Product Description

"This is a book about the 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."
-- John F. Kennedy

During 1954-55, John F. Kennedy, then a U.S. Senator, chose eight of his historical coleagues to profile for their acts of astounding integrity in the face of overwhelming opposition. These heroes include John Quincy Adams, Daniel Webster, Thomas Hart Benson, and Robert A. Taft.

Awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 1956, Profiles in Courage resounds with timeless lessons on themost cherished of virtues and is a powerful reminder of the strength of the human spirit. It is, as Robert Kennedy states in the foreword, "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.

---

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #271472 in Books
• Published on: 2000-03
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 272 pages

Review
"A book that deserves reading by every American." -- -- Springfield Republican

"A book that deserves reading by every American." -- Springfield Republican

About the Author
John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) was President of the United Sates from 1961 to 1963. He was the youngest man ever elected to the Oval Office and the first Roman Catholic president.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
ICourage and Politics

This is a book about the 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. We may remember how John Quincy Adams became President through the political schemes of Henry Clay, but we have forgotten how, as a young man, he gave up a promising Senatorial career to stand by the nation. We may remember Daniel Webster for his subservience to the National Bank throughout much of his career, but we have forgotten his sacrifice for the national good at the close of that career. We do not remember--and possibly we do not care.

"People don't give a damn," a syndicated columnist told millions of readers not so many years ago, "what the average Senator or Congressman says. The reason they don't care is that they know what you hear in Congress is 99% tripe, ignorance and demagoguery and not to be relied upon ......

Earlier a member of the Cabinet had recorded in his diary:

While I am reluctant to believe in the totaldepravity of the Senate, I place but little dependenceon the honesty and truthfulness of a large portionof the Senators. A majority of them are small lights,mentally weak, and wholly unfit to be Senators.Some are vulgar demagogues ... some are men ofwealth who have purchased their position ... [someare] men of narrow intellect, limited comprehension,and low partisan prejudice....

And still earlier a member of the Senate itself told his colleagues that "the confidence of the people is departing from us, owing to our unreasonable delays."

The Senate knows that many Americans today share these sentiments. Senators, we hear, must be politicians--and politicians must be concerned only with winning votes, not with statesmanship or courage. Mothers may stiff want their favorite sons to grow up to be President, but according to a famous Gallup poll of some years ago, they do not want them to become politicians in the process.

Does this current rash of criticism and disrespect mean the quality of the Senate has declined? Certainly not. For of the three statements quoted above, the first was made in die twentieth century, the second in the nineteenth and the third in the eighteenth (when the first Senate, barely underway, was debating where the Capitol should be located).

Does it mean, then, that the Senate can no longer boast of men of courage?

Walter Lippmann, after nearly half a century of careful observation, rendered in his recent book a harsh judgment both on the politician and the electorate:

With exceptions so rare they are regarded as miracles of nature, successful democratic politicians are insecure and intimidated men. They advance politically only as they placate, appease, bribe, seduce, bamboozle, or otherwise manage to manipulate the demanding threatening elements in their constituencies. The decisive consideration is not whether the proposition is good but whether it is popular-not whether it will work well and prove itself, but whether the active-talking constituents like it immediately.

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 in the public's appreciation of the art of politics, of the nature and necessity for compromise and balance, and of the nature of the Senate as a legislative chamber. And, finally, I am convinced that we have criticized those who have followed the wordand at the same time criticized those who have defied itbecause 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" in 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.

The first pressure to be mentioned is a form of pressure rarely recognized by the general public. Americans want to be liked-and Senators are no exception. They are by natureand of necessity-social animals. We enjoy the comradeship and approval of our friends and colleagues. We prefer praise to abuse, popularity to contempt. Realizing that the path of the conscientious insurgent must frequently be a lonely one, we are anxious to get along with our fellow legislators, our fellow members of the club, to abide by the clubhouse rules and patterns, not to pursue a unique and independent course which would embarrass or irritate the other members. We realize, moreover, that our influence in the club-and the extent to which we can accomplish our objectives and those of our constituents--are dependent in some measure on the esteem with which we are regarded by other Senators. "The way to get along," I was told when I entered Congress, "is to go along."

Going along means more than just good fellowship--it includes the use of compromise, the sense of things possible.

---

Customer Reviews

Grace Under Pressure
"Profiles in Courage" is a rare book - for a number of reasons.

First, of course, is that the author is nothing short of American royalty and the publication of the book in 1956 had an instantaneous impact on Kennedy's political fortunes. In the late 1950s, JFK was a freshman senator without many notable achievements. "Profiles" immediately set him apart from his Congressional colleagues and established him as something of an intellectual heavyweight in Washington and garnered valuable publicity that ultimately vaulted him to the 1960 Democratic nomination and the presidency.

