Book Nook Cafe discussion
Group Read
>
The Bully Pulpit ~ October 2015
Chapter 8As I was reading this chapter, the author mid chapter turned from TR to Taft. I am of the opinion that it would have been better to alternate a chapter of TR then Taft.
I think Goodwin tried to tackle too much. A book on Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Journalism is just too much. To use a English phrase, it becomes a "dogs breakfast". A total mishmash.
I find just as soon as I get into a grove reading about TR she switches to Taft. When I start getting into a grove reading about Taft we stop cold and have a chapter on McClure's magazine. The book just doesn't flow well for me.
I just looked at the low reviews on Amazon and I am not alone in the opinion.
Alias Reader wrote: "Chapter 8Page 213 mentions one of the many number of newspapers of that time, the Commercial advertiser. It's sad that all these newspapers are gone.
Wiki
The number of daily newspapers in the ..."
I blame CNN. (And then the internet.) The advent of the 24/7 news cycle started to sound the death knell for newspapers. Because why wait until 5 pm for your evening paper when you can turn on the TV and get it whenever you want? And why read an in-depth article about something when you can get the 20-second summary snippet on TV?
I also blame the 24/7 news cycle for the decline in the quality of the news being reported. Because everyone is in a rush now to be first with a breaking story, there is less time to vet the facts of the story. It seems as though the attitude is "we'll just go on and break the story even if we don't know what is actually happening because we'll come back later with the actual facts." But there is no guarantee that the people who viewed the initial, error-laden story will come back later and get the corrected version.
Yes, this is me, a former newspaper journalist, sitting in the corner having a tantrum and grumbling about the good old days. ;)
Well call me an old fossil. I subscribe to the Sat/Sun NY Times print edition and have the digital subscription for the other 5 days. I do read a lot of news online. However, I don't delude myself to think that make me well informed. For me, that means newspapers and news programs on TV like the BBC and the PBS Newshour. I don't watch every night but try to at least once a week.
I do watch daily my local NY1 news and CNN, MSNBC and sometimes FOX. I do like to hear what the other side of the political side is saying. I also subscribe to most news organizations and magazines on Facebook.
Hmmm. I wrote a post on my iPad this morning (or late last night) & do not see it here. Not that it was important, just something i now notice. What i wrote was that i appreciated the Riis Park info. His book, How the Other Half Lives, has been on my "wanna read" list for decades. Maybe this book will move it up more.Re. newspapers. It has been informative to learn of all the papers, in so many cities, that thrived back then. Now few cities have more than one daily paper.
Amy, i'me with you the quality of news sliding, partly in response to the 24/7 news cycle. It's not just the rush to break stories, it's also about the pandering to the internet. Too many stories are about stories on the 'net. If i want to know what is there, i'll go there, buster!
I was interested in the recent news story that the New Hampshire, Manchester Union Leader, endorsed Republican Christie for the primiary. It left me wondering if that sort of influence matters anymore. I have no answer, just a curiosity.
I finished the book last night. As Amy noted, there were some places where the prose dragged but not many. I was rushing ahead during the final few chapters, even though i knew who won the election.This is the first book i've read about either TR or Taft. Almost from the beginning i've had an issue with TR and it didn't change by the end. I'm sure if i'd read a straight bio i would be in love with him, as i find i am with each president as i read his bio. Still, he seemed incredibly self-centered.
I'm in the process of writing up my notes, so will add a bit later. I have fewer notes than usual, i must say. I'm not sure why, unless it's that i have a sense of what occurred "back then".
deb
Wow ! You really read the chapters from 10 on very quickly. Maybe there is hope for me yet. Seriously this book is going to take me a long time to finish.
I was looking at a few things as I begin to create my 2016 Determination List. So I looked at my 2015 DL. I just realized that Bully Pulpit is on it! Now I HAVE TO finish it this year. :)
madrano wrote: "This is the first book i've read about either TR or Taft. Almost from the beginning i've had an issue with TR and it didn't change by the end. I'm sure if i'd read a straight bio i would be in love with him, as i find i am with each president as i read his bio. Still, he seemed incredibly self-centered. ..."This is my impression, exactly. To the point that I'm debating whether I want to tackle any of the other books I have about TR. (I have in my collection the first two of the trilogy by Edmund Morris as well as The River of Doubt: Theodore Roosevelt's Darkest Journey by Candice Millard.) I'm not sure I want to read any more about Teddy--that's how much I was put off by him in this book. I will still likely read "The River of Doubt" anyway because I enjoyed Millard's book about James Garfield, Destiny of the Republic: A Tale of Madness, Medicine and the Murder of a President, so I would be interested to see what she does with TR. But I'll have to see how it goes for the Morris trilogy.
I was thinking about Doris Kearns Goodwin as I was reading "The Bully Pulpit" -- did she also dislike Teddy? It certainly seems as if she did. I took note of the many adjectives she used to describe him in the book: bombastic, impulsive, impetuous, dismissive, domineering, stubborn. None of those are very complimentary. I was actually surprised by the undercurrent of disdain for him that appeared to run throughout the book.I guess I would have expected Goodwin to be more objective.
Alias, i suspect the reason i barreled through was the fact that i realized i had only read this one book all through November and STILL hadn't finished it. What motivation. I knew i liked it & wanted to complete it, though. You have a great reason to continue, your DL. How fortuitous.Amy, i'm glad to read your comments on the book & TR. Curiously, i wondered the same thing about Kearns Goodwin--did she like or dislike him? When reading the only other book by her i've read, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, i don't remember at any point feeling as though she was disgusted with the character's actions or person. Not even when she wrote about Jefferson Davis.
