Wilson by A. Scott Berg (Review)
Stephen Floyd is an investment banker whose interest in American history led him on a quest to explore all the presidential biographies he could find. He writes about his reading experiences at bestpresidentialbios.com, and I have used him as a reference for my own reading selections. Mr. Floyd has read six different biographies of Wilson, and I’m pleased I followed his recommendation on A. Scott Berg’s book about the 28th U.S. President.
Mr. Floyd noted that Wilson is the most readable of biographies on his list, but that it lacks some of the historic heft of other Woodrow Wilson biographies. This assessment is one I share, albeit in comparison to other books from the time period rather than other Wilson biographies. For reference, some of the foundational books I’ve read about the Wilson Era include:
Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman
Proud Tower by Barbara Tuchman
The Great Influenza by John M. Barry
Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. by Ron Chernow
The House of Morgan: An American Banking Dynasty by Ron Chernow
I know there are others, but points from these five books crossed my mind repeatedly while exploring Berg’s biography. There are contextual ideas and themes from these books that could have added more heft to Wilson. Yet had Berg added more thematic ideas of the day—social Darwinism, the rise of socialism and anarchism, and the broad effects of the influenza epidemic—I think the sacrifice in readability would have been too great. That said, please don’t take from this observation that Wilson lacks in heft. Berg’s exploration of Woodrow Wilson’s personality was exceptional, and he gave great texture by accessibly adding details that made him click. Readers should just be aware that you’re getting far more of Woodrow Wilson than Woodrow Wilson in the context of a unique time in America’s history.
The end result is just as Mr. Floyd described Wilson: “Berg’s writing style is excellent—simultaneously intelligent and engaging.” As such, I join his recommendation of Wilson as a wonderful read that serves as a foundation for understanding Woodrow Wilson. I recommend other books to better understand the milieu of the day in part because so much was happening with international relations, industry, finance, and public health. The world lurched ahead in modernity, and Woodrow Wilson helmed the nation as it happened. Berg’s biography will give you understanding of an interesting president who studied history as he helped create it.
Beyond my recommendation, here are other thoughts and observations from Wilson:
Berg used a verse from the Bible to start each chapter, which worked well as a reminder on how critical Wilson’s faith was to his life. Yet we saw little of his faith in the substance of his life story, and I found myself wondering about the hardships Wilson faced and how they altered his views on God. Did his loss of power at Princeton or his wife’s death or his health maladies make him question his faith? Or was church attendance and Bible reading more of a rote activity? Regardless of the answers, it seems likely Wilson would have wrestled with the beliefs that framed his worldview given how much time he devoted to the subject and how contemplative he was. I would have welcomed more content on this subject.
When his father, Joseph Wilson, taught his son, Tommy (Woodrow), how to communicate, he used the comparison of a shotgun and a rifle. Joseph was a minister and leader in the Presbyterian Church who had great skills in rhetoric. Joseph said, “don’t speak as if aiming a shotgun that hits the target and other things around it. But aim as if you have the single bullet of a rifle; hit your target precisely.” This gift for precision seems increasingly rare today. Wilson’s father also gave Woodrow this advice: “It is genius that usually gets to the highest tops. But what is the secret heart of genius? The ability to work with painstaking self-denial.” Woodrow undoubtedly took this advice to heart.
Woodrow Wilson—the most popular professor on campus—had to deal with rampant cheating at Princeton. He enacted an honor system based on gentlemanly honor, despite the concept being mocked by his peers. Wilson had high expectations for people, which is a far cry from the common political-science refrain that “the masses are asses.”
When Princeton selected Woodrow Wilson as President of the University, the trustees and observers noted that Wilson has proven himself as more than a lecturer and academic. He was just as significantly an administrator—someone who could execute his vision. This observation seems foundational for his quick assent from university to governor to president.
Wilson’s positions on African Americans seems shocking for the early twentieth century. Berg noted his views were centrist for the day, but it seems galling for a progressive to have held such negative and stereotyping view of race.
After Woodrow Wilson lost his bid to overhaul Princeton’s education system, he saw the politics of higher education with greater clarity. In a 1905 speech, he made the following observation: the moving forces “in this world are ideals, not ideas. One ideal is worth twenty ideas in propulsive force. No naked idea is fit to become an ideal until we illuminate it, dress it up, and give it a halo that does not properly belong to it. We live by poetry, not by prose, and we live only as we see visions, and not as we have discriminating minds.” I find this statement quite profound. As someone who loves a good policy—an idea to improve what currently is—I agree that a good plan does not capture the hearts and minds of people like an ideal. This realization lends great insight into politics as a whole and what it takes to be effective in moving people to accomplish something.
