What do you think?
Rate this book
A Question of Character: A Life of John F. Kennedy
No issue is more hotly debated than how, or even if, a politician's private life affects his public competence. In A Question of Character John F. Kennedy's two lives—public and private—are examined to answer this timely question. Respected historian and biographer Thomas C. Reeves reveals discrepancies between JFK's public persona, which has reached mythic proportions, and his scandalous private behavior. Most illuminating is the constant theme or Joe Kennedy's almost total control of JFK's behavior and politics throughout most of his son's career.
"The John Kennedy who emerges from these pages was not a man of good moral character. He was reared not to be good but to win." — Los Angeles Times
Reeves has provided the most truthful and balanced assessment of John F. Kennedy to date. Written more in sorrow than in anger, A Question of Character explores the sensitive and difficult question of how people, and history itself, ought to judge the relationship between personal character and national leadership.
"The John Kennedy who emerges from these pages was not a man of good moral character. He was reared not to be good but to win." — Los Angeles Times
Reeves has provided the most truthful and balanced assessment of John F. Kennedy to date. Written more in sorrow than in anger, A Question of Character explores the sensitive and difficult question of how people, and history itself, ought to judge the relationship between personal character and national leadership.
528 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1991
8 people are currently reading
302 people want to read
About the author
Thomas C. Reeves
30 books10 followersA specialist in late 19th and 20th century American history, Thomas C. Reeves received his B.A. at Pacific Lutheran University, his M.A. at the University of Washington, and his Ph.D. in history at the University of California, Santa Barbara in 1966. After four years at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs, he went on to become a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin–Parkside, where he taught until his retirement in 2001.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
June 9, 2023
When Thomas Reeves’s biography of John F. Kennedy was originally published in 1991, it was treated harshly by many reviewers. Typical of their judgments was the one issued by Stephen Ambrose (himself no stranger to the writing of presidential biographies) in the Times Literary Supplement, which dismissed it as a one-sided account in which Reeves was “content to take all of the many Kennedy-bashing stories, put them together in a summary form, and assert without providing evidence that ‘character’ is what makes a great politician and [was] exactly the quality Kennedy lacked.”
In some respects this reception was to be expected, as at that time memories of the president still glowed from the gilded aura of the “Camelot” mythos and many of its creators were still around to defend it. In their rush to condemn Reeves’s treatment of Kennedy, however, several of these reviewers missed the underlying goal Ambrose identified, which is to argue for the importance of character in leadership more generally. This the author does from his opening chapter, in which he outlines the importance accorded to character in determining leadership by Western political philosophers. These ideas informed the critique of King George III made in the Declaration of Independence, and, in the process, became a value that Americans sought from their presidents, with George Washington establishing the standard by which they were judged.
For Reeves, character is defined foremost by the quality of integrity, followed by “compassion, generosity, prudence, courage, loyalty, responsibility, temperance, humility and perseverance.” And in recounting Kennedy’s life he finds his subject lacking in nearly every category. To make his points Reeves presents the details and recounts the anecdotes that he finds most revealing about Kennedy’s character. Reeves traces its many deficiencies to his father, Joseph Kennedy, whom the author regards as an unsentimental and autocratic letch desperate for acceptance by the American elite. His presence looms throughout the book, with his frequent appearances in the text underscoring his son’s inability to escape his influence, even after the elder Kennedy was immobilized by a stroke in 1961.
As a result of this influence, Reeves’s Kennedy grows up into an inveterate womanizer overshadowed by both his father and his elder brother, Joe Junior. Their family’s wealth and connections meant for him a life of privilege and opportunity, often without consequences. Reeves gives Kennedy little credit for his achievements, viewing him as an indifferent student of few accomplishments. Though he won fame during the Second World War for his role as a PT boat commander, Reeves downplays the degree to which it reflected positively upon his character, preferring instead to play up the irresponsibility of his actions. With Joe Junior’s death during an attempt to knock out V-1 sites in northern France, the burden of their father’s political ambitions fell squarely on John’s shoulders, who was now expected to undertake the march to the presidency.
In recounting Kennedy’s pre-presidential political career, Reeves favors a gossipy accounting of Kennedy’s womanizing over detailing his official activities as a congressman and senator. To the extent he discusses Kennedy’s politics, he portrays his subject as a staunch centrist trying hard not to be associated too firmly with either the conservative or liberal wings of his party. Reeves faults him in particular for his lack of political courage in the Senate’s censure of Joseph McCarthy, accusing Kennedy – who was in the hospital because of his chronic back problems – of “intentionally” avoiding the vote. Such actions come across as especially hypocritical to Reeves in light of Kennedy’s subsequent celebration of political bravery with his 1956 book Profiles in Courage, a work that he credits without evidence to Kennedy's legislative aide, Ted Sorensen, though in his memoir Counselor, Sorensen did subsequently confirm Reeves's suspicions.
