Woodrow Wilson administration ended in tragedy, with his insistence on governing following his disabling stroke. I suspect President Wilson is often graded on a special curve, because many academic historians identify with him as one of their own.

Arguably there's no school for any high position of leadership. That said, Theodore Roosevelt was remarkably well prepared for the presidency. He had held executive positions in the military, in local government, in the federal government.

Theodore Roosevelt is a natural choice for leadership education. Along with many other observers, I believe he was among the greatest of leaders to serve as president.

Any gathering of people requires leadership to cohere, to achieve its potential contribution. What is not needed is a "boss" of yore, directing everyone else's efforts toward "the one best way."

I often ask myself: "What would Theodore Roosevelt do?" One can never know, of course. The ultimate contribution of consequential leaders is often their capacity to reframe issues in novel ways. That said, his leadership engaged, at a foundational level, whether the American "national character" would accept decline and mediocrity, or would go all-in for leadership and excellence. Amid the myriad of otherwise disconnected issues before us, that choice is emerging yet again.

Everyone knows that Theodore Roosevelt was able to wring so much life out of each day, every hour, every minute. And yet, when one is immersed in a detailed, retrospective review of his life, his intense living, his vigor di vita, is nonetheless breathtaking.

Some critics have suggested that Ronald Reagan succeeded in a series of careers, ultimately as a two-term president of the United States, by a series of fortunate accidents. Such a criticism is not backed by the evidence. It is true, though, that Reagan's approach to work and life was not conventional.