I was fairly certain i wasn't going to read the Morris trilogy, as i want to complete the entire presidential list first. A dozen or so years ago i began listening to the second in the trilogy, Theodore Rex. It was okay but too enthusiastic (reader issue or text? not sure), so i thought i'd try the physical book, at which point i learned it was second in a tril. Forget it! :-)
Mornings on Horseback by David McCullough sounds appealing but i want to read a bio on his entire life, not just a limited number of years (17), even if they are very formative years. I usually prefer to read books about the formative years, but i want them to include the entire life, as well.
Like you, Millard's Garfield book was a pleasurable experience, so i'll probably read River at a later date. The Amazon tributary experience sounds interesting, especially from those early 20th century years.
I am still writing up my notes.
CHAPTER 11.I see we discussed this a bit upthread. McClure sounds as though he might have been somewhat bipolar. My only familiarity is with my sister, so i hesitate to call him such, given the lack of comparison. Still, i found the following an interesting remark from Kearns Goodwin--
“Commentators and clinicians cited a number of factors related to the stresses of modern civilization: the increased speed of communication facilitated by the telegraph and railroad; the ‘unmelodious’ clamor of city life replacing the ‘rhythmical’ sounds of nature; and the rise of the tabloid press that exploded ‘local horrors’ into national news. These nervous diseases became an epidemic among ‘the ultracompetitive businessman and the socially active woman.’”
Sound a tad like today, eh? I know more & more mental issues and unusual activities are being "blamed" on our new appliances and lives, so it's fitting. Maybe this is just a medical panacea of some sort.
Along the same lines, i was amused by the game TR & friends pursued, Singlesticks. At their age, playing with wooden swords? Hmmm.
CHAPTER 16.
To me this illustrates the power of Tarbell's prose. When Commissioner James Garfield (president’s son) decided to create a report about Standard Oil & all that happened in Kansas, those who publicly commented on it “invariably referenced Tarbell’s earlier work.” I hope she appreciated it. From the backnotes it was unclear.
CHAPTER 17.
When research on the patent medicine industry appeared, the public learned that Lydia E. Pinkham, who had been answering letters and dispensing advice to customers who wrote her, had been dead over two decades. They also learned that clauses were written into ad contracts between Pinkham’s company and the newspapers that said the advertising would be cancelled if there were news items “detrimental to the industry”, apparently even other ads.
Does anyone know if this sort of contract occurs today? I wouldn't think so but business is business. It is fascinating that representatives for Pinkham's business thought to include it.
CHAPTER 18.
I'm wondering what others thought about TR's disingenuous comments about his "Muckrakers" speech. I suppose it's possible he saw it that way but after the exchange between himself and i've forgotten who, maybe Baker (?), i wondered. While he might have felt he was being clear, the quotes shared didn't reflect that, imo.
I'll continue with more notes this weekend.
CHAPTER 8I agree with the posts above regarding Nellie Taft. She was a women ahead of her times.
Page 220- she had an "events salon" attended theater regularly, took music lessons, promoted early school education and also help to found the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra. Then there is the facts of her frequenting German beer halls, smoking, played cards, and wore a "short skirt". :)
She really must have been a fun person to be around.
Chapter 8I've always liked TR. I'm trying to keep an open mind and not be anachronistic. Is that the word I want? I don't want to judge him by today's standards but of his own time and social class.
P 222-4
Still, I am disturbed by his propensity to advocate for war.
TR: "The victories of peace are great but the victories of war are greater."
I already knew of his avidity for war by the little I read in the past of him and the Rough Riders. I recall in one book I read he outfitted them in uniforms made by Brooks Brothers. The tony NY store. It sort of made one feel that it was more of a macho game and not a particular cause that incited him.
I'll have to read on to see if his views mature and modify with age.
Thanks for posting your chapter thoughts, deb. They will help our discussion as I read on.I am sort of enjoying the leisurely pace I am reading the book at. I am sure one chapter in Bully Pulpit contains enough info for a whole other book ! LOL
Your final point above is quite true. I suppose that is why i took so many breaks as i read, i needed time to "store" the material. And, as we noted elsewhere, the fact that DKG covered many people on one chapter meant i needed a rest, too.Interestingly, i didn't even consider his advocacy for actual war in my dislike of him. I suppose when i read about that i felt it was fairly typical of the times. I didn't know that about Brooks Brothers, which is funny. Even when i mentioned above about the "Singlesticks" game, i felt it was more about their era.
I find myself asking if DKG specifically presented things to make him look mean. I'm glad to know the facts, of course, even if it makes him look less heroic. I also asked myself if it is the contrast between Taft's actions & TR's which led me to my unfavorable opinion. I'm still thinking about the book and the presentation, obviously.
About Nellie Taft. I think she was a woman who wanted to learn, grow, experience and so, was willing to try many things. She sounds as though she was a standout for the times but probably one to whom others looked to as they modeled their own lives. Hurrah, Nellie!
I was surprised to hear you both came away from the book with a dislike of TR. I hope that doesn't happen to me. So far I've read to chapter 8 and haven't felt anything overly negative that would change my opinion of him. However, who knows when I will ever finish this tome. :(
I just started reading The President and the Assassin: McKinley, Terror, and Empire at the Dawn of the American Century. In this book as well, TR is presented as a bit of a pain in the arse. In the 4th chapter, after McKinley was elected, he was dealing with the task of filling various Cabinet positions and other jobs. Apparently when several people began pressing him to appoint Teddy Roosevelt for the post of assistant secretary of the navy, "the thought of Roosevelt in such a plum position made McKinley shudder. 'I want peace," he told a mutual friend. 'And I am told that your friend Theodore is always getting into rows with everybody.'"
