The American leadership tradition

John A. Barnes

...Timely and highly readable survey of American statesmen. -- The Wall Street Journal

Publishers Weekly - Publisher's Weekly

Readers who haven't gotten their fill of musings on the relationship between sex and power from the nation's op-ed pages and talking heads can turn to Olasky (Renewing American Compassion). The editor of the weekly Christian magazine World seeks to show how religious beliefs and sexual morality influenced the behavior of 13 presidents and statesmen (the non-presidents examined include Booker T. Washington, Henry Clay and John D. Rockefeller). Watergate burglar and born-again minister Chuck Colson pens an introduction, which promises that readers will "thrill over inspiring models of moral leadership in our nation's history." Certainly, Olasky zeroes in on interesting details: Abraham Lincoln once walked out on a prostitute mid-session rather than accept her offer of paying on credit; Theodore Roosevelt could repeat long portions of Scripture at will. But Olasky also barely disguises his censorious delight at listing stale details: FDR cheated on Eleanor; JFK's secretaries performed both on typewriters and under the covers. At the end of the book, Olasky comes to what clearly is the point of this collection of rather humdrum object lessons: he writes the speech that he believes President Clinton should give. Other than the admission of obstruction of justice Olasky puts in the president's mouth, the speech, in its admission of sin (which is Olasky's main point), is remarkably similar to one already given by the president.

David Books

[Olasky] believes good husbands usually make good Presidents, and bad husbands usually make bad Presidents....[He] attempts to show that there is a powerful link between personal behavior and public performance....One finishes this book longing for a sophisticated public theology... -- The New York Times Book Review

Kirkus Reviews

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), editor of the Christian magazine World, is a hedgehog here. Unfortunately, his single idea—that we must assess religious beliefs and morality if we're to understand the motivations and actions of national leaders—is, 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 portraits—in his case of 13 Presidents and other leaders—unlike 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 considerations—a President's vision (Jefferson's), political skills (FDR's), or deep moral sense (Lincoln's)—to bring to bear in assessing the character andachievements of our top elected officials? Must a single approach to assessing Presidents—the moralistic one—be used to the exclusion of all others?