding that Americans tended to reject authority - which led to bold and independent ideas. On the bad side they exemplify De Tocqueville's finding that that Americans tended to reject authority - which led to ignorance, superficiality, and tendency toward bandwagon thinking. Coming from a pre-1960s high-school environment characterized by mainly cognitive philosophies of education, I recognize in these students the influence of post-60s affective philosophy of education that deemphasized facts, knowledge, and skills in favor of students challenging existing ideas and being able to form original positions. The United States is now struggling to reverse the consequences of social promotion and other educational policies that have adversely affected especially those disadvantaged groups that the reformers wanted to help. People might be surprised that anyone with a serious interest in American politics would take the time write at this length after more than 100 reviews had already been submitted. I have noticed, however, that comments from thoughtful and well-informed people often come at the end rather than beginning of a long series of comments on a e-zine article or heavyweight blog. I conclude that once conflicting positions had been aired they, like me might use the medium to articulate ideas on the subject. Even if few people might see the points, the writers might feel that reflections on the topics might come in handy in later personal research and work. In any event, I want to raise a loud cheer for Jeff Bezos for the inspiration of allowing open review books (and later products) on the Amazon Company's website. This revolutionary idea has now extended to products of every type. I regard it as among the most genial and influential ideas to emerg since the beginning of the 20th Century. While the review system can't fix the nation's flooded and often polluted information stream, it broke the previous the previous monopoly on communication on subjects of importance by popular media and authors of scholarly books and articles.

The central theme of the book is: "This is a book about that most admirable of human virtues -courage. "Grace under pressure," Ernest Hemingway defined It. And these are the stories of the pressures experienced by eight United States Senators and the grace with which they endured them—the risks to their careers, the unpopularity of their courses, the defamation of their characters, and sometimes, but sadly only sometimes, the vindication of their reputations and their principles. A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or reward that quality in its chosen leaders today —and in fact we have forgotten." Below are key excerpts from the book that I found particularly insightful: 1- "I am not so sure, after nearly ten years of living and working in the midst of "successful democratic politicians," that they are all insecure and intimidated men." I am convinced that the complication of public business and the competition for the public's attention have obscured innumerable acts of political courage—large and small—performed almost daily in the Senate Chamber. I am convinced that the decline— if there has been a decline—has been less in the Senate than he public's appreciation of the art of politics, of the nature of the Senate as a legislative chamber. And, finally I am convinced that we have criticized those who have followed the crowd—and at the same time criticized those who have defied it—because we have not fully understood the responsibility of a Senator to his constituents or recognized the difficulty facing a politician conscientiously desiring, in Webster's words, "to push [his] skiff from the shore alone" into a hostile and turbulent sea. Perhaps if the American people more fully comprehended the terrible pressures which discourage acts of political courage, which drive a Senator to abandon or subdue his conscience, then they might be less critical of those who take the easier road—and more appreciative of those still able to follow the path of courage." 2- "Where else, in a non-totalitarian country, but in the political profession is the individual expected to sacrifice all— including his own career—for the national good? In private life, as in industry, we expect the individual to advance his own enlightened self-interest—within the limitations of the law—in order to achieve over-all progress. But in public life we expect individuals to sacrifice t their private interests t( permit the national good to progress. In no other occupation but politics is it expected that a man will sacrifice honors, prestige and his chosen career on a single issue." 3- "Fortunately or unfortunately, few follow that urge—but the provocation is there—not only from unreasonable letters and impossible requests, but also from hopelessly inconsistent demands and endlessly unsatisfied grievances." 