Reeves spends the final 200 pages of his book on Kennedy’s tenure as president. He examines Kennedy’s time in office through the prism of a half-dozen key events – the Bay of Pigs, the 1961 Berlin crisis, the escalation in Vietnam, the battles over civil rights, and the Cuban Missile Crisis – which he describes before ending with a concluding judgment on how Kennedy’s response to them reflected upon his character. Reeves is especially condemnatory about Kennedy’s philandering, which he portrays as almost obsessive and argues jeopardized both his presidency and even the nation at various points. Nevertheless, Reeves commends him grudgingly for his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis and allows for the possibility that the experience of being president may have been fostering character growth, though he makes clear his pessimism about the unrealized prospects of his prematurely terminated presidency.
The book ends with a chapter in which Reeves makes a final plea to “find and elect people of high moral character” to the presidency, arguing that good character “is an essential framework for the complex mixture of qualities that make an outstanding President and a model leader for a democratic people.” He adds:
In some respects this reception was to be expected, as at that time memories of the president still glowed from the gilded aura of the “Camelot” mythos and many of its creators were still around to defend it. In their rush to condemn Reeves’s treatment of Kennedy, however, several of these reviewers missed the underlying goal Ambrose identified, which is to argue for the importance of character in leadership more generally. This the author does from his opening chapter, in which he outlines the importance accorded to character in determining leadership by Western political philosophers. These ideas informed the critique of King George III made in the Declaration of Independence, and, in the process, became a value that Americans sought from their presidents, with George Washington establishing the standard by which they were judged.
For Reeves, character is defined foremost by the quality of integrity, followed by “compassion, generosity, prudence, courage, loyalty, responsibility, temperance, humility and perseverance.” And in recounting Kennedy’s life he finds his subject lacking in nearly every category. To make his points Reeves presents the details and recounts the anecdotes that he finds most revealing about Kennedy’s character. Reeves traces its many deficiencies to his father, Joseph Kennedy, whom the author regards as an unsentimental and autocratic letch desperate for acceptance by the American elite. His presence looms throughout the book, with his frequent appearances in the text underscoring his son’s inability to escape his influence, even after the elder Kennedy was immobilized by a stroke in 1961.
As a result of this influence, Reeves’s Kennedy grows up into an inveterate womanizer overshadowed by both his father and his elder brother, Joe Junior. Their family’s wealth and connections meant for him a life of privilege and opportunity, often without consequences. Reeves gives Kennedy little credit for his achievements, viewing him as an indifferent student of few accomplishments. Though he won fame during the Second World War for his role as a PT boat commander, Reeves downplays the degree to which it reflected positively upon his character, preferring instead to play up the irresponsibility of his actions. With Joe Junior’s death during an attempt to knock out V-1 sites in northern France, the burden of their father’s political ambitions fell squarely on John’s shoulders, who was now expected to undertake the march to the presidency.
In recounting Kennedy’s pre-presidential political career, Reeves favors a gossipy accounting of Kennedy’s womanizing over detailing his official activities as a congressman and senator. To the extent he discusses Kennedy’s politics, he portrays his subject as a staunch centrist trying hard not to be associated too firmly with either the conservative or liberal wings of his party. Reeves faults him in particular for his lack of political courage in the Senate’s censure of Joseph McCarthy, accusing Kennedy – who was in the hospital because of his chronic back problems – of “intentionally” avoiding the vote. Such actions come across as especially hypocritical to Reeves in light of Kennedy’s subsequent celebration of political bravery with his 1956 book Profiles in Courage, a work that he credits without evidence to Kennedy's legislative aide, Ted Sorensen, though in his memoir Counselor, Sorensen did subsequently confirm Reeves's suspicions.
Reeves spends the final 200 pages of his book on Kennedy’s tenure as president. He examines Kennedy’s time in office through the prism of a half-dozen key events – the Bay of Pigs, the 1961 Berlin crisis, the escalation in Vietnam, the battles over civil rights, and the Cuban Missile Crisis – which he describes before ending with a concluding judgment on how Kennedy’s response to them reflected upon his character. Reeves is especially condemnatory about Kennedy’s philandering, which he portrays as almost obsessive and argues jeopardized both his presidency and even the nation at various points. Nevertheless, Reeves commends him grudgingly for his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis and allows for the possibility that the experience of being president may have been fostering character growth, though he makes clear his pessimism about the unrealized prospects of his prematurely terminated presidency.