During Wilson’s first political speech, most of his oratory was a dud. He sensed his error and left the lectern to better interact with the audience. In doing so, he empowered the voters to share in his ideals and vision. Berg regularly drew from Woodrow’s interactions with his father’s ministry to show how the son became a transcendent orator in politics. While the action of moving away from the lectern and closer to the people may have been a deviation from pastoral norms, it was a good example of how Berg provided insight on what shaped Woodrow Wilson into the man he became.
One of Wilson’s early advocates for the presidency was William McAdoo (his future son-in-law) who observed that the Democratic Party is primarily about people, while the Republican Party is primarily about property. This comment had me thinking about the original tenets of the parties. The Republican Party historically feared too much centralized power—saving power for the states as envisioned by Jefferson when he opposed the federalists. Jefferson implemented a staunch anti-nepotism policy, which built professionalism in government. The Democratic Party transformed dramatically in its existence and also claims Jefferson as its forefather, but it has also carried the mantle of the original Federalists by promoting a strong centralized government. The modern GOP highlights how much parties can and do change. There are few that would argue Donald Trump embodies the concern over accumulating centralized power for himself or nepotism, and he undoubtedly values property seemingly above everything other than himself.
There were two points that Wilson emphasized while campaigning for president that I value deeply. He responded to critiques of his teaching background by noting it is a schoolteacher’s “business to learn all he can, and then communicate it to others.” He also observed that a leader’s job to inspire not to dictate. People must exercise their minds and discern how the game is played. These traits are necessary to make organizations thrive.
Wilson had enough charisma and effectiveness as a communicator to raise the audience to his intellectual level. He insisted on being who he was as he campaigned, and the audience felt respected by the way he did so without talking down to them.
Berg briefly discussed the social gospel that was en vogue during the early twentieth century. The Social Gospel Movement was a significant factor for John D. Rockefeller’s use of his wealth, and Wilson similarly believed in the principle that Christianity was a salve for social ills.
Wilson divested himself of meeting most people for appointed positions. He believed that as presidents took on broader responsibilities, they needed to transform from executive officers to individuals of counsel who have time to think.
The establishment of segregation policies under the Wilson Administration is another stain on Woodrow Wilson’s presidency. He paternalistically adopted the policies proposed by his cabinet and claimed it would eliminate tensions between whites and negroes and thus advance the negro cause. This assessment proved wholly incorrect.
Berg prompted an interesting question on whether Wilson’s thinking was focused as WWI threatened America. Wilson had been in a stupor after his wife’s death and then in a further purgatory as he petitioned for Edith Bolling Galt to accept his marriage proposal after a very brief courtship. The nation seemed anxious to fight after Germany’s U-boat attacks and the sinking of the Lusitania. Yet Wilson’s response was his Philadelphia speech and the line, “too proud to fight.” The message may have been wise as he sought the proper path forward, but it was politically tone deaf and may have made it more difficult to lead the nation. As Wilson emphasized in the past, a leader cannot be too far ahead of the people he’s leading. This situation may not have been that, but the principle shows how critical it is for a leader to be in alignment with followers. That said, Wilson’s pacifistic leanings were strongly based on what he saw in the devastation during the Civil War. As a child of the south, he identified with family members of soldiers who suffered both during and after war, which made him cautious. Wilson’s caution may have indeed been the reason for his response to the saber-rattling country rather than his personal situation. But Berg’s in-depth analysis of Wilson’s heartbreak-to-infatuation period properly raises the question of the president’s focus during a delicate time of leadership.
As Wilson searched broadly for a peaceful solution, he enacted Teddy Roosevelt’s Preparedness Movement, which sought to strengthen the army for defensive purposes and do so before the forces were needed. Wilson originally opposed this idea as he pursued neutrality in hope of brokering peace in Europe. During this time, Wilson coined the motto, “America First,” which came before the WWII isolationists who used the same phrase. For Wilson, he explained that “America First” meant the duty of every American to exalt the national consciousness by pure motives and devotion—the responsibility of being just to fellow citizens and just to other nations. From WWI to WWII to President Trump, it is an interesting evolution or devolution of the phrase.