4- "Great crises produce great men, and great deeds of courage. This country has known no greater crisis than that which culminated in the fratricidal war between North and South in 1861. Thus, without intending to slight other periods of American history, no work of this nature could overlook three acts of outstanding political courage—of vital importance to the eventual maintenance of the Union—which occurred in the fateful decade before the Civil War. In two cases—involving Senators Sam Houston of Texas and Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri, both of whom had enjoyed political dominion in their states for many years— defeat was their reward. In the third—that involving Daniel Webster of Massachusetts—even death, which came within two years of his great decision, did not halt the calumnies heaped upon him by his enemies who had sadly embittered his last days." 5- "Webster had written his own epitaph: I shall stand by the Union ... with absolute disregard of personal consequences. What are personal consequences ... in comparison with the good or evil which may befall a great country in a crisis like this? ... Let the consequences be what they will, I am careless. No man can suffer too much, and no man can fall too soon, if he suffer or if he fall in defense of the liberties and Constitution of his country." 6- "Lamar: If [a Senator] allows himself to be governed by the opinions of his friends at home, however devoted he may be to them or they to him, he throws away all die rich results of a previous preparation and study, and simply becomes a commonplace exponent of those popular sentiments which may change in a few days. . . . Such a course will dwarf any man's statesmanship and his vote would be simply considered as an echo of current opinion, not the result of mature deliberations." 7- "Lamar: The liberty of this country and its great interests will never be secure if its public men become mere menials to do the biddings of their constituents instead of being representatives in the true sense of the word, looking to the lasting prosperity and future interests of the whole country." 8- "George Norris: It happens very often that one tries to do something and fails. He feels discouraged, and yet he may discover years afterward that the very effort he made was the reason why somebody else took it up and succeeded. I really believe that whatever use I have been to progressive civilization has been accomplished in the things I failed to do rather than in the things I actually did do." 9- "Columnist: The fact that thousands disagree with him, and that it is politically embarrassing to other Republicans, probably did not bother Taft at all. He has for years been accustomed to making up his mind, regardless of whether it hurts him or anyone else. Taft surely must have known that his remarks would be twisted and misconstrued and that his timing would raise the devil in the current campaign. But it is characteristic of him that he went ahead anyway." 10- "This has been a book about courage and politics. Politics furnished the situations, courage provided the theme. Courage, the universal virtue, is comprehended by us all—but these portraits of courage do not dispel the mysteries of politics. For not a single one of the men whose stories appear in the preceding pages offers a simple, clear-cut picture of motivation and accomplishment. In each of them complexities, inconsistencies and doubts arise to plague us. However detailed may have been our study of his life, each man remains something of an enigma. He However clear the effect of his courage, the cause is shadowed by a veil which cannot be torn away. We may confidently state the reasons why—yet something always seems to elude us. We think we hold die answer in our hands—^yet somehow it slips through our fingers." 11- "Of course, the acts of courage described in this book: would be more inspiring and would shine more with the tradition. luster of hero-worship if we assumed that each man forgot wholly about himself in his dedication to higher principles. But it may be that President John Adams, surely as disinterested as well as wise a public servant as we ever had, came much nearer to the truth when he wrote in his Defense of ^the Constitutions of the United States: "It is not true, in fact, that any people ever existed who love the public better than themselves."" 12- "John C. Calhoun: I never know what South Carolina thinks of a measure. I never consult her. I act to the best of my judgment and according to my conscience. If she approves, well a and good. If she does not and wishes anyone to take my place, I am ready to vacate. We are even." 13- "These stories are the stories of such a democracy. Indeed, there would be no such stories had this nation not,t maintained its heritage of free speech and dissent, had it not fostered honest conflicts of opinion, had it not encouraged tolerance for unpopular views. Cynics may point to our inability to provide a happy ending for each chapter. But I am certain that these stories will not be looked upon as warnings to beware of being courageous. For the continued political success of many of those who withstood the pressures of public opinion, and the ultimate vindication of the rest, enables us to maintain our faith in the long-run judgment of the people."