The book ends with a chapter in which Reeves makes a final plea to “find and elect people of high moral character” to the presidency, arguing that good character “is an essential framework for the complex mixture of qualities that make an outstanding President and a model leader for a democratic people.” He adds:
Character and conduct are clearly linked, and the personal weaknesses of a chief executive can often turn out to be public liabilities. It is wise to encourage the careful scrutiny of presidential aspirants that has become the practice in recent years. It is neither priggish nor unrealistic to seek to determine, to the best of our ability, which presidential aspirants live by values we hope they will uphold in public, values such as honesty, responsibility, fairness, loyalty, and respect for others.It was especially striking to read this considering his frequent praise on social media today for Donald Trump, whom on his last day in office Reeves declared to be “the greatest president in our lifetime.” It was posts like that one which led me to read his book in the first place, as I was curious to see how his public adulation for Trump squared with his judgment of John F. Kennedy. And 400 pages later, I find myself even more amazed that someone who wrote an entire book using Kennedy’s moral failings to make an emphatic case for the importance of character in American leadership would then idolize a presidential successor who in every respect makes JFK look like a model of character values by comparison. Given how such support flies in the face of Reeves’s own calls to prioritize character over someone who “has a glib tongue, a bottomless wallet, and a conscience that asks little and demands even less,” it raises the question of what caused him to reject so blatantly his own advice. Perhaps the answer is that Reeves himself no longer believes in his own thesis, in which case those seeking to read about the life of John F. Kennedy would be well advised to pick up a more credible book instead.
August 10, 2017
https://bestpresidentialbios.com/2017...
“A Question of Character: A Life of John F. Kennedy” by Thomas C. Reeves was published in 1991. Reeves is a former professor of history at the University of Wisconsin and the author of nearly a dozen books. He is probably best-known for his 1975 biography of Chester Arthur and his 1982 biography of Joe McCarthy.
When first published, Reeves’s book was one of few vigorously revelatory studies of John Kennedy’s character. To label this book a “character study,” however, would be misleading. It is a comprehensive – but not historically exhaustive – biography of JFK infused with an unmistakable tabloidesque quality.
This book’s 421 pages of text are fast-paced and often riveting. Reeves’s primary thesis is that a president’s character and fitness for office are inextricably linked and much (if not substantially all) of the book is devoted to tearing down the Camelot facade and, implicitly, Kennedy’s legacy. But while the author successfully proves JFK’s countless moral failings he is far less successful convincing the reader that a president’s character actually matters.
The man who emerges from this book is a depraved and despicable villain who masquerades as a charming, courageous, intellectual man-of-the-people. But JFK himself is not the author’s only target: his parents, many of his siblings and several of his colleagues are also indicted for creating an environment in which Kennedy and his worst instincts were allowed to thrive.
But the book’s greatest flaw is not found in its themes, evidence or conclusions- it is the delivery system itself. “A Question of Character” seems to be a tabloid hit-piece rather than a deliberate, scholarly study of a person’s character. It often feels carelessly breezy and biased – and not the handiwork of the sober-minded historian who authored the thoughtful biography of Chester A. Arthur I read three years ago.
If Arthur Schlesinger’s exceedingly sympathetic “A Thousand Days” can be criticized for overlooking Kennedy’s numerous flaws, this study of John F. Kennedy can be faulted for always seeing the glass as half-empty. While it seems to promise a critical but fair reexamination of Kennedy’s image, there is little balance to be found and much of the narrative relies on gossipy speculation and hearsay.
But Reeves’s study is not entirely devoid of merit. The author provides a more coherent review of the Bay of Pigs operation than in many other JFK biographies and one of the clearest explanations of the tensions in Laos and Vietnam that I can remember. He also offers interesting, and surprisingly lengthy, discussions of Kennedy relating to civil rights and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Overall, Thomas Reeves’s “A Question of Character” proves a lively and engaging, but decidedly partisan, survey of Kennedy’s life with a principal focus on his character and, secondarily, on his politics. There is little in this book for scholars or historians who are already well-versed in the defects of the Camelot legend. But general readers interested in broad coverage of JFK’s life are likely to find the book’s tone too imbalanced, too petty and lacking in scholastic gravitas.
Overall rating: 3¼ stars
“A Question of Character: A Life of John F. Kennedy” by Thomas C. Reeves was published in 1991. Reeves is a former professor of history at the University of Wisconsin and the author of nearly a dozen books. He is probably best-known for his 1975 biography of Chester Arthur and his 1982 biography of Joe McCarthy.
When first published, Reeves’s book was one of few vigorously revelatory studies of John Kennedy’s character. To label this book a “character study,” however, would be misleading. It is a comprehensive – but not historically exhaustive – biography of JFK infused with an unmistakable tabloidesque quality.
