Reflections on Eleanor
What I Learned Reading About the Former First Lady and Devoted Humanitarian
At the risk of oversimplifying a rich and nuanced life, there were five consistent qualities that appeared time and again throughout the narrative of Eleanor’s life that I want to highlight here.
Selflessness
Adaptability
Humanity
Persistence
Pragmatism
Why Eleanor?
Eleanor sat on my shelf for a few years before I finally decided to pick it up earlier this year.
Many of those close to me have asked the obvious and seemingly straightforward question - why Eleanor? It’s a fair ask with an unspoken implication; of all the many biographies (including those of John Maynard Keynes and Malcolm X also sitting on my shelf), what motivated me to choose Eleanor’s story?
The question was strangely harder to answer than I had expected. No doubt, I harbor a general appreciation of biographies as a way to engage with a story that forces you to reconcile with the contradictions, complexities, and compromises of one’s life (and a great one at that in this case). Still, what did I really know about Eleanor before tackling this 550-page volume that inspired me to learn more?
In truth, frighteningly little relative to the significance I suspected she occupied. This isn’t to say shame at my own ignorance was a guiding factor, but rather that in spite of my ignorance, I was curious as to how I could know that Eleanor was one of the great humanitarians, and leaders generally, without actually knowing the details of her story.
The obvious realization here is that I didn’t truly know. The very act of reading the book would reveal what I merely suspected, or perhaps sensed in the ether of historic legacies. Or it would offer a different perspective altogether.
The one inadequate fact I did know about Eleanor, of course, is who her husband was. Having spent much of my life in the spheres of political science, international relations, and history, few historical figures come as heralded as Franklin Delano Roosevelt. My understanding of FDR is far from complete, and I hope to read a biography of his one day as well. It did occur to me, however, that the gendered rendition of history that is still with us tends to raise up the accomplishments of “great men” without providing adequate context about their contributions to history; even if laudable, who enabled them to be great?
Though it wasn’t a fully formed notion to me at the time, I realize now that I chose Eleanor as an exercise in demythologization.
In simpler terms, what are the parts that make up the whole? The messy bits about people that aren’t captured in their public legacies, but were arguably instrumental in defining their lasting image. These fragments, often paradoxical and sometimes even unsavory, are I think where human stories are most interesting. We have a tendency to mythologize leaders who make a lasting impact on society, but I think that cheapens their achievements and is inauthentic to how they experienced their own leadership.
In Eleanor’s case the mythology cuts both ways. Though she lived an incredible and impactful life, making FDR’s rise to the presidency and 12-year administration a success with her own talents, her story is largely overshadowed by his. At the same time, even in light of her impressive accomplishments, there is too easy an impulse to think of her as a victim and as a saint, rather than a human with her own flaws.
In reading Eleanor, I hoped to cut through the clutter and to see how history is really made, not just how it is talked about.
Who is the greater of the two?
It is a question purposefully provocative and not entirely serious. I neither intend to answer it nor believe that it can be answered authoritatively.
But in posing such a question I do hope to give Eleanor equal footing to her husband. If you, like me, believe that the events that unfolded between 1929 and 1945 were some of the most consequential in human history, then you must earnestly raise Eleanor to equal heights as FDR in the grand historical narrative, and truly understand the magnitude of her contributions, flaws and all.
“What a lot can happen, in the short space of one’s life.”
What I Learned
In the following sections I want to spend a bit of time with each of these traits, highlighting the ideas that resonated with me intensely, and Eleanor’s own takeaways through her quotes and journal entries. There’s undeniable wisdom in ER’s reflections that I hope to hold closely for a long time to come.
Selflessness
This is also an excellent place to highlight the brilliant and captivating writing of David Michaelis and his team of editors. I take special note to mention his editors here, both because he does so profusely in his own acknowledgments, and because I have had the good fortune of benefitting from tremendous editors in my own writing, and treasure the clarity and verve they contribute to great writing. I hope the quotes I offer below give you at least a taste of what a joy this book was to read.
“Truman, ashen-faced, replied, “Is there anything I can do for you?” Eleanor’s answer passed immediately into legend: “Is there anything we can do for you?” she returned, “For you’re the one in trouble now.””
ER’s life was unquestionably one devoted in service to other people. Sometimes to a fault. It wouldn’t be until after FDR’s death, in the freedom of widowhood, where she would experience some of her happiest days and live more truly to her authentic self.
Yet Eleanor rarely held regrets or bitterness towards the lot that life had given her. Whatever happiness and contentment did come later in life was aligned with her steadfast belief in putting others before herself, reaping the mass admiration of a world desperately in need of a humanitarian figure in the aftermath of World War II.