My take on TR was that he would come in and not go along to get along. He came into his jobs, like NYC Police Commissioner and shook things up. He didn't tolerate corruption and the way Tammany Hall controlled things. Sure he was a pain to people who benefited from the corrupt system. Maybe he didn't have finesse and was blunt. However, for me, I say, Bully !
Ok, now HERE'S an interesting topic for discussion. Was just reading this article on The Daily Beast. It's an old article from 2013 about "how to spot a sociopath. I was reading it and suddenly a single sentence jumped out at me. It's long, so I will post the article in one comment and then pull out the interesting sentence in the next comment.
How to Spot a Sociopath (Hint: It Could Be You)
By Caitlyn Dickson (6/25/13)
M.E. Thomas describes herself as a cutthroat attorney who sailed through law school without much effort, landed a position at a prestigious law firm, and then became a professor. She also claims to fantasize about murder, drops friends when their personal problems get in the way of her fun, and plots ways to “ruin people” in her spare time. She straddles a fine line between success and failure, with the traits that have gotten her ahead simultaneously contributing to her periodic downfalls.
M.E. Thomas is a sociopath. And you might be one, too.
In her new book, Confessions of a Sociopath, Thomas, writing under a pseudonym that pokes fun at her narcissism, removes her mask of carefully crafted personality traits in an attempt to prove that sociopathy is not simply a disorder of serial killers but one that exists on a spectrum, plaguing to varying degrees a large portion of successful, apparently well-adjusted people.
Thomas is not the first to make this point, but hers is certainly the most personal argument yet. In her 2005 book The Sociopath Next Door, psychologist Martha Stout warned that sociopaths make up four percent of the U.S. population; last spring, journalist Jon Ronson detailed his search for psychopathy from prisons to boardrooms in The Psychopath Test. (Psychopathy, more or less, is the clinical term for sociopathy, and the two are often used interchangeably.) A September 2012 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ranked U.S. presidents in order of their possession of a psychopathic trait called “fearless dominance,” with Teddy Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy topping the list.
Sociopathy is a personality disorder that manifests itself in such traits as dishonesty, charm, manipulation, narcissism, and a lack of both remorse and impulse control. In 1980, criminal psychologist Robert Hare developed the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), the universally heralded method for diagnosing psychopathy—used most often to determine whether a criminal is suitable for parole or poses such a danger to society that he deserves the death penalty. But Hare doesn’t believe psychopathy is confined to the prison system. In fact, quite the opposite: two years ago, Ronson quoted Hare’s assessment that “you’re four times more likely to find a psychopath at the top of the corporate ladder than you are walking around the janitor’s office.”
Notorious serial killer Ted Bundy is typically thought of as the psychopathic poster child, but experts point to Bernie Madoff as a better real-life example of someone on the spectrum. In a February 2011 interview with New York magazine, Madoff recalled asking his prison therapist whether she thought he was a sociopath. “You’re absolutely not a sociopath,” she reportedly told him. “You have morals. You have remorse.” True, Madoff may indeed have regretted losing $65 billion for thousands of investors, hedge funds, and charities across the world, disgracing and betraying his family so severely that one of his sons committed suicide. But to be able to manipulate all those people for a financial reward takes a certain degree of callousness, dishonesty, and lack of impulse control that are intrinsic to psychopathy.
In her book, Thomas writes that she loathed her father, never cried when he beat her with his belt, and that “the first recurring dream I can remember was about killing him with my bare hands.” He’s not the only person she’s fantasized about murdering. Thomas describes becoming consumed by a desire to stalk down and strangle a D.C. Metro worker who scolded her for using a closed elevator, as well as a teenage attempt to drown a baby opossum when she could have rescued it from the pool it had fallen into.
But Thomas isn’t an actual killer—and she and other researchers emphasize that most sociopaths aren’t killers either. Instead, Thomas says her favorite preferred sociopathic pastime is “ruining people.” Her book details the time she has spent going out of her way to toy with other people’s emotions. “I know my heart is blacker and colder than most people’s; maybe that’s why it’s tempting to break theirs,” she writes.
Stephanie Mullins-Sweatt, an assistant psychology professor at Oklahoma State University, has done research on so-called successful sociopaths—i.e., those who aren’t imprisoned. “If someone is on the extreme end of the spectrum, that’s bad, we want to limit their damage to society,” Sweatt says. “But I wouldn’t necessarily say that if someone is an extreme psychopath they are going to kill someone.”
John Edens, a psychology professor at Texas A&M, evaluated Thomas when her literary agent suggested she get diagnosed before turning her blog, SociopathWorld.com, into a book. It’s extremely rare for a sociopath to seek a clinical evaluation without a court order, and women are especially subject to misdiagnosis because of the lack of research on the disorder outside the prison system. So Edens had to use a variety of tests—including a screening version of the Hare PCL-R—before coming to the conclusion that she is, in fact, a sociopath. And while he’s confident in his diagnosis, he argues that “saying someone is a psychopath or not is drawing a bit of an arbitrary line in the sand,” suggesting that all people likely possess a certain amount of sociopathic traits, some just more pronounced than others.
So how do you solve a problem like a sociopath? While hardened inmates are required to undergo cognitive behavioral therapy to learn how not to end up back in jail, there’s virtually no known treatment for ruthless, manipulative, law-abiding citizens who lack empathy. And, really, should there be? These are traits that are often attributed to success, from the soldier who can come back from the frontlines without PTSD to the top surgeon who may lack in bedside manner but will save a life no matter the cost and the Wall Street investor willing to make a major gamble for a momentous reward. Thomas says she advises any potential sociopath who contacts her through her website against getting diagnosed, warning that, with no treatment available outside of prison therapy, the only real benefit of knowing is peace of mind—if that.