This book’s 421 pages of text are fast-paced and often riveting. Reeves’s primary thesis is that a president’s character and fitness for office are inextricably linked and much (if not substantially all) of the book is devoted to tearing down the Camelot facade and, implicitly, Kennedy’s legacy. But while the author successfully proves JFK’s countless moral failings he is far less successful convincing the reader that a president’s character actually matters.
The man who emerges from this book is a depraved and despicable villain who masquerades as a charming, courageous, intellectual man-of-the-people. But JFK himself is not the author’s only target: his parents, many of his siblings and several of his colleagues are also indicted for creating an environment in which Kennedy and his worst instincts were allowed to thrive.
But the book’s greatest flaw is not found in its themes, evidence or conclusions- it is the delivery system itself. “A Question of Character” seems to be a tabloid hit-piece rather than a deliberate, scholarly study of a person’s character. It often feels carelessly breezy and biased – and not the handiwork of the sober-minded historian who authored the thoughtful biography of Chester A. Arthur I read three years ago.
If Arthur Schlesinger’s exceedingly sympathetic “A Thousand Days” can be criticized for overlooking Kennedy’s numerous flaws, this study of John F. Kennedy can be faulted for always seeing the glass as half-empty. While it seems to promise a critical but fair reexamination of Kennedy’s image, there is little balance to be found and much of the narrative relies on gossipy speculation and hearsay.
But Reeves’s study is not entirely devoid of merit. The author provides a more coherent review of the Bay of Pigs operation than in many other JFK biographies and one of the clearest explanations of the tensions in Laos and Vietnam that I can remember. He also offers interesting, and surprisingly lengthy, discussions of Kennedy relating to civil rights and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Overall, Thomas Reeves’s “A Question of Character” proves a lively and engaging, but decidedly partisan, survey of Kennedy’s life with a principal focus on his character and, secondarily, on his politics. There is little in this book for scholars or historians who are already well-versed in the defects of the Camelot legend. But general readers interested in broad coverage of JFK’s life are likely to find the book’s tone too imbalanced, too petty and lacking in scholastic gravitas.
Overall rating: 3¼ stars
August 13, 2015
Reeves, previously author of a study of Joseph McCarthy, begins this biography by noting how he had been a strong supporter of JFK during his rise to power. This changed, however, as the years passed and ever increasing amounts of information came out about the Kennedy's presidency and personal life. This study therefore is one of contrasting the public image against the private reality of the man.
Like Reeves, but much more naively (I was in elementary school in '63 and was apeing my dad), I had also been a strong supporter of Kennedy, following his press conferences and the news on television and in print. With the Cold War threat of sudden annihilation always in the background, I was dreadfully aware of the Bay of Pigs, the Berlin Crisis, the Cuban Missle Crisis, the Laotian and Vietnam conflicts. Throughout I accepted Kennedy's actions and explanations, proud to be a supporter, proud of our space program, of the Peace Corps, of the Green Berets, of the high culture of his White House. I even had a porrait of Kennedy over my desk.
That all changed, but not until he was dead, not until I was in high school with Johnson in office, his promises of peace during the 1964 election broken. Beginning with Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment, doubts had entered my mind about the government, there seeming to have been a cover-up of the assassination, the possibility that elements from within the government itself were involved. The enemy was less international communism, more domestic racism, global capitalism and U.S. imperialism. The more I studied, the more I learned that Kennedy himself had represented all of these evils. Alongside these discoveries were those, detailed here by Reeves, concerning Kennedy's personal immorality.
The childish identification with those ideals embodied in JFK's Camelot has, however, stayed with me to the extent that I have found myself weeping upon immediately starting another Kennedy study, that being Talbot's Brothers' account of the day JFK was murdered in Dallas. I don't know whether it was merely youthful impressionability or the sheer archetypal power of the Kennedy image that causes this emotional fascination and response, but it's certainly there and I likely continue to pursue the unfolding of this mystery.
Like Reeves, but much more naively (I was in elementary school in '63 and was apeing my dad), I had also been a strong supporter of Kennedy, following his press conferences and the news on television and in print. With the Cold War threat of sudden annihilation always in the background, I was dreadfully aware of the Bay of Pigs, the Berlin Crisis, the Cuban Missle Crisis, the Laotian and Vietnam conflicts. Throughout I accepted Kennedy's actions and explanations, proud to be a supporter, proud of our space program, of the Peace Corps, of the Green Berets, of the high culture of his White House. I even had a porrait of Kennedy over my desk.
That all changed, but not until he was dead, not until I was in high school with Johnson in office, his promises of peace during the 1964 election broken. Beginning with Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment, doubts had entered my mind about the government, there seeming to have been a cover-up of the assassination, the possibility that elements from within the government itself were involved. The enemy was less international communism, more domestic racism, global capitalism and U.S. imperialism. The more I studied, the more I learned that Kennedy himself had represented all of these evils. Alongside these discoveries were those, detailed here by Reeves, concerning Kennedy's personal immorality.
