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.

Often, in a given project team or network, one sees leadership roles shifting among various members at various times. Attempts to fit these into traditional views of "leader" and "follower" don't quite work. It's more like Twitter: the "leader" has "followers" - but the "followers" are empowered to alter the relationship unilaterally, and the "leader" must continually earn the consent of the "followers."

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.

Theodore Roosevelt is among the most captivating of presidents in our time, but his administration is often underestimated. Roosevelt's successes in domestic and international affairs are so wide-ranging as to appear obvious or inevitable in retrospect.

Effective leadership relationships at a high level include the insertion of a degree of distance from those being served. That may be part of what President Ronald Reagan referred to when he mused that he didn't see how anyone could be president who wasn't an actor.

It was a particular pleasure to examine President Ronald Reagan's leadership. I experienced it first-hand, as a member of his administration in several capacities as well as his 1984 reelection campaign staff. The most common misconception is that Reagan was a bystander to his own career.

My Army reserve service was in the 1990s. It was, more than anything else, an opportunity for me to express gratitude. My understanding of and admiration for the American armed forces is deeper, better informed as a result. I'm among those who believe that military or other citizen service should be an expected part of every American's life.