In lieu of therapy, Thomas has discovered some alternatives to treatment. For one, she credits Mormonism, specifically its doctrine that anyone can change and its required social engagements, with keeping her on track. Her blog is also therapeutic. By posting and responding daily to articles on sociopathy, she’s essentially forced to analyze her own behavior and decisions on a regular basis.
“I think one of the things that’s been my downfall in the past is when I start thinking that I’m normal and fine and that when something happens it’s someone else’s fault,” she said. “I have to remind myself that I am this way. I am naturally manipulative. I have a tendency to indulge in self-deception.”
And by engaging with her potentially sociopathic readers, Thomas has found a subculture of similarly antisocial people with whom she can play her favorite manipulative games without destroying friendships. After all, as Sweatt put it, sociopaths are mostly “problematic in terms of the stress they cause other people.”
Lauren, who asked not to use her real name to protect Thomas’s identity, was the first person to suggest Thomas might be a sociopath. While interning together one summer during law school, Thomas admitted to studying other people’s behavior for clues on how to act and expressed frustration over a friend whose close family member had died. Thomas wasn’t distraught or upset that she couldn’t do anything to make the situation better—she was annoyed that her friend had become less fun and entertaining to be around. When she read the book, Lauren was shocked to learn of the cruel games Thomas had played with other people and relieved that she had never been the target of her friend’s manipulation. Living in different cities and maintaining a mostly intellectual relationship has allowed the two to stay friends. But if Thomas ever tried to “ruin” Lauren like she has others, Lauren says she’d have to cut her out of her life.
“She certainly isn’t someone I’d call crying after a breakup ... but I grew up gay in a conservative place and I know what it’s like to be rejected for who you are,” said Lauren. “Her ultimate goal is to be out as a sociopath, accepted by society and not vilified. I can relate to that.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles...
Amy wrote: "madrano wrote: "This is the first book i've read about either TR or Taft. Almost from the beginning i've had an issue with TR and it didn't change by the end. I'm sure if i'd read a straight bio i ..."The adjectives about Teddy I find to be descriptive and not a connotation of good or bad. I think it is a function of history to report how the people at that time felt. Remember the reason he got the nomination for VP was because the powers that be in NY wanted to get him out of the way.
So here's the sentence from the long post:A September 2012 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ranked U.S. presidents in order of their possession of a psychopathic trait called “fearless dominance,” with Teddy Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy topping the list.
It continues with, "Sociopathy is a personality disorder that manifests itself in such traits as dishonesty, charm, manipulation, narcissism, and a lack of both remorse and impulse control."
And so here's the interesting topic for discussion: Using this criteria, was TR a sociopath??
Alias Reader wrote: "My take on TR was that he would come in and not go along to get along. He came into his jobs, like NYC Police Commissioner and shook things up. He didn't tolerate corruption and the way Tammany Hal..."Yup
Alias Reader wrote: "My take on TR was that he would come in and not go along to get along. He came into his jobs, like NYC Police Commissioner and shook things up. He didn't tolerate corruption and the way Tammany Hal..."My take on Teddy's personality in the book is that he always thought he knew what was best -- and he went ahead and did it without listening to anyone else's opinions. And he always thought he was right. No matter what the topic. Yes, he rooted out corruption in NYC. However, he also completely ignored Edith's explicit wish that he not attend the Republication convention when it was explained to him several times by numerous people that if he showed up he would be nominated. She asked him not to go because she didn't want him to be on the ticket--he ignored her and went anyway. Doesn't that kind of make him a crappy husband?
As described by Kearns Goodwin, he seemed impulsive, manipulative, dismissive of others, and had quite the opinion of himself. All traits that can be used for good -- and bad. I agree with Deb--the presentation in the book leaves a fairly negative impression of Teddy. Whether that was the express intent of the author or not is the question that I asked myself when reading it. Am I supposed to dislike TR just because Kearns Goodwin wrote about him in a way that seemed to indicate that she didn't like him and she was trying to get that point across? Or do I dislike him because he was actually a person I really wouldn't like if I actually knew him?
Alias Reader wrote: "My take on TR was that he would come in and not go along to get along. He came into his jobs, like NYC Police Commissioner and shook things up. He didn't tolerate corruption and the way Tammany Hal..."To be honest with you until the chapter on the Spanish American War i didn't have a big problem with TR or the way his personality was described. So, i agree with what you wrote, Alias, up to the war. My opinion began changing after his seeming indifference to his family's woes. It was almost as though once an opportunity to be a soldier appeared, nothing was going to stop him.
Alias, i will be interested in your take on the later chapters which turned my opinion of TR. I don't think less of his accomplishments as administrator, etc., by the way. And i would certainly want to have the energy he had!
Amy, that is an amusing quote from McKinley. One wonders what he heard. That TR then ended up his VP says much about the power of the NY Republicans!
Bobbie, i agree with your comment about adjectives regarding TR in the author's prose. This is where my own quandary (and possibly Amy's) enters. Did DKG temper the words with the action and quotes so that i was left with a negative opinion? Was this intentional?
You mentioned that DKG used thoughts/quotes from the time, which is true. Earlier Alias asked if we are evaluating TR by today's standards, which is a valid question. I think the fact that TR never asked Taft for facts about the Pinchot report to him seemed to be a deliberate intention to avoid a balanced look at the issue in order to allow TR to feel good about entering the fray.