The childish identification with those ideals embodied in JFK's Camelot has, however, stayed with me to the extent that I have found myself weeping upon immediately starting another Kennedy study, that being Talbot's Brothers' account of the day JFK was murdered in Dallas. I don't know whether it was merely youthful impressionability or the sheer archetypal power of the Kennedy image that causes this emotional fascination and response, but it's certainly there and I likely continue to pursue the unfolding of this mystery.
November 12, 2012
This book is an interesting review of the presidency and the man of Kennedy, a Catholic, liberal on economic/social issues, conservative on education, civil liberties, anti-communism. Congressman Kennedy favored fiscal conservatism and wary of big government. It discussed that he was not a liberal at all and lacked a firm ideological leaning. An "authentic moderate without excessive party loyalties."
Talked about his numerous affairs. Made me think of Clinton. He was skirting a chance of being caught but "I guess I can't help it." Jackie is portrayed as caring more about money/position above romance.
Total separation of Church and State a secular man opposed to the appointment of an ambassador to the Vatican.
I like this quote: "Nobody asked me if I was a Catholic when I joined the USN." Did he forfeit the right to run for president when he was baptized? "that wasn't the country my brother died for in Europe." "and nobody asked my brother if he was Catholic or a Protestant before he climbed into an American bomber to fly his last mission." pg 162
Talks about his ties to Sinatra and then Giancana in funding for his election bid...and later discusses the mafia's recruitment in assassination attempt of Castro.
Kennedy won election 49.7 to 49.6%. Close. Similar to today's elections...
He supported the buildup of the Military in contrast to Eisenhower's warning of the "military-industrial complex." Good coverage of the Cuban missile and Berlin wall events. The book was supportive and complementary on this topic. Good insight here.
References the Bay of Pig's fiasco as influencing Kennedy to slow down in Laos. Interesting summaries of Vietnam, Cuba, Berlin, the public view and his. Interestingly quotes the left as being against his stance on the Cuban Missile crisis "needlessly endangering"...really I think he got that right, in fact his right leaning anti-communist stances are commendable in my eyes. Reality rules not fluffy stuff.
Discussed his dependency on amphetamines for pain and discusses his pain and illness throughout the book. Mostly through the eyes of him deceiving the public...didn't FDR do this to? Not sure I care about this if he is competent...
The book concludes "Had Kennedy lived to see a second term, the realities of his lechery and his dealings with Sam Giancana might have leaked....his adultery demeaned the presidency...the mindless worship of celebrity contributed to his success...hmm history repeats?
Talked about his numerous affairs. Made me think of Clinton. He was skirting a chance of being caught but "I guess I can't help it." Jackie is portrayed as caring more about money/position above romance.
Total separation of Church and State a secular man opposed to the appointment of an ambassador to the Vatican.
I like this quote: "Nobody asked me if I was a Catholic when I joined the USN." Did he forfeit the right to run for president when he was baptized? "that wasn't the country my brother died for in Europe." "and nobody asked my brother if he was Catholic or a Protestant before he climbed into an American bomber to fly his last mission." pg 162
Talks about his ties to Sinatra and then Giancana in funding for his election bid...and later discusses the mafia's recruitment in assassination attempt of Castro.
Kennedy won election 49.7 to 49.6%. Close. Similar to today's elections...
He supported the buildup of the Military in contrast to Eisenhower's warning of the "military-industrial complex." Good coverage of the Cuban missile and Berlin wall events. The book was supportive and complementary on this topic. Good insight here.
References the Bay of Pig's fiasco as influencing Kennedy to slow down in Laos. Interesting summaries of Vietnam, Cuba, Berlin, the public view and his. Interestingly quotes the left as being against his stance on the Cuban Missile crisis "needlessly endangering"...really I think he got that right, in fact his right leaning anti-communist stances are commendable in my eyes. Reality rules not fluffy stuff.
Discussed his dependency on amphetamines for pain and discusses his pain and illness throughout the book. Mostly through the eyes of him deceiving the public...didn't FDR do this to? Not sure I care about this if he is competent...
The book concludes "Had Kennedy lived to see a second term, the realities of his lechery and his dealings with Sam Giancana might have leaked....his adultery demeaned the presidency...the mindless worship of celebrity contributed to his success...hmm history repeats?
March 3, 2024
UPDATE 8.25.23.
Just finished this book, and I think it is a pretty even handed account. The author gives JFK props for courage and arms control. While he points out that JFK was still somewhat sleazy to the end, he does see some maturation taking place and JFK showing character growth.
I forgot to mention having recently read Patrick Sloyans Politics of Deception (JFK).
I think LBJ was a much more vile character than JFK.
