Review of the 1956 Pulitzer Prize winning classic by then Senator John F. Kennedy.

Disclaimer: Longtime JFK speechwriter and adviser Ted Sorensen is widely credited for “ghost writing” the book, or at the very least supplying the initial draft for most of the chapters. Sorensen confirmed as much in his autobiography, though this was a certainly a contentious point within the Kennedy family (including JFK himself).

Regardless of the above disclaimer, this is one of those books that everyone should read (and re-read every so often, especially if you are feeling extra cynical). It details the actions of eight U.S. Senators during periods which required them to display courage and integrity while facing strong opposition and in some cases which caused the end of their political careers. Each chapter gives an introduction to the period and the overall flavor of the political climate in which the act of courage took place and then finally the course of action taken by the Senator in question as well as the ramifications of that course. In his foreword, Robert F. Kennedy summarized the purpose of the book well:

This book is not just the 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.
Robert F. Kennedy in the foreword to Profiles in Courage.

Each chapter balances giving the reader a solid understanding of the forces at play in the decisions made by the Senator (such as their political ambitions, past legislative agendas, etc.), as well as those within the country at large, but without it feeling like an onerous history lesson bogging down the main purpose of the book. After all, without the context, it would be hard to know how courageous a decision was.

This book can at times feel as if it is a peek into a bygone era of larger-than-life Senators that took part in grand philosophical debates, e.g. the likes of the members of the Great Triumvirate, from a time that has passed and will not return. It is easy to see the profiles in the book with rose colored glasses in this way, to wish for a return to this form of politics during the hyper partisan politics we see dominating the Senate (and the rest of the political sphere) today but if anything this book should call us to look more closely for those actions of integrity that do in fact still happen today. Such an example I’d put forth are those of the seven Republican Senators who voted to convict in President Trump’s second impeachment trial (see Mitt Romney’s statement here on the subject). While we need to heed Kennedy’s thoughts on such contemporaneous judgments, as he states in the book; “[A Senator] is best judged after many years pass, enough years to permit the sediment of political and legislative battles to settle, so that we can assess our times more clearly”, we can still look for clues about how posterity will judge such actions. Was there the significant possibility of real political damage as the result of making such a vote? Was the vote made against the strong opinions of their section, party, or constituency? That is for each of us (and posterity) to decide, but in my opinion in this case the arrow is pointing in the direction of courage versus its opposite. Following more advice from the book, we also shouldn’t establish courage by the decision being necessarily on the “right” side of an issue, as judged by the beholder. As stated in the book when reviewing George Norris’ opposition to the Armed Ship Bill in the beginning stages of WWI; “It is not now important whether Norris was right or wrong. What is important is the courage he displayed in support of his convictions.” While this may seem like a thinly veiled attempt at removing oneself from the political arguments of the day without getting your hands dirty (as if to put your hands up and say that I am not making a call so I can’t be wrong), it is not. It instead focuses on another dimension of a decision, from the zero sum game of the D’s vs the R’s as it is often framed, and towards the game of following one’s reasoned convictions while facing the significant likelihood of personal detriment all for the good (as you see it) of the country (even if the country may disagree with you in the short term).

One of the most useful qualities of the book was how it forced the reader to think deeply about the merits of a government where an elected official perfectly reflects a constituency’s will versus following their own convictions. Given that many of the acts of courage are defined as such because they were made in the face of popular opinion, it is something that comes up often. As a thought experiment, which form of government would you prefer: one where public opinion can be found immediately (and then implemented) on any issue through means of electronic polls, i.e. governing by referendum, or a republic in which officials are elected based on the voting public’s (hopefully correct) perceptions of the candidate’s ability to make sound judgment in accordance with their values? The former is something that the Founders could not have imagined as technically feasible but today would not be out of the question to implement. While I will leave my opinions on the question out of this review, the following are those of Senator Lamar (which are quoted as such in the book). Are his opinions nothing more than elitism in flowery language, rational distrust of the swaying opinions of the masses, or an attempt at providing justification for a course of unpopular action by feigning participation in a grander philosophical debate? That is the question each reader contends with as they make their way through the book. These types of arguments had in one’s own head are part of the reason we read books like this in my opinion.

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 the 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.
Lucius Lamar, Senator from MS

In conclusion, this is a terrific (relatively quick) read that reminds us of what courage has looked like during some of the most important periods in American history. We can apply the lessons learned in this book not only to the political sphere but elsewhere in life. The stories contained in Profiles in Courage also push us away from cynicism caused by modern politics and to look for acts of courage that may be taking place around us.

As a minor point, as any good book that covers political history does, Profiles in Courage forces us to realize that some of the trends in politics we see today have at times been observed in the past. Today’s constant hyper partisan rhetoric and party line votes that seem to put party above country at all times, provide such an example. But when looking back to history, we see this very same thing in the House resolution of 1868 to impeach President Johnson. The vote was along almost perfect party lines (all but two non-Democrats voted Yea, Samuel Cary an Independent and Thomas Stewart a “Conservative Republican”). There are many such examples included in the book and are all great reminders, as the saying goes, that while history doesn’t repeat itself, it does often rhyme.