Alias, i know i'm covering an example you have yet to read, so i apologize. It was at this point in the book that i began reevaluating TR and some of his other actions. He is ripe for character study, which i'll lightly address in response to Amy's longer & shorter post.
Amy wrote: "It continues with, "Sociopathy is a personality disorder that manifests itself in such traits as dishonesty, charm, manipulation, narcissism, and a lack of both remorse and impulse control." And so here's the interesting topic for discussion: Using this criteria, was TR a sociopath?? ..."
I'm awful with psychology, as Alias will attest from some of our shared book experiences with fellow GR poster Libyrinths. Of course this doesn't stop me for a minute, right? So i'll venture in with the understanding i know little about the larger topic.
Dishonesty was the first trait mentioned, so i'll begin with it. There is such a wide spectrum on that, isn't there? I don't think many people are dishonest 100% of the time. And i certainly don't feel TR was. Where does dishonesty begin and diplomacy begin? Does skirting the truth qualify as being dishonest? If you are the "betrayed", it probably does. TR wanted to keep the Republican party but also change it, even though the vast majority didn't see a need for alterations. So, he led others to believe what they wanted by the way he phrased things. (Or, at least, this is the way i felt DKG presented it.)
Was he pathological with his dishonesty? Probably not, even when it came to politics. He presented different sides of himself to different people but most of us do, i think. Were there instances where, when confronted, he denied his honest intentions? I cannot recall that but could be wrong.
Charm--i haven't seen anything which indicates he was anything but charming. So, i agree with that trait. I also see it in salespeople, most of whom are (probably) not sociopaths. :-)
Manipulation is one trait i think was clear in TR's personality. One question, however, might be whether the other people involved didn't want to be manipulated. Certainly the McClures team welcomed his manipulation. From what DKG wrote, only Baker later realized what TR did as far as those issues went--moved in front of the people once he saw where they were headed. Had the voters not responded well to what McClures published, would TR have moved ahead? I don't know but i do know that is another trait of a politician, to be able to see where the people are headed.
Narcissism. Frankly, i'm just not sure. As noted in my preceding post, as well as one from Amy, TR seemed indifferent to what his wife might have wanted. She expressly stated she didn't want him going to the convention and he went. War is another matter, though. Did she ask him to stay or just hope he'd realize she wanted him there?
I don't think anyone can deny his need for admiration. One presumes his first wife loved and admired him but we know for sure Edith did. He needed the public, particularly after his post-Presidential return from Africa. And his audience was more than ready to supply that adoration.
Lack of remorse and impulse control? Again, my own knowledge of TR is limited, so i rely upon DKG. It seemed as though it should have been up to him to reach out to Taft a number of times, particularly after the election where they both ran. But he didn't appear to do so. I'm not sure that's a lack of remorse, though.
Given his youth, the impulse control trait is hard for me to determine. In what way was this manifest? I guess i look at that trait as a short term issue but if you count the war, it took a long time coming before he could exhibit it. I'm sure i'm missing something.
Same with all the traits, i'm surely missing much because i recall the ones which surprised me. TR appeared to be a great father to his children, which goes a long way with me. He seemed to appreciate the strengths of others and was able to evaluate people rather quickly. Of course the latter can be good & bad.
In all, i don't know that i'd go with the sociopath label because so many truly awful humans fall under that description. There was much to admire about TR and his accomplishments. What rankles me is that he just couldn't let go. And apparently he didn't see that the Bull Moose party was just about him. Didn't see and didn't appear to care. Is that true of other third party contenders? Ross Perot? John Anderson?
Long answer to find the bottom line is "I don't know". :-)
Amy wrote: "Ok, now HERE'S an interesting topic for discussion. Was just reading this article on The Daily Beast. It's an old article from 2013 about "how to spot a sociopath. I was reading it and suddenly a s..."-------------
Very interesting topic, Amy.
Back in 2011 I read The Devil in the White City: Murder, Magic, and Madness at the Fair that Changed America---Erik Larson with a book club. I posited that I don't think I agree with the notion of "evil" as noted in the book. I do think some people are mentally ill. They may be born that way. Many disagreed with me. Still, it made for an interesting discussion.
Anyway, it got me on a kick of reading books on sociopaths.
I read:
The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty--Simon Baron-Cohen
Excellent book by I think it is the cousin of the comedian with the same last name.
Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us-Robert D. Hare
The Sociopath Next Door: The Ruthless Versus the Rest of Us--Martha Stout
The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry-Jon Ronson
I've read Lion in the White House: A Life of Theodore Roosevelt- Aida D. Donald
I gave it my top rating. I have to say at no point did it even cross my mind that TR was a sociopath.
Now I really have to get with it and read more of Bully Pulpit so I can participate in this fascinating topic !
I do recall a few years ago there was a newspaper article that caused quite a stir. It listed professions that sociopaths tend to gravitate towards.
There are tons of articles on this if you google the topic
Here is one such list. Politicians make the list. (civil servants)
1. CEO
2. Lawyer
3. Media (Television/Radio)
4. Salesperson
5. Surgeon
6. Journalist
7. Police Officer
8. Clergy person
9. Chef
10. Civil Servant
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/...
madrano wrote: "Alias Reader wrote: "My take on TR was that he would come in and not go along to get along. He came into his jobs, like NYC Police Commissioner and shook things up. He didn't tolerate corruption an..."I think my "problem" with some of the comments is the need to like the President you are reading about. It's history. I don't feel the need to like the person.
There are many crappy husbands who don't become Presidents of the United States. A certain amount of ego is clearly required if you are going to think that you can do a better job than ....whoever.