ORIGINAL REVIEW:
I just started reading this book that I picked up earlier this year for next to nothing at a library in Georgetown TX.
It is very interesting so far.
I already know the basics on JFK, both pro and con. I don't see any problem with Reeves fighting the establishment (in 1991)here to get the facts out.
I was a Reagan Republican and bought into the JFK "treason" arguments over the Bay Of Pigs and the failure to send air support that doomed the mission and ended many lives.
I've been digging into the JFK coup for a few years and now put that failure on the CIA.
I remember doing duck and cover drills in grade school, I think JFK took some great steps in the direction of making nuke drops less likely.
Books that have influenced me lately are:
Dr Timothy Snyder Bloodlands, On Tyranny and others. He is a Yale prof and reads in the original languages, some new since 1991 collapse of USSR. He warns persuasively about Trumpian penchant for fascism. I want Trump gone, but think he did a lot of good things as Prez. Biden not so much. Speaking of those two and their recent predecessors I don't see much good character.
Devils Chessboard about Allen Dulles and the CIA.
John M Newman's JFK & Vietnam which well documents that JFK had plans to end Vietnam after a 1964 reelection. JFK was slippery though, so we can't be sure. I think it was likely real enough to the Deep State to get him snuffed. War profits who now?
Roger 'Rolling' Stone's JFK and LBJ book is an excellent summary work that I got for $10 at Barnes & Noble, if you can believe that.
Like in the JC Fogerty ditty, Stone points the cannon at you ... LBJ.
Stone says you did it, like Phillip Nelson and others did.
I passed on the Dallek book on JFK, used price was a little hi and I'm nearly out of bookshelf room. Looking for a max $3 copy.
Disappointed that Half Price Books clearance is now usually $4 and a few good locations in Houston have closed.
Just finished this book, and I think it is a pretty even handed account. The author gives JFK props for courage and arms control. While he points out that JFK was still somewhat sleazy to the end, he does see some maturation taking place and JFK showing character growth.
I forgot to mention having recently read Patrick Sloyans Politics of Deception (JFK).
I think LBJ was a much more vile character than JFK.
ORIGINAL REVIEW:
I just started reading this book that I picked up earlier this year for next to nothing at a library in Georgetown TX.
It is very interesting so far.
I already know the basics on JFK, both pro and con. I don't see any problem with Reeves fighting the establishment (in 1991)here to get the facts out.
I was a Reagan Republican and bought into the JFK "treason" arguments over the Bay Of Pigs and the failure to send air support that doomed the mission and ended many lives.
I've been digging into the JFK coup for a few years and now put that failure on the CIA.
I remember doing duck and cover drills in grade school, I think JFK took some great steps in the direction of making nuke drops less likely.
Books that have influenced me lately are:
Dr Timothy Snyder Bloodlands, On Tyranny and others. He is a Yale prof and reads in the original languages, some new since 1991 collapse of USSR. He warns persuasively about Trumpian penchant for fascism. I want Trump gone, but think he did a lot of good things as Prez. Biden not so much. Speaking of those two and their recent predecessors I don't see much good character.
Devils Chessboard about Allen Dulles and the CIA.
John M Newman's JFK & Vietnam which well documents that JFK had plans to end Vietnam after a 1964 reelection. JFK was slippery though, so we can't be sure. I think it was likely real enough to the Deep State to get him snuffed. War profits who now?
Roger 'Rolling' Stone's JFK and LBJ book is an excellent summary work that I got for $10 at Barnes & Noble, if you can believe that.
Like in the JC Fogerty ditty, Stone points the cannon at you ... LBJ.
Stone says you did it, like Phillip Nelson and others did.
I passed on the Dallek book on JFK, used price was a little hi and I'm nearly out of bookshelf room. Looking for a max $3 copy.
Disappointed that Half Price Books clearance is now usually $4 and a few good locations in Houston have closed.
February 8, 2013
For me, there’s nothing like a good presidential biography; they're a great way to learn Your American History through the prism of the office of the most powerful elected official in the country. This is the first Prez-bio I’ve read that *isn’t* by Doris Kearns Goodwin. Anyway, A Question of Character is a long, fascinating, quite critical account of Jack Kennedy’s life and ascension into our nation’s highest office, originally published in 1991. Apparently back then, nearly 30 years after the early 60’s there still hadn’t been a really good, honest appraisal of JFK’s life and career; the author felt it was high time that the story was finally presented not as hagiography but as factually as possible, and with no small amount of author editorializing. The portrait that emerges here is one of a deeply flawed, even occasionally despicable man who slowly grew into his presidency before his tragic assassination in November 1963. The author really did his homework: the book is painstakingly researched, well-annotated, and makes for an intense (omg, the Cuban Missile Crisis!) and illuminating reading experience. Highly recommended, especially if there happens to be an updated volume out there (I think it was republished in 1997, but I had to make do with this old '91 hardcover from Paperback Swap). In the meantime, I’m slowly working my way through bios of the presidents I find most interesting. I hope to find a good volume on Truman somewhere, as well as something decent on Eisenhower.
