Assessing Presidents, Disagreeably

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN, eminent American historian,has a new book "Leadership In Turbulent Times" in which she draws parallels between presidents Lincoln, Roosevelt, Roosevelt, and Johnson (Lyndon). They all had remarkable political careers prior to their ascension to the presidency, the author points out, and they were all aware of their own personal limitations to the point of being humble, she further asserts. This observation raises some serious questions, and calls into questions Goodwin's character assessment capabilities. it might not have occurred to her that these are apt descriptions of us all, to a point; as we all make our way through the seemingly endless sequence of bargains, agreements, compromises and various other transactions which inevitably comprise life, do we not in our own small ways enjoy remarkable political" careers, in a sense, however insignificant to historians and history? And do we not all at some point and to whatever extent become aware of our own limitations, usually forcibly, by being confronted with their consequences? Also, it might be argued that all forty five American president have held the office during "turbulent times", since no other type has ever been know to exist in the nation's turbulent history. Maybe these four presidents are her favorites; she's dealt with them all before in other books. Kearns Goodwin has forgotten more history than I have ever learned. However, my reflexive reaction is that these supremely confident men were not only entirely unaware of their own personal limitations as men and leaders, but to whatever extent they did, ignored them, and indeed had in common a hugely exaggerated notion of his own capabilities and capacity for achievement. They fact that they all sought the presidency in the first place, each form their own very unlikely lots in life, is an indication of this. Lincoln, from his socially humble, uncredentialed, frontier origins, TR from his blue blooded, pampered, protected perch, FDR from his wheelchair, and LBJ, from his dusty Texas impoverished and relatively uneducated background. None of them as young men could have been expected to make it to the top. Lincoln must have known that his very election would trigger a civil war and probably end the United States forever, yet, he persisted, not the behavior of a man of self aware limitations. During the war he locked anyone who even resembled a southern sympathizer, violating basic American law, again, not the sort of behavior one might expect from a humble man, but rather, from a tyrant. he had the audacity to walk through the streets of burning Richmond before the war was over. Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed the American century, brazenly sailed the U.S. fleet uninvited into foreign ports as a show of force, took a hatchet to big business, and once, while delivering a speech, took a bullet..and finished his speech, before allowing himself to be given medical attention. That sounds little like a limited man. Franklin Roosevelt became displeased withe the supreme Court, and tried to increase its membership from nine to fifteen. He dragged the United States kicking and screaming into World War Two, and redesigned the American economy with a flurry of new Deal legislation, with Social Security as the centerpiece, much of which is with us today. Lyndon John forced through congress socialized health care and civil rights, bullying his political enemies into submission without mercy. He took security briefings in bed, swam nude in the White House pool with anyone who cared to join him, and once told Jaclyn Kennedy that he wished he were her children's "daddy". it is difficult to discern any shred of humility or limitations among these men.It may be that an historian who has forgotten more history than I have ever learned has forgotten a bit too much.