The American Leadership Tradition: Moral Vision from Washington to Clinton - Hardcover

In The American Leadership Tradition, Marvin Olasky sets out to prove the link between private morality and success in political leadership, sketching moral portraits of 10 presidents, with Henry Clay, Booker T. Washington, and John D. Rockefeller thrown in for good measure. George Washington provides Olasky's perfect model to which future presidents should aspire, depicted as loyal to his wife, Martha, and possessing a strong faith in God. Jefferson, in contrast, is portrayed as suspicious of religion--and then, of course, there are his affairs with Sally Hemings and Maria Cosway (a married woman he knew in Paris while serving there as ambassador). "Jefferson's career," Olasky writes, "provides an important example of how even a leader who scorned any Scripture he could not control, and implemented policies contrary to biblical teaching, did not quite wreck a country with a decentralized government and a citizenry committed to preserving both liberty and virtue."

Despite receiving Congressional censure, Andrew Jackson is praised, largely because he was a religious man who read three chapters of the Bible a day, remained faithful to his wife his entire life, and supported smaller central government and term limits for federal officials. Grover Cleveland--a youthful carouser who fathered a child out of wedlock--also benefits from Olasky's political formulation of morality, having fought government growth and attacked a bill aimed at providing pension benefits to Civil War veterans and their families because he felt charity was best left to churches and local organizations, not the federal government.

Olasky's sharpest criticism is given to Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and--unsurprisingly, perhaps--Bill Clinton. All of them were unfaithful to their spouses, and each was self-absorbed, but how thoroughly did their personal qualities damage their presidencies? Olasky is not fully convincing here. His strongest points, ultimately, concern how a president's personal behavior sets the standard for future presidents and affects the public trust: "When shepherds take the wrong path, sheep follow," Olasky concludes. "The United States desperately needs honest and discerning shepherds to lead it into the next century." --Linda Killian

A work of interpretive opinion, not of fresh historical understanding. The fox, it is said, has many ideas and the hedgehog one. Olasky (Renewing American Compassion, 1996), editor of the Christian magazine World, is a hedgehog here. Unfortunately, his single ideathat we must assess religious beliefs and morality if we're to understand the motivations and actions of national leadersis, like many such ideas, unexceptionable and misleading. It's misleading because it's only one of many ways to evaluate presidents. Worse, Olasky likens his approach to that of the great historian, ironist, and prose stylist Richard Hofstadter. But while, like Hofstadter, Olasky has written a book composed of portraitsin his case of 13 presidents and other leadersunlike Hofstadter's essays, Olasky's lack subtlety, weight, and often accuracy. What are we to make of a claim that American forces won the battle of Saratoga in 1778 not because of superior skills and the normal turns of fortune, but because the British commander was in bed with his mistress? Or that Woodrow Wilson was little more than a hypocrite? What this book lacks is nuance and balance. Which is a pity, for Olasky is onto something important: that many, probably all, American presidents have been flawed. We need to recognize that fact and to acknowledge that a democratic republic is not likely to have saints for chief executives. We're also justified in assessing personal character in evaluating and voting for presidents. But are there no other considerationsa president's vision (Jefferson's), political skills (FDR's), or deep moral sense (Lincoln's)to bring to bear in assessing the character and achievements of our top elected officials? Must a single approach to assessing presidentsthe moralistic onebe used to the exclusion of all others? This book strains credulity by suggesting that the answer is yes. (12 illustrations, not seen) (For another look at presidential ethics, see Richard Shenkman, Presidential Ambition, p. 1784) -- Copyright ©1998, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.