October 3, 2017
As one person of the time said of Kennedy, he was 'an illusion and a myth' which this books goes on to illustrate in great detail. A lot of people contributed to and conspired to create this myth from Joseph Kennedy Senior to gifted writer Theodore Sorenson and historian Theodore White.
Joseph Kennedy pulled all manner of strings with his connections, Sorenson put some very compelling prose into Kennedy's mouth (possibly the best speech writer of all time) and historian White continued and enabled the cover up of Kennedy's misdeeds and irresponsible behavior. The elegant and very cultured Jacqueline Kennedy gave the administration and their marriage a patina of culture and sophistication that contributed greatly to the myth of Camelot.
The Kennedy myth is still kept alive in some quarters which is unfortunate. He was at best a mediocre president and a mediocre man whose main claim to fame was satyriasis. This idol has clay feet.
Joseph Kennedy pulled all manner of strings with his connections, Sorenson put some very compelling prose into Kennedy's mouth (possibly the best speech writer of all time) and historian White continued and enabled the cover up of Kennedy's misdeeds and irresponsible behavior. The elegant and very cultured Jacqueline Kennedy gave the administration and their marriage a patina of culture and sophistication that contributed greatly to the myth of Camelot.
The Kennedy myth is still kept alive in some quarters which is unfortunate. He was at best a mediocre president and a mediocre man whose main claim to fame was satyriasis. This idol has clay feet.
August 6, 2018
The book itself is well researched, and interesting to analyze the life of John F. Kennedy, through the presence of his father, his destiny, and, as the title say, his deeply and complexes character. The problem, in my view, is that the author is many times is less objective, and just critical about the president and the man. I could say that he go to find the needle in the haystack, even when JFK was acting good.
If you want study in depth the life of John F. Kennedy, this book can be interesting, but definitely is not among the best books written about him.
If you want study in depth the life of John F. Kennedy, this book can be interesting, but definitely is not among the best books written about him.
July 4, 2009
Readers should be somewhat skeptical of this book. Reeves includes a great deal of mere hear-say, anecdotes, and speculation which if not read carefully may come off as absolutely true and factual. We all know by now that President Kennedy had faults and was a reckless young man. Yet how was it humanly possible for Kennedy to sleep with all of those women and "do" all of those drugs while in the White House, especially when his death from Addison's disease was five years away?
March 6, 2013
This book paints JFK as a philandering, completely amoral individual who was under a Svengooly-like influence of his father. The author is highly focused on debunking the "Camelot" school of Kennedy's greatness.
I am no Kennedy scholar but the conclusions that even when he did good it was only for political gain got to be rather overwrought and unbelievable at times.
The book was a fascinating read in a gossipy kind of way.
I am no Kennedy scholar but the conclusions that even when he did good it was only for political gain got to be rather overwrought and unbelievable at times.
The book was a fascinating read in a gossipy kind of way.
May 26, 2013
the best most trustworthy book you'll ever find on jfk. he presents jfk not as some rich spoilt brat and not as some legend but as a human being. very highly recommended.
January 31, 2025
I read this book immediately after finishing An Unfinished Love Story. Goodwin is guilty of gilding the lily in that work; Reeves is definitely not.
This is quite a well researched and annotated work. It talks candidly about Kennedy and pulls back the veil that has been so carefully crafted to preserve not only his image, but of his family as well. Originally published in 1991, about the time the truth about the Kennedy started to trickle out, this must have been nettled those who kept the Kennedy flame burning.
The author draws heavily on quotes from Eisenhower, Truman, and LBJ to give the reader an accurate picture of the real Kennedy, a man big on image and soaring rhetoric but of few significant accomplishments. He gave lip service to civil rights and strung MLK along just because he needed black votes to get re-elected, something that might not have happened anyway if the real Kennedy were exposed.
His death was a tragedy. It seems like the only thing in life that gave him real joy was being a parent and he was assassinated while his children were still preschoolers.
Reeves wonders if Kennedy might have eventually grown into the role of President, husband and father.
Doubtful.
This is quite a well researched and annotated work. It talks candidly about Kennedy and pulls back the veil that has been so carefully crafted to preserve not only his image, but of his family as well. Originally published in 1991, about the time the truth about the Kennedy started to trickle out, this must have been nettled those who kept the Kennedy flame burning.
