Presidential leadership is best evaluated not on the basis of one's agreement with the policies, but on their effectiveness in using their powers to transform the nation and our understanding of ourselves.

Woodrow Wilson is reported to have told a Princeton colleague, shortly after the 1912 election, "It would be an irony of fate if my administration had to deal chiefly with foreign problems, for all my preparation has been in domestic matters." In the event, Wilson's early months were marked by substantial domestic legislative accomplishment. Unfortunately, after Europe plunged into the Great War in August 1914, Wilson's leadership was uncertain.

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.

Ronald Reagan was a traditionalist - who purposefully, effectively unleashed innovation and change in himself, in the nation, and in the world. He was a "great communicator" who achieved memorable intimacy with the people everywhere - yet he was often disengaged from his own family.

President-elect John F.Kennedy said to Robert McNamara that there's no school for presidents, or, for that matter, for secretaries of defense.

Ronald Reagan was notably able to avoid having personal considerations dissuade him from taking decisive actions. This may have arisen in part from his career in motion pictures; it may be related to his being a bit of a loner; it may have related to his focus on those people and principles he sought to serve. What is clear is that this capacity enhanced his effectiveness. It was also a surprise to many people.

Ronald Reagan's career was so unusual, so unprecedented, that this would be very interesting to learn, to gain understanding of his way of looking at the world.