I'm sure many of my peers/colleagues read this book in school somewhere along the way, but I did not. Now that I've had a crack at it I'm sure I would not have been prepared for its rather dense, philosophical content. The book presents life as a United States Senator in ways I had never really considered. While this has given me more sympathy for the challenges they face, I am no less unsympathetic for their all-too-common lack of courage/common sense/will to do what is right/best for the country and for the Americans they represent (regardless of race/religion/creed). I'm not sure why the book won a Pulitzer Prize as it is not necessarily what I would call a masterpiece but it is essential reading for anyone with an interest in American politics. It is a bit repetitive in that most of the Senators written about deal with similar issues/difficult decisions. The historical content, however, makes the book extremely interesting, especially the many quotes taken from the subjects' diaries and journals.

Published in 1956 while John F. Kennedy was a Senator from Massachusetts, Profiles in Courage received a Pulitzer Prize. Kennedy wrote it while recuperating from back surgery, probably his second one,, and I took my time savoring the bold examples of courageous Senators throughout the nation's history. In his next to last chapter he mentions unpopular political courage by a U.S. President (our first), members of the House, governors, and private citizens, but the eight with their own chapter are independent-minded Senators with consciences that informed their decisions rather than party loyalty and popular opinion. A few of these Senators have recognizable names, but most do not. They are; John Quincy Adams, Daniel Webster, Sam Houston, John C. Calhoun, Thomas Hart Benton, Edmund Ross, Lucius Lamar, George Norris, and Robert Taft. Only the last man did Kennedy ever meet and the rest were well-researched through biographies, autobiographies, archives, and newspapers. Kennedy chose these men (no women Senators mentioned)) because they exhibited the integrity and boldness of politicians who were not always right in judgment, but withstood tremendous pressure by their party to fall into line and also terrible abuse by their friends as well as their constituents who felt betrayed. One nearly was thrown in a river. Another nearly hanged. They almost all lost reelection and ruined their political careers because a clear conscience and their constitutional duty meant far more to them. They hoped that in time their decisions would be recognized for their wisdom. I certainly wish we had more of these kind of Senators today! Kennedy admitted that he couldn't think of a current Senator in 1956 who he could include in his book, besides Taft who retired very soon after Kennedy became a Senator. Would he be able to today? Perhaps. Profiles in Courage was not simply inspirational for a person interested in the great burden and risk of being a conscientious Senator, but it helped me to understand a little better how rare such a Senator has always been and that voting for them is a privilege we didn't always have as private citizens. I learned a lot about the country's history, particularly how divisive slavery was, and about these fascinating, well-spoken men. As a Nebraskan I'm thrilled to have learned that my conservative once had a “fighting liberal” Republican Senator in George Norris. Though he wasn't a snazzy dresser or smooth talker, he's responsible for limiting the power of the Speaker of the House and so much more. Nebraskans loved his integrity if not all of his actions. I'm going to read his autobiography. John Quincy Adams, a young Federalist Senator, really delighted me. His vote allowed President Jefferson, an enemy, to cheaply purchase the Louisiana Purchase that so expanded the United States. I highly recommend this book to all voting Americans in the hope that more of you will take the time to become interested in our government and vote with your conscience. It's one of the most important things you can do to improve your country and life. Thanks!

"Profiles In Courage" is an excellent work of historical non fiction, authored by a then Senator Kennedy in the 1950s before being elected president. It is primarily about eight United States Senators who made courageous choices in the face of controversy. There is a lot of background and other persons ncluded in these stories. As an amateur history student I completely loved this opportunity for reading and study. I purchased both the Kindle and the audiobook. I loved both of them but for distinctly different reasons. Within the audiobook there is a forward narrated by Caroline Kennedy, the president's daughter. The rest of the narration is done by the president's son. I would not have missed this chance to listen to these narrations and was quite moved by the experience. HOWEVER the AUDIOBOOK is ABRIDGED. Perhaps I should have known that. I will assume that it was my fault that I did not. There is so much more information in the Kindle that I would not have wanted to miss out on. As is normal for me I did parallel reading as I worked my way through this book. I was happy to discover a biography authored by a then young Theodore Roosevelt about Senator Benton. I am ambivalent about Senator Benton, but that is not the point. I learned so much background information that I felt I had conducted a virtual 100 into level course on American History. It was a completely fulfilling reading, listening, and study experience. Thank You...

Great book!

It might not be the most exciting book. It might not have the clearest point. But Profiles in Courage is something that everyone should read, if nothing else to remind ourselves that there was a time in politics where principles overrode pandering and group think. Anyone in a position of leadership (and we all are leaders in our own way) would do well to remember these profiles.

John F. Kennedy was an award winning writing before he became President. While I have long intended to read his best known book, I have only recently acted on the opportunity. Although my primary interest in American history is relegated to more recent history, I found "Profiles in Courage"to be a very pleasurable read. Kennedy chose a select group of senators with courageous motives to be the subject of his book. The time periods of the senators are as diverse as their deeds. John Q. Adams is the discussed for his valor in voting against the Federalist principles he was elected to defend. His actions made him unpopular in his home state of Massachusetts. Daniel Webster is noted for his attempts to keep the union together. Thomas Hart Benton refused to allow Missouri to leave the union while combating the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. Sam Houston turned most of the state of Texas against himself by refusing to allow Texas to leave the union. Edmund Ross perhaps received more abuse than any of the senators mentioned in the book for being the vote that prevented Andrew Jackson's conviction on impeachment charges. Lucius Quintas Cincinnatus Lamar became the unpopluar southern senator to bridge the gap with the North in the Reconstruction. George Norris caused an end to the political machine the senate had become in his time. Robert Taft became to unpopular spokesman for the illegalities of the Nuremberg Trials. Most of these men sacrificed their political careers for their stance. These stories are refreshing in an era of partisan politics. It is difficult to image similar acts today. Although Kennedy was never allowed to reach his potential as a President, he proves to be an accomplished writer. Kennedy unintentionally raises questions about the functioning of the senate and government in general. It must be questioned if a democracy is truly working if the main goal of a senator or elected official is to be reelected. With reelection at stake, can any elected official vote for the best interest of the country if it is unpopular with the people? Government is intended to act in the people's best interest. It must be considered if appointed senators were more effective than elected senators. While there may be no easy answer to this, pondering the question and potentially making changes is an example effective democracy.