The Kennedy Imprisonment: A Meditation on Power

Rating:
Summary: Not all of it is factual
Review: Based on the recent declassification of the Kennedy White House Tapes. Some of the material about Kennedy in this book is based on false information provided by those within the Kennedy circle. I recommend reading more recently published books for a more truthful account of Kennedy.

Rating:
Summary: Insightful Study of America's First Family
Review: Garry Wills is one of the most popular contemporary historians. He is the former Henry R. Luce Professor of American Culture at Northwestern University and the author of numerous books, including "Reagan's America," "Nixon Agonistes," and "Lincoln at Gettysburg," for which he won the Pulitzer Prize. "The Kennedy Imprisonment" is one of his best, a book filled with intriguing insights into the most famous of American families. It is an extremely well written, entertaining, and important book.

Wills is primarily conducting a "meditation on power." He examines the notion of power as it pertained to the three most famous Kennedy brothers: John, Robert, and Edward. It all began with their father, the person who influenced them most. Joseph Kennedy--bootlegger, Hollywood mogul, and Ambassador to the Court of Saint James--was a man of great ambition. At one time, he had presidential aspirations of his own. When those fizzled, he transferred them to his sons, first Joe Jr. and then Jack. The elder Kennedy manipulated his son's career and, more importantly, his image with all of his considerable skill. He had John's senior paper published as a book, Why England Slept. He exaggerated John's war record with an article in the New Yorker. He orchestrated his campaign to win the Pulitzer Prize for "Profiles in Courage," a book John did not actually write. Image, not substance, was what really mattered, and it was an early source of John Kennedy's, and, by extension, his brothers', power.

When John Kennedy ascended to the presidency, that is, when he rose to power, he was determined to be the antithesis of Dwight Eisenhower. Ike was old, Jack was young. Ike ruled by committee, Jack by fiat. Ike was tranquil, Jack was active. Most importantly, Kennedy was a man with charisma, in the sense that Max Weber meant it. Eisenhower ruled as a traditional "father-king." His authority came from his distinguished record of accomplishments and the dignity of his office. Kennedy's authority, however, came from within himself. His power emanated from his force of will, energy, self-confidence, brash intelligence, and personal style. The man was what was important, not the office or the institution. His decisions were swift and arbitrary; he thrived in crisis, a common characteristic of the charismatic leader. He even created crises when necessary (e.g., the US Steel confrontation) and intensified them once they occurred (e.g., the standoff with Cuba). He saw the role of government as "defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger." He treated the Soviet menace as a "twilight struggle" with the enemy of freedom (shades of the Evil Empire). In crisis, he was at his best, able to demonstrate to everyone that he was the one man, the single hero that could save them.

His charisma allowed Kennedy to recruit his illustrious circle of disciples; the "best and the brightest." They were attracted by the power and the glamour of the Kennedy presidency, eager to become knights riding in service to Camelot. They were men who would not otherwise have been willing to serve in subordinate positions, but were glad to do so when it meant working for a Kennedy. Having such competent advisors allowed him to utilize his power in broad and aggressive ways. Unfortunately, this also worked to his disadvantage. A sense of "we're so smart, we can do anything" pervaded the White House, resulting in unwise and even foolhardy decisions being made. This was seen most prominently in their dealings with Cuba and Vietnam.

Kennedy's style as president was unlike anything seen before. He was young and handsome, married to a sophisticated, beautiful woman-such a refreshing change from the stodgy, conservative Eisenhower years. Kennedy was a swinger, a man's man, a dedicated student of the Sinatra-Hemingway-Mailer school of macho bravado. He loved Hollywood and the Rat Pack and James Bond. He courted Marilyn and had assignations with a mobster's moll. This style helped mold the image, helped create the charisma, helped feed the power. It made Jack a legend, but it hurt Bobby, and it crippled Ted. After Dallas, Camelot was over and the memories of the good times turned to acid in the stomachs of many Americans. They were still willing to accept Bobby--after all, he'd been there in the beginning--but when it came to Teddy, they were far less forgiving. After Chappaquidick, his hopes of one day following Jack were all but gone.

The power, prestige, and success of the Kennedy brothers followed a downward curve from Jack to Ted. After Jack was assassinated, there was still Bobby, the trusted younger brother and confidant, to carry on the dream. Ultimately, he proved a less than able caretaker. Even if he could have beaten Humphrey, he likely would have lost to Nixon, the ultimate defeat for a Kennedy. When he too was killed, the responsibility fell on Ted's shoulders and he was not strong enough to carry that much weight. The burden of living three lives, with his the least important, was too heavy for Ted to bear. That is the true meaning of the title, the Kennedy imprisonment. Ted is a prisoner of the past, both his brothers' and his own. He is a prisoner of lost hopes and abandoned dreams, of what might have been and what never was. Teddy, the youngest and nicest, but the least capable, could never meet those expectations. He never could be Jack and, failing that, he could not even be Bobby. To live up to the ideal of two martyred heroes is too much to ask of anyone, even a Kennedy.

