Content area
Full Text
I have no spur
To prick the sides of my intent but only Vaulting ambition which o'erleaps itself and falls on the other.
-Macbeth. I.vii
Ambition is a subject more easily described than discussed by political scientists and historians. Scholars of American politics have developed broad theories of ideology, culture, and voting behavior, but not ambition. Even most political biographers prefer to explain the ambitions of their subjects with details and particulars rather than with abstract theories. Admittedly, some have borrowed psychological concepts to explain the ambitious, but such analysis is the exception, not the rule, in American political history. There are a variety of factors that might explain this development. More than anything else, however, it appears that ambition lacks the nuances necessary to fuel serious academic debate. The consensus is that all politicians are ambitious-to win reelection, to wield power, to achieve fame-without much to distinguish their desires. The well-known philosopher John Rawls, for example, suggests in his classroom that political ambition is like the "x" factor in algebra; it can be factored out of discussions without affecting the result.
Every generation or so, however, an American political figure emerges whose aspirations dwarf those around him. The greatest political figures dominate their times, because their will to dominate seems to defy time and place. What drives such people? Is it possible that they are just luckier than the rest? Or is their vaulting ambition somehow different than the garden variety desire for a seat in Congress or 15 minutes of fame? Two recent biographies of Abraham Lincoln and Bill Clinton, written by David Herbert Donald and David Maraniss respectively, suggest the beginnings of an answer. Although neither author set out to write a study of ambition, the nature of their subjects makes such an outcome almost inevitable. If Lincoln's ambition was "a little engine that knew no rest," according to his longtime law partner, then Clinton's must be a mid-sized nuclear reactor. Rev. Jesse Jackson, no wallflower himself, says about Clinton, "there's nothin' he won't do." Comparing the experiences of Lincoln and Clinton, especially during their rise to power and with careful attention to the observations of their peers, reveals at least some of the characteristics of ambition in its most intense...