Though aspects of Eleanor’s need to care for those around her were partially innate, tendencies witnessed in her from an early age, much of her moral disposition was formed by important role models in her life. Chief among these were Mademoiselle Souvestre, an early teacher and mentor. As Michaelis writes:
“Mademoiselle (Souvestre) was merciless in her insistence that her advantaged pupils had been given truly unusual capacity and choice over others in a world still desperately poor. It would be a criminal waste not to put these gifts to the greater good.” (53)
Such a mentality is familiar to me, one echoed in the way my parents tried to raise me and the influences they had in their lives. In this way, Souvestre and Eleanor are valuable role models, a reminder to myself that even being able to read a book such as this and extract its wisdom is still a precious ability to be shared more widely. As I get older and reflect on my own experiences, the words of Souvestre weigh more heavily, and impactfully.
Adaptability
“Life must be lived as it is . . . and you cannot live at all if you do not learn to adapt yourself to your life as it happens to be.”
The marriage of Eleanor and FDR was hardly a happy one, particular for ER. Returning to the earlier theme of demythologizing our leaders, it is perhaps not a surprise to hear that FDR in private hardly lives up to FDR in public. In his family life especially, he proved a self-centered and inadequate partner to Eleanor, far more focused on his own ambition than the happiness and emotional needs of those around him. To draw from the harshest perspective, his own son would later write: “He is hard and cold and his affection is superficial - He has sacrificed everything and everybody to his consuming ambition.” (304)
Eleanor’s early years with FDR, beginning as soon as their honeymoon, were filled with unhappiness. FDR flirted with other women openly and bestowed more emotional intimacy on “more traditionally feminine” women in his life that he never showed to ER. Even his mother held a perverse and powerful position in the household that subverted ER’s authority in her own family. Eleanor understandably felt incomplete and adrift in a loveless marriage.
In spite of these traumas, Eleanor would not be suppressed. Aspects of persistence and pragmatism that I will touch on later were present, but what Eleanor felt strongly was that one’s happiness was in one’s control if only they knew how to adapt themselves to the life they had.
One form of this adaptability came in the relationships that ER would strike up from the late 1920s until her death, ranging from the emotionally intimate to the physically intimate, men and women, all rooted in ER’s deep need to be loved and understood. Such relationships might be considered scandalous and would break other marriages, but FDR and ER settled on a quiet understanding early on in their marriage; do what you need to do to satisfy your personal intimacies, but don’t subvert the quest for political achievement. Eleanor would never let her emotional needs rise above her public duties, but she did make space for them in a way that allowed her to stay sane and fulfilled.
It’s easy to focus on FDR’s inadequacies in this context - he was a poor husband and a poor father. Despite these flaws, or perhaps because of them, it is important to pause to counterbalance the narrative somewhat. Despite their marital struggles, FDR and Eleanor were clearly both highly intelligent and capable people; though it may sound perverse to say, they did each harbor a deep respect for one another’s gifts and abilities, if not for each other on a deep personal level.
Such a relationship thrives, where it does thrive, on mutual admiration and respect. When FDR gets polio in the early 1920s, his and Eleanor’s lives change forever. And yet, in another way, their lives continue on exactly the course FDR had set for them early on. FDR adapts profoundly to the situation he is dealt, proving to be an indomitable force that refuses to give up his ambitions of the White House. As Michaelis astutely notes, “He wasn't quite the old FDR, but 80 percent of FDR was 100 percent more than anyone else.” (383)
Adaptability, in this context, is a shared trait between husband and wife. It is a trait, more importantly, without which, the nation would be forever changed.
Humanity
“It wasn’t the handshake. One of Mrs. Roosevelt’s special traits was that of looking at a person straight in the eye. It was a human spark in her eyes - the recognition of nobility of each individual, black, white, red, yellow, young, old, men, women - that established a bond which was a very personal experience for all who met her, even fleetingly.”
What little I knew about Eleanor going into the book was shaped by her reputation as a worldly humanitarian. Eleanor’s intimacy with people was quite distinctive from her husband’s because it was far more personal. There is not a doubt in the mind of anyone that ever met her that she cared deeply for every person she met.