Rating:
Summary: Insightful Study of America's First Family
Review: Garry Wills is one of the most popular contemporary historians. He is the former Henry R. Luce Professor of American Culture at Northwestern University and the author of numerous books, including "Reagan's America," "Nixon Agonistes," and "Lincoln at Gettysburg," for which he won the Pulitzer Prize. "The Kennedy Imprisonment" is one of his best, a book filled with intriguing insights into the most famous of American families. It is an extremely well written, entertaining, and important book.

Wills is primarily conducting a "meditation on power." He examines the notion of power as it pertained to the three most famous Kennedy brothers: John, Robert, and Edward. It all began with their father, the person who influenced them most. Joseph Kennedy--bootlegger, Hollywood mogul, and Ambassador to the Court of Saint James--was a man of great ambition. At one time, he had presidential aspirations of his own. When those fizzled, he transferred them to his sons, first Joe Jr. and then Jack. The elder Kennedy manipulated his son's career and, more importantly, his image with all of his considerable skill. He had John's senior paper published as a book, Why England Slept. He exaggerated John's war record with an article in the New Yorker. He orchestrated his campaign to win the Pulitzer Prize for "Profiles in Courage," a book John did not actually write. Image, not substance, was what really mattered, and it was an early source of John Kennedy's, and, by extension, his brothers', power.

When John Kennedy ascended to the presidency, that is, when he rose to power, he was determined to be the antithesis of Dwight Eisenhower. Ike was old, Jack was young. Ike ruled by committee, Jack by fiat. Ike was tranquil, Jack was active. Most importantly, Kennedy was a man with charisma, in the sense that Max Weber meant it. Eisenhower ruled as a traditional "father-king." His authority came from his distinguished record of accomplishments and the dignity of his office. Kennedy's authority, however, came from within himself. His power emanated from his force of will, energy, self-confidence, brash intelligence, and personal style. The man was what was important, not the office or the institution. His decisions were swift and arbitrary; he thrived in crisis, a common characteristic of the charismatic leader. He even created crises when necessary (e.g., the US Steel confrontation) and intensified them once they occurred (e.g., the standoff with Cuba). He saw the role of government as "defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger." He treated the Soviet menace as a "twilight struggle" with the enemy of freedom (shades of the Evil Empire). In crisis, he was at his best, able to demonstrate to everyone that he was the one man, the single hero that could save them.

His charisma allowed Kennedy to recruit his illustrious circle of disciples; the "best and the brightest." They were attracted by the power and the glamour of the Kennedy presidency, eager to become knights riding in service to Camelot. They were men who would not otherwise have been willing to serve in subordinate positions, but were glad to do so when it meant working for a Kennedy. Having such competent advisors allowed him to utilize his power in broad and aggressive ways. Unfortunately, this also worked to his disadvantage. A sense of "we're so smart, we can do anything" pervaded the White House, resulting in unwise and even foolhardy decisions being made. This was seen most prominently in their dealings with Cuba and Vietnam.

Kennedy's style as president was unlike anything seen before. He was young and handsome, married to a sophisticated, beautiful woman-such a refreshing change from the stodgy, conservative Eisenhower years. Kennedy was a swinger, a man's man, a dedicated student of the Sinatra-Hemingway-Mailer school of macho bravado. He loved Hollywood and the Rat Pack and James Bond. He courted Marilyn and had assignations with a mobster's moll. This style helped mold the image, helped create the charisma, helped feed the power. It made Jack a legend, but it hurt Bobby, and it crippled Ted. After Dallas, Camelot was over and the memories of the good times turned to acid in the stomachs of many Americans. They were still willing to accept Bobby--after all, he'd been there in the beginning--but when it came to Teddy, they were far less forgiving. After Chappaquidick, his hopes of one day following Jack were all but gone.

The power, prestige, and success of the Kennedy brothers followed a downward curve from Jack to Ted. After Jack was assassinated, there was still Bobby, the trusted younger brother and confidant, to carry on the dream. Ultimately, he proved a less than able caretaker. Even if he could have beaten Humphrey, he likely would have lost to Nixon, the ultimate defeat for a Kennedy. When he too was killed, the responsibility fell on Ted's shoulders and he was not strong enough to carry that much weight. The burden of living three lives, with his the least important, was too heavy for Ted to bear. That is the true meaning of the title, the Kennedy imprisonment. Ted is a prisoner of the past, both his brothers' and his own. He is a prisoner of lost hopes and abandoned dreams, of what might have been and what never was. Teddy, the youngest and nicest, but the least capable, could never meet those expectations. He never could be Jack and, failing that, he could not even be Bobby. To live up to the ideal of two martyred heroes is too much to ask of anyone, even a Kennedy.

Rating:
Summary: dark portrait of the human toll of ambition
Review: I pulled this book off the overstock pile and was immediately absorbed in it. WHile it is not a scholarly treatment with footnotes, etc. - it is from essays Wills wrote in Esquire - it is a very humane inquiry into what ambition and power cost the Kennedys.

Wills makes one of the most cogent arguments that that family, so obsessed as it is with winning at any cost, is in fact hiding sickness and brutalities from outsiders. The story is indeed sad, as Wills concentrates on the lesser known characters in teh drama, such as Ted K's ex-wife, who was temperamentally unsuited to compete with this gang. There is no doubt that this is one side of this remarkable political family. To his credit, Wills does not let his political predilections intrude too much, but instead explores them as real people.