Bobbie57 wrote: "I think my "problem" with some of the comments is the need to like the President you are reading about. It's history. I don't feel the need to like the person...."We all get different things out of our personal reading experiences, Bobbie. That's what makes these discussions so much fun! I personally can't -- and frankly, don't want to -- divorce my human emotions when reading about any character in a book. Whether that character is fictional or real. Actually, come to think of it, I should probably give Kearns Goodwin kudos for writing about TR and Taft (and the others) in such a way that they felt like "real, live" people to me. Her descriptions of their characters and personality were vivid enough to instill feelings of admiration, disgust, dislike and amusement. That's not always easy to do when writing about historical figures.
Alias Reader wrote: "I have to say at no point did it even cross my mind that TR was a sociopath. ..."It didn't cross my mind, either. Even after having read "The Bully Pulpit," which left me with a fairly negative impression of his character. (As Deb states above, his skills as an administrator are never in question. He was good at his various jobs without a doubt.) That's why I was surprised when that sentence in the article jumped out at me about TR and JFK topping the list of "being in possession of a psychopathic trait called “fearless dominance.” (Apparently Teddy ranked #1 of all the presidents, with JFK coming in at #2). It made me start to rethink what I'd just read. I kind of wish I'd read this article before I read the book, because I would have paid better attention to the pertinent details. But then again, I would have gone into the book with the expectation that TR was a sociopath, which would definitely have colored the way I interpreted it. So it's probably best that I didn't...
I agree with Deb -- DKG certainly demonstrates instances where TR is both charming and manipulative. Which fit the stated criteria. As Deb questions, though, is it really manipulation when the other people (i.e. the journalists) are aware that they are being manipulated? And they are OK with it, because they are getting something out of it at well? That one's up in the air.
Dishonesty-- I can think of one situation in the book where this might have been demonstrated. Remember, Deb, when TR made many efforts to keep John D. Long, the secretary of the navy, away from DC during the run up to the Spanish American War so that he (Teddy) could seize the opportunity to press for war? And how he "stirred the pot," so to speak, to get Americans to believe the worst about Spain after the battleship Maine exploded (even though it wasn't proven that Spain was behind the destruction) because he was so hot to go to war? That might be considered dishonest.
Narcissism: As Bobbie pointed out, a certain amount of ego is clearly required if you think you are THE best person in the whole country for the job of President. So pretty much all of the presidents/presidential candidates are guilty of this one. And TR certainly did toot his own horn in talking about how much better he was at the job than Taft. Also--don't forget that he stopped talking to Taft--a lifelong friend -- because he and Edith thought that the Tafts weren't appropriately "grateful enough" for everything the Roosevelts had done for them.
Impulse control: I think there were a number of instances where TR was shown to be impulsive. I think Ida Tarbell even remarked on it at one point, didn't she? I can't lay my hands on the actual quote right now -- will have to search my Nook for it.
Lack of remorse is the one that I can't see on Teddy. He seemed deeeply affected by social ills when they were pointed out to him (i.e. by Jacob Riis and his ilk) and demonstrated a social conscience, so I can't think that this one applies.
In conclusion, I'll second Deb's assessment of "I don't know." ;)
(We can debate JFK's potential psychopathy in another thread when we read one of his bios!)
Alias Reader wrote: "I do recall a few years ago there was a newspaper article that caused quite a stir. It listed professions that sociopaths tend to gravitate towards. ..." Earlier this year I read Murderous Minds: Exploring the Criminal Psychopathic Brain: Neurological Imaging and the Manifestation of Evil. It was an interesting account of the theories, research, controversies, and issues surrounding the construct of psychopathy and those who exhibit psychopathic traits, and included a discussion of the differences between “successful” and “unsuccessful” psychopaths, and where they tend to congregate in society. And how a person who has certain psychopathic traits can channel them appropriately into becoming successful in those fields (i.e. police officer, surgeon, president, etc.) If I remember correctly, "fearless dominance" is kind of like the more "useful" side of being a psychopath. Rating high in fearless dominance means that psychopaths don’t experience anxiety and are not afraid of anyone or anything. Which can certainly be a bonus when you are leader of the free world. ;)
Alias, i remember when you read those books. The news article made for some good discussions on the board, as i recall, given the careers listed. I suppose the bottom line is whether or not people with those descriptions use them for the better good or evil, personal or in a wider world.Amy wrote: " Also--don't forget that he stopped talking to Taft--a lifelong friend -- because he and Edith thought that the Tafts weren't appropriately "grateful enough" for everything the Roosevelts had done for them. "
True but i was dismayed that Edith, Alice and others felt they deserved better from the Tafts. What Alice wanted, as i recall, was to be part of the receiving line. What?! That sense of entitlement speaks to something else for me, although, as you note, TR no longer talking to the Tafts as a result is on him.
I'm not sure what to think about the Spanish American War push. I'd forgotten that he encouraged his boss John Long to stay away, which allowed TR to promote the negatives on the issues. What amazes me is that he was so lucky in the battles. That sort of invincibility could have gone another way, as it did for others.
Bobbie, your post was probably a result of my comment about the fact i tend to end up liking the presidents in the bios i've read. This is true, even when i didn't think i would care for the man, given what i'd read previously. To me it's a compliment to an author who can present the person in such a way.
I don't feel i'm obliged to like the man who is president. I respect that they get to the White House, as well as the enthusiasm they engender. Mostly i like seeing how those people were raised, who supported them & how they got to their positions of power. What they do with it can be fascinating and it's at that point that my empathy for Franklin Pierce and Millard Fillmore increased to the point of liking the men.