Wilson’s formation of the Committee on Public Information (CPI) is unnerving to look back upon due to its effectiveness in propaganda and the far-reaching effect on the American Public. A key force in the process was Walter Lippmann. The writer advocated for the creation of the CPI directly to Wilson by observing that: “the mass of absolutely illiterate, of feeble-minded, grossly neurotic, undernourished and frustrated individuals, is very considerable, much more considerable there is reason to think than we generally suppose.” Lippmann subsequently argued that the CPI should exist to make a simple and digestible message. After its launch, the CPI spurred unprecedented volunteerism for the war effort and swelled the military ranks. It is highly disconcerting how quickly propaganda changed discourse in the United States.
The CPI led to censorship under the Espionage Act and then the Sedition Act, which worked with the CPI by censoring a number of war-related subjects to undermine freedom of the press. Many opposed the censorship movement and pointed to Americans as the greatest reading public in the world, while pointing to the Federalist Party’s loss of clout and credibility under the Alien and Sedition Act in the 1700s. Despite the cries of concerns, the CPI proceeded under Wilson who approved of such measures during war.
The 1981 influenza pandemic was just a footnote in Wilson as the United States entered WWI. This minor treatment seems in alignment with how off the radar the pandemic was to Woodrow Wilson.
Alice Paul and her fellow suffragettes began marching and protesting against Wilson because the president took such a passive approach to federal efforts to grant women the right to vote. Paul used Wilson’s own quotes promoting democracy and the importance of self-governance, which cleverly helped her avoid sedition charges. The suffragettes eventually were arrested and the press turned its eyes on the issue, which moved Wilson to support the constitutional amendment. Prior to this action, Wilson had exclusively pushed for state-by-state legislation for voting rights.
The setup for how the U.S. became such a factor in deciding the spoils of war seemed quite brief as Berg described the conclusion of WWI. He did, however, circle back to this point by emphasizing that the United States was at its height of military numbers and power right as Europe was at its weakest. Further, all of Europe was dependent on the U.S. for its food supply. I appreciate Berg not wanting to deviate from his focus on Wilson, but the book would have benefited from exploring the rise of American power earlier in the book instead of explaining it during his description about the Council of Four (David Lloyd George (Great Britain), Vittorio Emanuele Orlando (Italy), Georges Clemenceau (France), and Woodrow Wilson) at Versailles.
David Lloyd George certainly trumpeted “the white man’s burden” from Rudyard Kipling as he argued that colonialism existed to share debt. George argued that the post-WWI victors had to parcel out the undeveloped nations because countries like Great Britain would need to invest so heavily in those nations that it would be generations before anyone would see a profit. Great Britain believed it was its duty to bring its concept of civilization to the undeveloped nations.
It is somewhat amusing to think of the Big Four leaders on their hands and knees in Wilson’s bedroom studying an enormous map to divide the nations, particularly when thinking of FDR and Churchill doing the same thing at FDR’s residence during WWII. Dr. Grayson and Eleanor Roosevelt both compared the respective scenes to boys playing a mere game of youth.
Another point I had forgotten was that Wilson’s convalescence led to the rise of A. Mitchell Palmer and subsequently the power of J. Edgar Hoover. Palmer’s eyes on the White House resulted in numerous civil-rights violations as Wilson subsisted in limbo. Palmer and Hoover commanded raids on suspected communists without constitutional authority to do so. Wilson bears some blame for his inaction, even if attributable to his infirmed status.
Wilson seems to have followed the literary model of a heroic arc by his rise, fall, and then return to glory. It seems hard to believe anyone could have sunk lower than Wilson did in body, mind, and spirit after WWI concluded and Congress rejected the League of Nations. That the public would reject him so soundly only to revere him once again so shortly after rejection is quite remarkable.
The early 1900s are fascinating as America underwent a dramatic growth in financial and military power. Woodrow Wilson served as an able bridge between eras, and A. Scott Berg provides a wonderful biography to understand the man. I recommend that readers start with other options to explore and understand the period, but—like Wilson himself—Wilson the book connects many ideas together regarding the leader of the United States. Wilson is lengthy, but it’s an engaging and enjoyable read. Anyone interested in presidents or the early 1900s will likely find Berg’s book to be a welcome addition to their collection.