As always, Wills' writing style is beautiful and flowing, a true natural talent. Warmly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: dark portrait of the human toll of ambition
Review: I pulled this book off the overstock pile and was immediately absorbed in it. WHile it is not a scholarly treatment with footnotes, etc. - it is from essays Wills wrote in Esquire - it is a very humane inquiry into what ambition and power cost the Kennedys.

Wills makes one of the most cogent arguments that that family, so obsessed as it is with winning at any cost, is in fact hiding sickness and brutalities from outsiders. The story is indeed sad, as Wills concentrates on the lesser known characters in teh drama, such as Ted K's ex-wife, who was temperamentally unsuited to compete with this gang. There is no doubt that this is one side of this remarkable political family. To his credit, Wills does not let his political predilections intrude too much, but instead explores them as real people.

As always, Wills' writing style is beautiful and flowing, a true natural talent. Warmly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: Get It and Keep It Close to You
Review: Published in 1982 "The Kennedy Imprisonment" remains a strange and haunting work. I passed up on it when it first appeared primarily to avoid the pain and wounds of the years that Garry Wills dwells on in his book. Even now twenty years after the book was published and more years after the decades covered, the story Wills tells still affects me deeply.

I suspect anyone of my generation who was passionately involved in the politics of the time will feel themselves haunted by ghosts and shallow graves. It is one of the few books of the period that I commend to the generations that have come after something called The Cold War, After The Missle Crisis, after the holocausts of Vietnam and Cambodia and after the Civil Rights Movement. Not a survey of those events or a revelation of "new" facts the writing is exactly what Wills says it is, a meditation.

Garry Wills obviously had some close contact with members of the Kennedy family and had access to insights not available to most of us. but in telling this tale Wills, ever the classicist, leaves most of the salacious and gory details off stage, telling only what is neccessary. He aims not for shock and titillation but for structure and meaning. And here Wills succeeds admirably.

If the outcomes were not so tragic, the story has all the makings of an Irish low comedy skit of "keeping up appearances." Instead the "play" of human frailty has the slow ominous beat of Greek tragedy. However it is not the House of Atreus in ancient Greece but the House of Kennedy in modern America. The assassinations of John and then Bobby are tragic in themselves but suprisingly not germane to the central theme of the book. The tragedy Wills investigates is on a higher plane than the death of individual men.

The book is divided into five parts aside from the prologue and epilogue. The story is like watching the Kennedy family on a rotating diorama, moving but strangely static. Each time Wills cranks the diorama around there is a different Kennedy in the panel smiling and waving to the camera. But each time the smiles a little grimer and the family fewer. Beneath each panal Wills emblazons the QEDs of his principle thesis: "Prisoner Of Sex," "Prisoner Of Family,"Prisoner Of Image," "Prisoner Of Charisma," and "Prisoner Of Power." In each case public policy and political stategy is hobbled by the Kennedy imprisonment. In that sense we all become prisoners and helpless witness to The Bay Of Pigs fiasco; attempted assassinations of Fidel Castro almost starting a nuclear war or an early Vietnam 90 mile from our shore. In the end we become helpless participants in the Vietnam Holocaust and by my own implication, the Cambodian Holocaust.

In telling this story Wills employs everything from quotes from great writers to the revealing chatter of the Kennedys, near Kennedys, and go-fers. He sometimes turns school master as in his exposition of Max Weber work on charasmatic leaders. There Wills numbers his paragraphs and arguments. He takes his QEDs seriously and means the reader to do the same. The prologue opens on the trail with Sen. Ted Kennedy during his campaign for the nomination for president a campaign that is fordoomed. Near the end of the book we return to that campaign and find the author, Ted Kennedy and another man sitting on the porch during a fall sunset with the unspoken futility of the campaign all about them. During the idle conversation these former altar boys confess that they no longer remember the responses in the mass and having learned them in Latin wouldn't know them in English anyway. And in this last part of the book to deal with a Kennedy we watch as Ted Kennedy knowingly marches to defeat like a helpless sleepwalker.

In the very brief epilogue Wills turns away from the Kennedys to the accomplishments of Martin Luther King. There laid side by side one is forced to judge theworks of the Kennedys along side those of King. In this eloquent epilogue Wills leaves no doubt. "King rallied the strength of broken men, transmuting an imposed squalor into the beauty of chosen suffering. No one did it for his followers. they did it for themselves. Yet in helping them, he [King] exercised real power, achieved changes that dwarf the moon shot as an American achievement. The "Kennedy Era" was really the age of Dr. King.

If you plan to run for school board, to get involved in town politics or run for President Of the United States, read this book. Keep it on yoyr bookself alongside "The Prince," "The Art Of War," "The Arthastrasta' and the numerous other guides useful to the aquisition and maintenance of power. Garry Wills' case history of the Kennedy family will show you, win or lose, your soul will always be in mortal danger. And that contrary to the maxims of those times; it's the message and not the media, its the content of character not the image, and winning is not the only thing.