You are totally correct, though. I don't feel i need to like the President. It's just i was surprised that i ended up more uncomfortable with TR after he left the White House than before his term was over. I've only felt positively about him. Part of this is why i question whether it was really DKGoodwin's writing that left me with that feeling. I'm still not certain, either.
Amy wrote:(We can debate JFK's potential psychopathy in another thread when we read one of his bios!) ."Now that will be interesting ! I've read some misogynistic things he did to Marilyn Monroe. Still, I think the world might be a better place if his life wasn't cut short.
I really have to apologize for my dropping the ball on this book and not reading it in a timely manner. I do like the book, I just haven't been able to find the time to read much. I promise to finish the book in January. Thank you all for being so patient with me.
I would love to read another presidential book with you all at some point next year.
Bobbie57 wrote: "I think my "problem" with some of the comments is the need to like the President you are reading about. It's history. I don't feel the need to like the person...."..."One trait that these people have is the ability to compartmentalize. So while they be SOB in one area they are able to carry out their jobs quite well.
For example, a surgeon, who is on that psychopath list, really has to divorce themselves from their emotions to be able to do their job well.
Alias Reader wrote: "Now that will be interesting ! I've read some misogynistic things he did to Marilyn Monroe. Still, I think the world might be a better place if his life wasn't cut short. ...." I was listening to the NY Times Book Review podcast with an interview by the author of Rosemary: The Hidden Kennedy Daughter. I was fascinated by the levels of duplicity that the Kennedys went to in order to hide Rosemary's problems from the world. According to the author, all of the kids were under orders from Rose and Joe to keep the secret in whatever ways they could. And then after Rosemary had the lobotomy and was institionalized in Wisconsin, nobody in the family visited her for 20 years --again, according to the author, on Joe's and Rose's orders. You have to wonder about JFK (and the others) growing up in that kind of environment.
Alias Reader wrote: "One trait that these people have is the ability to compartmentalize. So while they be SOB in one area they are able to carry out their jobs quite well. ..."Good point. I remember that from the article, i believe. And it makes sense.
The only things i know about the Kennedy family have been what i lived & saw in periodicals. I haven't read a single book about them. (Although i have read one nonfiction & one novel about the assassination, i hasten to add.) What i know about family secrets is that they stress out family members from their youth onward & can lead to addictions.
Alias, how many times have i dropped the ball on books we've read as a group? Please don't fret over it, we'll still be ready to write about the book. It's one of those tomes which is full of material & it seems we have numerous opinions on the presentation!
Amy wrote: According to the author, all of the kids were under orders from Rose and Joe to keep the secret in whatever ways they could. And then after Rosemary had the lobotomy and was institionalized in Wisconsin, nobody in the family visited her for 20 years --again, according to the author, on Joe's and Rose's orders. You have to wonder about JFK (and the others) growing up in that kind of environment. ..."Interesting. I saw that Rosemary: The Hidden Kennedy Daughter was newly published.
I think I read, a long time ago, so my memory may be wrong. I thought that Joe took Rosemary for the lobotomy, on his own without first telling Rose.
Speaking of the Kennedy's Doris Kearn Goodwin has a huge book on them.
The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys: An American Saga
I saw it in a used bookstore but it was a zillion pages so I took a pass.
madrano wrote: Alias, how many times have i dropped the ball on books we've read as a group? Please don't fret over it, we'll still be ready to write about the book. It's one of those tomes which is full of material & it seems we have numerous opinions on the presentation!"
Thanks, deb.
Alias Reader wrote: "Speaking of the Kennedy's Doris Kearn Goodwin has a huge book on them. The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys: An American SagaI saw it in a used bookstore but it was a zillion pages so I took a pass...."
I read that a few years ago. It is a hefty book, yes. But it was pretty interesting. It actually ends with JFK's election, so the entire book is all about the family's history before that. I was particularly interested in the early chapters about how the Kennedys and the Fitzgeralds immigrated to the U.S. from Ireland and slowly came to power. Some fascinating stuff.
And yes, Alias--apparently Joe arranged for Rosemary's lobotomy without Rose's knowledge or consent. I can't even imagine how that must have made Rose feel. Both as a mother and as a wife.
No worries about taking a while get through "The Bully Pulpit"! It's a giant book. Take your time. :)
Amy wrote: "No worries about taking a while get through "The Bully Pulpit"! It's a giant book. Take your time. :) ..."Thank you. The days are just flying by. After the holidays I need to focus more on reading and less wasting time on Facebook, computer games etc. It really is an addiction that I need to break.
Amy wrote: "Bobbie57 wrote: "I think my "problem" with some of the comments is the need to like the President you are reading about. It's history. I don't feel the need to like the person...."We all get diff..."
Yes Amy. I think it is much easier in a way for an author to invent a character than to try to portray someone from history in as objective a way as possible. I certainly didn't mean to sound as if I was being critical of any one else's opinion. Just mine. And I don't have to like every fictional character either. Just me.
Alias Reader wrote: "Amy wrote: "No worries about taking a while get through "The Bully Pulpit"! It's a giant book. Take your time. :) ..."Thank you. The days are just flying by. After the holidays I need to focus mo..."
Me too.
madrano wrote: "Alias, i remember when you read those books. The news article made for some good discussions on the board, as i recall, given the careers listed. I suppose the bottom line is whether or not people ..."Yes that's what I was responding to. The fearless dominance thing is scaring me. LOL Although if a President didn't have some of that quality I don't know how they wouldn't collapse under pressure. Clearly they all age what feels like overnight from their photos.
Alias Reader wrote: "Bobbie57 wrote: "I think my "problem" with some of the comments is the need to like the President you are reading about. It's history. I don't feel the need to like the person...."..."One trait t..."