Second, never before has a work of non-fiction been so immediately embroiled in controversy, both because of questions concerning its composition and the fact that it won the 1957 Pulitzer Prize for biography. The consensus today -- nearly half-a-century after its publication and after intense scrutiny -- is that the book was essentially written by committee. JFK may have provided the inspiration for the work, but close aide and confidant Ted Sorensen did most of the heavy lifting around research and writing. In other words, Kennedy was more the "editor" than the "author." Indeed, Herbert Parmet investigated the "who wrote Profiles?" question in detail in his 1980 book "Jack: The Struggle of John F. Kennedy" and concluded that there was no evidence from reams of hand-written notes and memos that JFK contributed anything substantial to the final version of the book. This after Kennedy threatened to sue ABC for millions after syndicated columnist Drew Pearson alleged that the book was ghostwritten during a 1957 appearance on the Mike Wallace Show, an allegation ABC was forced to retract. To add to the brouhaha, the Pulitzer committee never officially nominated "Profiles" in 1957, yet somehow it came away with the award. Rumors swirled that Joseph Kennedy - and good friend and New York Times columnist Arthur Krock - leaned on the committee to get JFK the award, but those charges have never been, nor likely ever will be, verified.

Finally, the book is rare and important because of its content and theme. Contrary to other reviews, this book is NOT about "doing the right thing." The author(s) stress that each vignette concerns Senators who deliberately took a stand of conscience, which they knew would be unpopular with their constituents and likely cripple their political careers. Their stories have nothing to do with being right in time. Indeed, was Webster "doing the right thing" when he pursued compromise in 1850, including acceptance of the hated Fugitive Slave Law, which so appalled abolitionist Massachusetts? Was Norris right for scuttling Wilson's attempts to arm the American merchant fleet that was being decimated by German U-Boats before the US entry into the First World War? The central issue is the willingness to accept malicious public abuse, the loss of friends, power, prestige and the sacrifice of future aspirations on an issue of moral conscience, regardless how posterity judges that particular position. Kennedy et.al. demonstrate the admirable virtue of political courage through a collection of historical anecdotes of senators - some legends (Webster) and others forgotten (Ross) - across the expanse of US history.

The profiles are all crisp, lively and engaging (kudos to Sorensen!). Each is inspiring in its own way without resorting to mawkishness sentimentality. However, one should be cautioned from fully embracing each story in its entirety. For instance, the author(s) credit Kansas Senator Edmund G. Ross with single-handedly casting the vote that acquitted Andrew Johnson from impeachment charges in 1868, thus saving the executive from gross encroachment by the legislative branch. Some noted historians of the era, such as Eric Foner, note that there were a number of acquittal votes waiting in the wings to ensure that Johnson was not thrown out of office and that Ross ultimately received a number of patronage posts from the president in return for his vote, therefore undermining the notion in "Profiles" that Ross' actions was purely selfless and in the interest of the nation.

In sum, "Profiles in Courage" is a highly readable collection of anecdotes from Senatorial history with a positive, inspiring theme - regardless who wrote the book.

Don't pass this one up
"Profiles in Courage" does not belong to any of my preferred genres. I became interested in it after researching John Quincy Adams. The film "Amistad" started me down this path and eventually led to JFK's Pulitzer Prize winning book. It was written while he was still a Senator and focuses, for the most part, on historic politicians. Kennedy obviously admired these men, not for their great successes but for the personal price they all paid as a result of choosing to do what they felt was right.

Each man gets at most a chapter, and so Kennedy limited himself to one or two important events in their political careers, often their last stand. Not only are these men admirable but they are also very real. He manages to show us the human, less than perfect, side of each while convincing us of their moral strength. Each chapter leaves you wanting to know more about these men, who helped to shape American history.

The nice part about the book, and probably the key reason it won a Pulitzer, is that each event reads like a thriller. These are interesting stories and because Kennedy wrote them in chronological order with a few historic segues, the whole thing holds together to give us a better feel for the sweep of history. We willingly learn about the underlying currents that can inexorably drive a country in a certain direction.

"Profiles in Courage," is an easy read that teaches as it entertains. Kennedy seems to be encouraging us to look back at a past where "politician" was not a dirty word and in so doing, we are left with the suspicion that Kennedy himself, was trying to live up to those outmoded ideals. Knowing his fate, every word seems to have a poignant aura that makes it all the more memorable.

Great profiles that present character of a forgotten age.
Joh F. Kennedy's Pulitzer Prize winning Profiles In Courage is not an in-depth historical text, true, and it should not be read that way. If any reader was and is expecting to find fascinating, long biographies of the eight men in this book, then they should alter their expectations. Rather, readers should use these profiles as a precursor to major biographies that are fatter and thicker with more detail.Whether Kennedy or his speechwriter wrote this book is irrevelent to me, but what he did when he wrote this book was to narrow it down to a very slim margin of what courage is. What is it? How do people -- especially people in politics -- get courage? What circumstance or circumstances in their lives imbued that very important characteristic into their belief system when serving the public at large? What Kennedy does is explore those key moments in the lives of these men that could have been responsible for the attainment of that trait. Kennedy's style of writing is gripping, immediate and has colorful tints of personality to it. For a quick and accurate historical/biographical fix, Profiles in Couage does the job quite nicely.