This ability to meet people where they were at and make them feel seen was legendary, and had significant impact upon FDR’s administration. Eleanor’s humanity was influential on her husband, and by extension the type of administration and politics he endorsed. But ER’s benevolence and energy gave a her a public image all to her own:
MIchaelis notes, “On November 22, 1933, an editorial cartoon appeared in the Dallas Morning News, depicting a "forgotten woman" walking the roadway alone to a far distant town that holds the promise of jobs. But only one of many motorists - car marked "Mrs. F.R." - cares enough to pull over, stop the car, and give the woman a lift. (298)
He writes further, “When he (FDR) was wrong on matters affecting particular communities, she told him. "He had few around him except Eleanor who told him he was wrong," said Justice William O. Douglas. "She was his antenna, and I noticed he usually followed her advice." Whether the issue was economic, racial, or religious, "FDR had complete faith in her judgment and ability to observe," said Jim Farley. (313)
There is no doubt that Eleanor’s humanity gave FDR’s administration a credibility, not just in the form of political points, but in the actual composition of policies that would go on to change Americans lives. FDR deserves credit as well to be sure – he was not pretending to espouse beliefs that were secretly his wife’s – but one cannot help but read the following and see the unmistakable influence of Eleanor:
Pragmatism
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR Inauguration Speech, 1937 (338)
FDR spoke it, Eleanor lived it.
Persistence
“Her humiliation at being caught in ignorance at Raith stayed with her. She vowed to learn things for herself, and to look into things diligently, even if that meant working twice as hard as Franklin to master the same subject. ”
Discipline is an unusually common trait in those that attain great achievement, and Eleanor is no exception.
At some point, it should become clear that each of these qualities are deeply interlinked with the others. One cannot be adaptable without the steadfast determination to follow through on making changes. To be selfless to is to demonstrate an uncommon and consistent commitment to struggle.
Her close confidant Louis Howe observed, “how toughness sustained Eleanor. ... If enduring her husband's ascension to the highest levels of men's-world politics could satisfy her great need to be needed in order to feel secure in partnership, she would sleep with grit on her pillow every night and smile through sot-sell oratory to the end of the line. (198)
Why did Eleanor do it? Caring about people was one matter, but how do you day-in and day-out endure hard times and bouts of unhappiness with no certainty of what waits on the other side? Eleanor’s persistence, in my view, is best explained when connected to the final quality that in many ways defined her life…
“It is not one’s activities which are really important in this life,” she decided. “When you lay down the things you do, day by day, someone else always takes them up. The really important thing is what you are as a person, what your character and your presence have meant to those you lived with, and what influence you have had on the atmosphere of your home or your environment - regardless of whether this was a restricted one, or a broad one which touched many lives and large numbers of people. That is what lives afterwards in the memories and in the hearts of those who knew and loved you. As you influenced these people, so your influence will spread, through their contacts and their activities.”
I suspect that pragmatism is where much of Eleanor’s “greatness” comes from.
Where newspapers at the time and later historians were likely to credit her “strength, drive, and curiosity” as the defining factors that led to her success, Michaelis suggests there was something deeper at play; you see, to answer the question of where Eleanor’s otherworldly persistence comes from, one must understand her deep need to be useful.
Though there was probably no one specific point of formation, Eleanor’s political awakening via the New York League of Women Voters in 1921 offers some insight into her psychology.
She had no plan for her life, and no adult would have said a word had she stayed in bed every morning with a breakfast tray and done little more than give "Cook" the day's order. (201)
But this was not to be for Eleanor, not true to her modus operandi. “Unlike the women who had raised her – “the kind,” according to Edith Wharton, “who expect to be talked to collectively and to have their questions left unanswered” – Eleanor was interested in activating information and seeking real answers.”
Michaelis encapsulated this energy in the following way: Effectiveness – a pragmatic life of being effective – was the goal. (203)
Eleanor’s life and achievements should be celebrated not just for the ideals for which she stood – humanity, selflessness, dignity – but for the fact that she made something lasting of these beliefs.
I was not aware of the extent to which Eleanor influenced human rights via the United Nations in the post-war period; indeed, it is a massive part of her humanitarian legacy that I was ignorant of. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a document that many people think of, or can even describe its contents, but it lays out ideals upon which modern Western society aspires to:
Basic concepts of dignity, liberty, and equality
Freedom of thought, association, and religion
Prohibitions on torture and other inhumane acts
The basis for human rights such as healthcare
Of course, these are not all ideals fully achieved or accomplished in the world today, but they serve as a touchstone for what human progress looks like.
More to the point, they are a manifestation of Eleanor Roosevelt’s insistence on being useful. It’s such an admirable trait that sometimes seems lost in a modern context of “perfect or not at all”; one often forgets that positive action is better than no action at all. Values and ideals are only as good as the impact they exert through actual policies and institutions.
My favorite anecdote of Eleanor Roosevelt’s pragmatism came at the end of the book and at the end of her historic life, and it is a sentiment I share exactly:
Her funeral was on a grim chilly day, the 11th of November. Some years earlier, she had advised Lorena Hickok not to let anyone "hold memorial meetings for me." She found such services "cruel to those who really love you & miss you", and they "meant nothing to the others except an obligation fulfilled.”
“I'd like to be remembered happily, if that is possible," she proposed. "If that can't be, then I'd rather be forgotten." (534)
