What future awaits a society whosenintellectual leaders have forgotten theirnHopkins and Kipling, their Plato andnPlotinus? We can banish great thinkersnfrom college curricula, but before longnKipling’s Gods of the CopybooknHeadings with fire and sword willnreturn.nE. Christian Kopff teaches Greek andnLatin at the University of Colorado innBoulder.nSpeaking of JFKnby William MurchisonnA Question of Character: A Lifenof John F. Kennedy ‘nby Thomas C. ReevesnNew York: The Free Press;n528 pp., $24.95nThat Presidents — chief magistratesnof the nation — ought to possessnsolid character was taken for granted innthe early Republic and for a long timenthereafter. No longer is this the case.nCharacter comes up for discussionnmainly when someone like Gary Hart,ncaught with his pants down, throws thenpolitical odds-makers into a suddenntizzy. Even conservatives have relaxedntheir standards to accommodate, afternthe fashion of the new age, Presidentsndivorced from their first wives.nTwentieth-century Americans probablynwould acknowledge, if polled, thendesirability of high standards in politicalnleaders. On this basis, it isn’t easy tonexplain the enthusiasm of an older,nprimmer America—and the continuednwistfulness of those who remember himnand of those who were unborn when hendied — for John Fitzgerald Kennedy,nwho: conducted endless affairs and onenightn(sometimes five-minute) standsnhis whole adult life, including his yearsnin the White House; fornicated on anMediterranean-anchored yacht whilenhis wife wrestled with a difficult pregnancy;nlied about his precarious health;nlied about his war record; talked crudelynand profanely as a matter of course;npretended to intellectual attainmentsnand interests that weren’t his at all; lovednpower more than principle; and so on.nProfessor Thomas C. Reeves, of thenUniversity of Wisconsin-Parkside, doesnnot address in detail the reasons for ournself-deception regarding JFK. Insteadnhe gives us, learnedly and luminously,nleads to pursue in the investigation. AnQuestion of Character ascended to thenNew York Times best-seller list lastnsummer, where it deserved to reposenfor some time. Thomas Reeves, anbiographer of Joe McCarthy, was asntaken thirty years ago with Kennedy asnwere many other people. He and hisnwife “greeted the election returns withnloud celebration. It was a time forngreatness in Washington.” What happenednto that greatness? Reeves writes,nnot without pain: “The real Kennedyn— as opposed to the celebrated heronespoused by the Kennedy family, thenmedia, and the Camelot School —nlacked greatness in large part becausenhe lacked the qualities inherent in goodncharacter.” He wasn’t nearly as good,nor as smart, or as kind, or as much inncontrol, as he looked from afar.nReeves scrutinizes the dreary record.nThe “vigah” that JFK projected wasninduced in part by steroids and amphetamines.nWhat Kennedy liked bestnwas winning — at any cost. This madenhim, according to Reeves, “pragmaticnto the point of amorality.” Likewise thenPresident “abused his high position fornpersonal self-gratification.” Variousnmembers of his staff were no betternthan procurers; when the Presidentnwanted a woman, which was often, anwoman he got.nYet what success he had at foolingnsome of the people all of the time andnall of the people some of the time!n(There are advantages to brief presidenciesnif one doesn’t mind the leavetakings.)nOne reason for the Kennedymanianof the 60’s and since was the latenPresident’s charm, which was unmistakable.nHe had “It.” Reading betweennReeves’ lines, one might speculate thatnJFK’s very lack of earnestness helpednhim. He never knitted his handsomenforehead tightly over matters of principle—nnot in the early years. (He wasnearnest only about winning.) Also, henhad the press, which liked the Presidentnand wanted him to do well. ConcerningnKennedy’s omnivorous sexual appetites,nand his extramarital affairs,nGeorge Reedy admits: “We knew. Wenall knew.” “We” just didn’t tell. Therenexisted a kind of press-presidential collegialitynthat would have made all thennndifference to Richard Nixon, a differentnsort of man.nA Question of Character is no wantonnmugging of the fallen President’snmemory. Reeves finds Kennedy maturingnin office by the time of thenCuban missile crisis. The Presidentngenuinely dreaded nuclear warfare andneschewed recklessness in the face ofnNikita Khrushchev’s challenge to thenMonroe Doctrine. “There was morento Kennedy’s character by this timenthan the pursuit of power and pleasurenthat had shaped his career,” Reevesnwrites. The presidency seems indeednto shape the man—-at least to annextent. And Kennedy’s neady lifelongnbattle with physical debility likewisencommands respect. He was frequentlynin agony from back pain and Addison’sndisease (a failure of the adrenal glands),nbut he soldiered on. Less admirablenwere the lies he told, and in whichnclose associates connived, concerningnhis condition. The country, withoutnknowing it, had elected a most unhealthynPresident, who might not havenbeen able to serve out a second term.nEven Kennedyphobes may findnpoignance in the tale of a little boynvisibly upset whenever his mother — asnfrequently happened — packed hernbags for extended, travel; craving lovenbut finding instead, in his formidablenfather, only the push for success at anyncost. As Reeves says, “The principlenaim of life for the Kennedy youngstersn— as defined by their father — was tonachieve public success and prestige.”nOne thing women seemed to love innJFK was his waif-like quality. He was innsome sense a waif all his life — adriftnLIBERAL ARTSnDELUSION IN ACADEMIAnKenneth Shaw, Chancellor of SyracusenUniversity: “Reading articles or hearingndebates on political correctness onencould think that our campuses are dominatednby narrowly focused individualsnintent on remaking higher education inntheir own image. Alleged abuses, quotas,nand radicalization of curricula are oftennused to convince others that there is annepidemic amongst us. Nothing could benfurther from the tmth.”n—from the Orange Peal, Fall 1991nJANUARY 1992/37n