US Presidential Writing

File: images.jpg (61KB, 703x1080px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 703x1080px

>>9813378
President Donald J. Trump.

If there's a correlation between good writers and good leaders, why are U.S. Grant's memoirs so much better than his presidency?

>>9813378
>Presidents don't write anymore
>The art of the deal

We couldn't expect the black one to write a book, c'mon.

>>9813388
Outlier

File: images (1).jpg (76KB, 709x1080px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 709x1080px

>>9813392
??

>>9813378
Hamilton was never president.

>>9813388

He was a good war leader, peacetime not so much. Although with current revisionism he is being rehabilitated. Like most topics, our knowledge soon becomes obsolete with scholarship.

>>9813410
I meant to say James Madison.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pen_is_mightier_than_the_sword

>>9813386
/thread

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Books_written_by_Presidents_of_the_United_States

The last seven presidents (Trump included) are published authors.

>>9813378
If you've never read Dreams of my Father, do. Really, really good. I was surprise of its literary merits.

>>9815356
>Black leftist
>Literary merit
Pick one.

>>9815346
They didn't write shit.

>>9816484
Neither did Lincoln or any other president. Ghost writers are nothing new.

what does lit think of Reagan's challenger speech
gives me a tear desu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa7icmqgsow

>>9816471
>obama
>leftist

thx anon i needed a good laugh

The Adams-Jefferson letters should be in curricula.

>>9816493
John Adams has thousands of extant letters.

>>9817271
we're talking about presidents who wrote anon, this is just a performance of a speech written by peggy noonan. reagan did not contribute to the writing of the speech and reportedly didn't even like it.

>>9817400
you upset me :(

File: Obama.png (1MB, 960x665px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 960x665px

>implying Obama isn't patrish

I haven’t read “The Waste Land” for a year, and I never did bother to check all the footnotes. But I will hazard these statements—Eliot contains the same ecstatic vision which runs from Münzer to Yeats. However, he retains a grounding in the social reality/order of his time.

Facing what he perceives as a choice between ecstatic chaos and lifeless mechanistic order, he accedes to maintaining a separation of asexual purity and brutal sexual reality. And he wears a stoical face before this. Read his essay on Tradition and the Individual Talent, as well as Four Quartets, when he’s less concerned with depicting moribund Europe, to catch a sense of what I speak.

Remember how I said there’s a certain kind of conservatism which I respect more than bourgeois liberalism—Eliot is of this type. Of course, the dichotomy he maintains is reactionary, but it’s due to a deep fatalism, not ignorance. (Counter him with Yeats or Pound, who, arising from the same milieu, opted to support Hitler and Mussolini.)

And this fatalism is born out of the relation between fertility and death, which I touched on in my last letter—life feeds on itself. A fatalism I share with the western tradition at times. You seem surprised at Eliot’s irreconcilable ambivalence; don’t you share this ambivalence yourself, Alex?