books and essays that incorporate historyrnand political thought with personal experience.rnAnd while the prime motive ofrnboth men was to earn extra income, eachrnhad an energetic style that continues tornbring readers back to their work.rnRoosevelt and Churchill owe theirrnreputations not just to the fact that thevrnled their governments in critical times,rnbut to the personal traits that propelledrnthem to high office. Their strong,rnexuberant characters were formed byrnremarkably similar experiences. Rooseveltrnwas born in 18S8, 16 years beforernChurchill. Yet both were baptized by firernin the same conflict, the Cuban revolutionrnagainst Spain: Churchill, as a newlyrncommissioned cavalry officer, was sent tornCuba in 1895 as an observer, while Rooseveltrnwent to Cuba in 1898 with the 1strnVolunteer Cavalry Regiment after resigningrnhis post as Assistant Secretary of thernNavv. At about the same time Roosevelt’srn”Rough Riders” were charging uprnthe hills outside Santiago, Churchill wasrnin the Sudan making the last greatrncharge of the 21st Lancers at Omdurman.rnBoth men felt the need to testrnthemselves in action, Churchill as a soldierrnand war correspondent (includingrntime in the trenches during Worid WirrnI), Roosevelt—whose military experiencernwas limited—as a cowboy and bigrngame hunter. Mario DiNunzio includesrnsubstantial passages from Roosevelt’srnreminiscences of these ears.rnChurchill won his first seat in Padiamentrnabout the same time Rooseveltrnwas elected Vice President. Both had anrnabundance of personal ambition, tiedrnfirmly to the desire to advance the fortunesrnof their nations in fulfillment of arnduty, as they saw it, owed by virtue ofrntheir privileged positions. Neither manrnwas willing to sacrifice his beliefs forrnmere party conformity or private gain.rnChurchill is best known as a Conservative,rnbut during the period 1904-1922,rnhe sat across the aisle as a Liberal; Rooseveltrnsplit from the Republicans and ranrnas a third party presidential candidaternin 1912. A difference between therntwo men is the result of the disparaternpositions of their respective countriesrnalong the trajectory of a Great Power.rnChurchill was trying to maintain thern^Bc^^^^owrnTo order these books, (24hrs, 365 days)rnplease call (800) 962-6651 (Ext. 5200)rnpower of the British Empire; Rooseveltrnto establish an American linrpire. Roosevelt’srnspirit matched that of a youngrnnation yyhieh had just conquered a continentrnand was looking for new challenges.rnWhile Churchill lived to seernmassive, grinding government oppressrnhis country, Roosevelt knew enough ofrnhistory and human nature to warn constantlyrnagainst the danger in his day.rnRoosevelt recognized several “types”rnwho might bar the way to Americanrngreatness. First was the “peace-atany-rnpriee, universal-arbitration type ofrnbeing” on the pacifist left whom he regardedrnas “uttedy useless” and whom hernbattled all his life. Second was the liberalrninternationalist who hated the militaryrnbut was forever getting the eountr embroiledrnin foreign disputes, usually withoutrnany regard for the national interest;rnWoodrow Wilson was one of Roosevelt’srnfavorite targets on this score. Third wasrnthe Big Businessman who bankrolled hisrnRepublican Party. In a reprinted segmentrnof his 1913 autobiography, Rooseveltrnnotes that “our strongest and mostrncapable men had thrown themselvesrninto business. . . . While many of themrndown at the bottom possessed the fundamentalrnvirtues, including the hghtingrnvirtues, others were purely of the glorifiedrnhuckster or pawnbroker type—rnwhich when developed to the exclusionrnof everything else makes about asrnpoor a national type as the world hasrnseen.” This passage foreshadows JosephrnSehunipeter’s criticism of bourgeois societyrnmade some 30 years later in his classicrnCapitalism, Socialism and Democracy.rnHere is the source of the seeming contradictionrnof Roosevelt’s career. Recognizedrnas a Progressive for his trust-bustingrncampaign against Big Business andrnhis advocacy of a “square deal” for thernworking man, in every other area Rooseveltrnwas a staunch conservative. Thernconfusion is caused by the perspective ofrntoday, when establishment conservativesrnhae lost their wider social bearings andrnhave become little more than the lapdogsrnof transnational corporations thatrnthe left has always accused them ofrnbeing. Roosevelt held to a more authenticrnconservatism, one that embracedrnsociety rather than withdrew fromrnit. DiNunzio sees Roosevelt primarilyrnas a conservative, not a category of personsrnhe admires. While conceding Roosevelt’srntalent and place in history, herndeprecates his “jingoism” and his “lessrnattractive views on race and class.”rnAmong the 52 entries DiNunziornreprints is an interesting essay from 1917rnin which Roosevelt blasts the “feminists”rnand other “foolish women” of his day,rnwhile exalting motherhood. “Woman isrnsociety,” says Roosevelt, “she must bearrnand rear the children as her first duty tornthe state; and the man’s first duty is torntake care of her and the children.” Yet,rnbecause he saw the family as an equalrncommitment and partnership betweenrnhusband and wife, Roosevelt believedrnwomen also deserve the ‘ote, and to participaternotherwise in national affairs. Hernregarded families as the building blocksrnof the nation, and condemned equallyrnany violation of trust within either institution:rn”Treason, like adultery, ranks asrnone of the worst of all possible crimes.”rnIt is because Theodore Rooseveltrnthought for himself on the large issuesrnand had the courage to argue strongrnpositions—as well as the talent to do sornin stirring fashion—that this collectionrnof his writings is so enjoyable.rnWilliam R. Hawkins is senior analystrnwith the Republican ResearchrnCommittee, United States House ofrnRepresentatives.rnMurder in thernWastelandrnby Wayne AUensworthrnOriginal Sinrnby P.D. JamesrnNew York: Alfred A. Knopfrn416 pp., $24.00rnThe mystery novel, to borrow a linernfrom Original Sin, has all thernvirtues of its defects. “The mystery,”rnBaroness James explained in a recentrnWashington Post interview, “deals withrnthe planned murder” and is thus confinedrnto a certain formulaic structure inrnwhich a detective protagonist confrontsrnan often unsavory lot of suspects, all ofrnwhom must be plausible as potentialrnkillers; and, through his own deductivernpowers, exposes the perpetrator andrnmakes right a universal order disturbedrnby the open rebellion that is murder.rn34/CHRONlCLESrnrnrn