Yes, I agree.
Bobbie57 wrote: "Yes that's what I was responding to. The fearless dominance thing is scaring me. LOL Although if a President didn't have some of that quality I don't know how they wouldn't collapse under pressure. Clearly they all age what feels like overnight from their photos...."I cannot imagine all we don't know, as well. Even when the President is already grey and wrinkled, the job appears to make them even more so. Their families must worry sometimes about all that burden on the shoulders of a loved one.
madrano wrote: "I cannot imagine all we don't know, as well. Even when the President is already grey and wrinkled, the job appears to make them even more so. Their families must worry sometimes about all that burden on the shoulders of a loved one...."This was just in the news the other day. You can google (News) presidents life expectancy less
Here is one article in part it said...
Being president is bad for your health, study suggests
The study, published by the British Medical Journal, found that world leaders live an average of 2.7 fewer years than runners-up.
The authors of the paper measured 279 leaders in 17 countries against 261 candidates who did not quite make the cut - the idea being that the two groups would be of similar wealth and social standing, and so have similar access to healthcare.
After adjusting for a candidate's age and life expectancy, leaders were found to live 2.7 years less and have a 23% higher risk of premature death. Being generally wealthy and well looked after, they still tend to live longer than average, but not longer than those who take a slightly less stressful path through politics.
US presidents were the worst affected, according to the study, with a 5.7-year deficit to their runners-up. Previous studies have found that presidents live longer than their constituents but this recent study compared them with more direct peers in an attempt to mitigate differences in diet and access to healthcare.
Came across this passage in The President and the Assassin: McKinley, Terror, and Empire at the Dawn of the American Century, which illustrates what one of Teddy's bosses thought of him:On Friday afternoon, February 25, 1898, Secretary of the Navy (John) Long decided to take the afternoon off for "mechanical massage," a device in which the patient was strapped into an electric chair that caressed his stomach and legs. Something of a hypochondriac, he had suffered mightily under the strain of the sinking of the Maine and the public outcry that followed. Aware that (Teddy) Roosevelt, his deputy, was prone to hyperactivity, Long left written directions not to touch anything while he was away. He should have known better. Like a mischievous child, Roosevelt churned out an orgy of orders while the adult ws out of the room. Among other things. he asked the House Naval Affairs Committee to authorize the enlistment of "an unlimited number of seamen," and had guns sent from Washington to the Brooklyn Navy Yard to be mounted on cruisers.
Whatever beneft Long received from his treatment was surely lost by Saturday morning when he discovered what his subordinate had been up to. Long wrote in his diary: "The very devil seemed to possess him yesterday afternoon ... He has gone about things like a bull in a china shop ... It shows how the best fellow in the world, and one with splendid capacities, is worse than useless if he lacks a cool head and careful direction."
I thought the diary item was interesting because it came directly from someone who knew TR -- not from a historian who is interpreting Teddy's actions 100 years later.
Amy wrote: "It shows how the best fellow in the world, and one with splendid capacities, is worse than useless if he lacks a cool head and careful direction." ..."I tried to reply and lost my post. UGH !!!
Anyway, thank you for sharing this. TR does seem out of control in the example you shared. I don't know what label I would put on such bizarre behavior.
In a basic simple book I read and enjoyed, Read for Your Life: 11 Ways to Better Yourself Through Books the author, using a bit of hyperbole to get his point across, suggested one needs to read at least 5 serious books on a topic to be considered an "expert" compared to the average person.
I think this major difference in how TR is portrayed in various books shows we need to read 5 serious books on each president.
So we now have 44. That gives one a TBR of 220 books and growing. Yikes ! LOL
Wow, those are some numbers, Alias. I definitely believe i will have a better picture of him once i read a biography of him. How what i feel now will be kept in mind, unfortunately. I can't unforget what i learned in this book. Some topics lend themselves to the "at least 5" theory, while some could require more. TR might be one of those who "needs" more to be understood!Amy that was a good quote. I'm sure all benefits of his therapy were lost to Long. How many people for whom TR worked would feel similarly, i wonder? (Not counting voters, of course.) It is telling that Long specifically left directions not to "touch anything". Clearly there was some history between them!
The stats on presidential lives length is astounding. I guess i was thinking the subsequent years would temper things but maybe not. Although when we look at the first President Bush & at Carter, one wonders. I'm glad you shared the numbers.
"No matter how honest and decent we are in our private lives, if we do not have the right kind of law and the right kind of administration of the law, we cannot go forward as a nation."--Theodore Roosevelt
On January 6, 1919 President Theodore Roosevelt died in Cove Neck, NY.
Book Nook Cafe
Books mentioned in this topic
Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln (other topics)Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln (other topics)
Decorating Is Fun!: How to be Your Own Decorator (other topics)
Notorious RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg (other topics)
My Beloved World (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Dorothy Draper (other topics)Eudora Welty (other topics)
Robert D. Putnam (other topics)
Mark Haddon (other topics)
Temple Grandin (other topics)
More...
Page 213 mentions one of the many number of newspapers of that time, the Commercial advertiser. It's sad that all these newspapers are gone.
Wiki
The number of daily newspapers in the United States has declined over the past half-century, according to Editor & Publisher, the trade journal of American newspapers. In particular, the number of evening newspapers has fallen by 50% since 1970, while morning editions and Sunday editions have grown.[3]
For comparison, in 1950, there were 1,772 daily papers (and 1,450, or about 70%, of them were evening papers) while in 2000, there were 1,480 daily papers (and 766—or about half—of them were evening papers.[4]