Take a photo of a barcode or cover
wwatts1734 's review for:
Profiles in Courage
by John F. Kennedy
When it comes to books written by US Presidents, this one is unique. Most of these books are autobiographical or works that focus on justifying some aspect of the President's administration or policy. But this work is about US Senators who served in the period between 1830 and 1950. It is actually a great lesson in American history and civics. Once upon a time this book was taught in schools, I'm not sure if it is any more but, if not, it should be reintroduced.
This book is about six US Senators who made very difficult political decisions, some of which ended their political careers. At the heart of this work is the definition of the term "courage". Most of us know what courage means in wartime; certainly JFK knew about this as he was a decorated PT boat commander in the Pacific in WWII. But in politics, what does courage mean? JFK spent some time discussing this, but it is still nebulous. For example, George Wallace ran a Presidential campaign on the platform that segregation should be preserved. Was this an act of courage on his part? The answer to that has much to do about your beliefs about segregration. And this is the problem with "Profiles in Courage". The Senators in this book risked a lot on their unpopular positions on specific issues, but the question is this; were the issues that these men defended worth defending?
JFK's choice of subjects for this work are interesting in this regard. Daniel Webster, for example, is lauded for his support of the compromise of 1850. The problem is that the Compromise of 1850 preserved the institution of slavery in the United States for 10 years. Another subject in the book was Lucius Lamar, a senator from Mississippi in the 1870s who was an official in the Confederate government during the Civil War. The subjects in this book who lived prior to 1860 were all pro-slavery, at least in key controversies if not their entire careers. Another subject in the book, Senator Norris, is lauded for trying to stop the United States from going to war with Germany in 1917. And Robert A Taft, another subject of the book, is lauded for criticizing the US prosecution of Nazi war criminals after the Second World War. These are odd positions for someone to support under the aegis of courage. Were there Senators who opposed slavery? Would these Senators have been deemed courageous by JFK? Were there Senators who wanted to stop German militarism before 1917, or who wanted to stop the Nazis before 1941? Would these Senators be deemed to be courageous?
JFK points out that one does not have to agree with the position of a man in order to give him credit for courage in supporting that position. This is true. But courage, at least in politics, can't be presented without a context. This is the problem that I have with this book.
Nonetheless, this book is a very good analysis of key controversies in American history prior to its writing in the late 1950s. More Americans should read it, and should discuss the lessons that it presents, whether they agree with JFK's position or not. This book is definitely a credit to the memory of the President who wrote it.
This book is about six US Senators who made very difficult political decisions, some of which ended their political careers. At the heart of this work is the definition of the term "courage". Most of us know what courage means in wartime; certainly JFK knew about this as he was a decorated PT boat commander in the Pacific in WWII. But in politics, what does courage mean? JFK spent some time discussing this, but it is still nebulous. For example, George Wallace ran a Presidential campaign on the platform that segregation should be preserved. Was this an act of courage on his part? The answer to that has much to do about your beliefs about segregration. And this is the problem with "Profiles in Courage". The Senators in this book risked a lot on their unpopular positions on specific issues, but the question is this; were the issues that these men defended worth defending?
JFK's choice of subjects for this work are interesting in this regard. Daniel Webster, for example, is lauded for his support of the compromise of 1850. The problem is that the Compromise of 1850 preserved the institution of slavery in the United States for 10 years. Another subject in the book was Lucius Lamar, a senator from Mississippi in the 1870s who was an official in the Confederate government during the Civil War. The subjects in this book who lived prior to 1860 were all pro-slavery, at least in key controversies if not their entire careers. Another subject in the book, Senator Norris, is lauded for trying to stop the United States from going to war with Germany in 1917. And Robert A Taft, another subject of the book, is lauded for criticizing the US prosecution of Nazi war criminals after the Second World War. These are odd positions for someone to support under the aegis of courage. Were there Senators who opposed slavery? Would these Senators have been deemed courageous by JFK? Were there Senators who wanted to stop German militarism before 1917, or who wanted to stop the Nazis before 1941? Would these Senators be deemed to be courageous?
JFK points out that one does not have to agree with the position of a man in order to give him credit for courage in supporting that position. This is true. But courage, at least in politics, can't be presented without a context. This is the problem that I have with this book.
Nonetheless, this book is a very good analysis of key controversies in American history prior to its writing in the late 1950s. More Americans should read it, and should discuss the lessons that it presents, whether they agree with JFK's position or not. This book is definitely a credit to the memory of the President who wrote it.