The author draws heavily on quotes from Eisenhower, Truman, and LBJ to give the reader an accurate picture of the real Kennedy, a man big on image and soaring rhetoric but of few significant accomplishments. He gave lip service to civil rights and strung MLK along just because he needed black votes to get re-elected, something that might not have happened anyway if the real Kennedy were exposed.
His death was a tragedy. It seems like the only thing in life that gave him real joy was being a parent and he was assassinated while his children were still preschoolers.
Reeves wonders if Kennedy might have eventually grown into the role of President, husband and father.
Doubtful.
March 25, 2025
Although I lived through JFKs presidency, I was young and perhaps unapppreciative of historical events and the personality of JFK and his presidency. I found this quite enlightening, as it reflected on the President's life before and during his presidency. Most notable, was the clarity given to the enormous influence of his father, Joseph Kennedy. The author did not sugar coat the life story before or during the presidency. He tells us of JFKs insatiable womanizing before and during marriage (and the connections to notable crime figures and Hollywood stars), provides an illumination of the famous PT109 (WW2) story which has generally portrayed him as a hero, but we learn less flattering facts from his shipmates which depict questionable judgement, including running from enemy fire rather than attacking. As president, Reeves calls out the youthful inexperience of the president and consequent less developed judgment on consequential issues like the Bay of Pigs invasion. It was also truly a family affair with papa Joe, brother Bobby as Atty General and JFK in the White House. An interesting and well written history.
August 3, 2020
I little long winded at times but a true revelation of his character. Amazing, but sad at the same time, how one man, Joe Sr, could have shaped and distorted his children and by way of .marriage countless others.
All the Kennedy children, through the current generation are spoiled, self centered people who truly believe they are better than everyone else and are above the laws of both the country and God.
In a way Rose was no better than. Joe.. A baby factory with no actual maternal feelings at all.
All the Kennedy clan seems to have had a drug, alcohol or sexual compulsion..
Good read, reaffirms what I have always thought.
All the Kennedy children, through the current generation are spoiled, self centered people who truly believe they are better than everyone else and are above the laws of both the country and God.
In a way Rose was no better than. Joe.. A baby factory with no actual maternal feelings at all.
All the Kennedy clan seems to have had a drug, alcohol or sexual compulsion..
Good read, reaffirms what I have always thought.
July 27, 2022
An outstanding book! Very well documented...
October 29, 2016
An excellent biography of JFK that not only explores one president's life, but also a historical era and questions of leadership and character. The author handles the lurid side of Kennedy's life perfectly, neither ignoring it nor indulging a prurient interest; he found the historical significance of Kennedy's escapades and went no further. This biography is a substantive historical account and analysis, with the clarity that comes after time has allowed emotions to cool, perspective to form, and truths to be revealed.
November 1, 2020
Despite what people may say about this book, it is not all negative, though it's certainly not a hagiography. Reeves tries to present a more balanced view of Kennedy, and he has been sharply criticized for it. Nonetheless, his unromantic viewpoint has genuine validity to it. This book is for those who have grown-up attitudes about politicians, and are not given to either worshipping or demonizing them, but who realize that they're just people.
November 26, 2015
The author, Mr. Thomas C Reeves, seems to be afflicted with an "Holier than Thou" attitude. The resulting bias was obvious and made the reading of otherwise interesting historical events difficult to read. While recognizing President Kennedy's notable achievements at home and abroad, Mr. Reeves would finish with a jab in the back apparently influenced by his definition of morality.
June 28, 2008
An eye opening review of the Kennedy family history and the the psychological development of JFK. I was particulary disturbed by the chapter on Marily Monroe. Thomas C Reeves provides a thorough investigation of JFK. If you enjoy Biographical reads, this one is great!
February 21, 2010
This book covers not so much the events of this popular politician and American but rather the psycho-social, economic, cultural and ethnic fabric of the man. Because of this web-like comprehensiveness, I consider this to be one of the best books I have ever read.
July 26, 2013
Interesting read. Was recommended by my father in law. I enjoyed seeing the two sides of Kennedy. I think my favorite was of the swift boat incident. It made me truly understand why there is a group about the former swift boat soldiers that speak out so strongly during election. Worth the read.
June 14, 2007
So very, very good. I took a class in undergrad on the JFK assassination and this was required. Summary: JFK was an asshole.
January 3, 2008
This book was okay... i enjoyed the juicy insight into Ambassador Joe and the Kennedy personal lives, but the overall pacing was rather clunky.
October 1, 2012
This book presented a different side of Kennedy than was is typically portrayed. It was an interesting and informative read.
February 29, 2016
An anti-Kennedy polemic, I got bored with this after about 100 pages.
March 13, 2016
The John F. Kennedy who emerges from these pages was not a man of good moral character. He was reared not to be good but to win. A book of incredible hubris. You have to read it to believe it.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews