John F. Kennedy was our one, radical president

[DerekG]

My inclination is to usually bristle when people fawn over presidents, even Democratic ones. I feel it's my duty to tell people that Jimmy Carter was *not* a "human rights" president; likewise, the old "Clinton presided over 8 years of peace and prosperity" is a complete falsehood, and should be eschewed as quickly as possible.

Yet oddly enough, I will defend John F. Kennedy. I'm dismayed to see leftist authors like Chomsky, Vidal and Alexander Cockburn try to paint him as just another imperialist president, especially when history reveals to us a man who began as yet another establishment tool, but evolved into the *only* president who stood as a threat to the military-industrial complex. We must look past his early failures--spouting the "missile gap" BS and his complicity in the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. Oliver Stone was correct: something was going on in his presidency that was absolutely unprecedented.

No, Kennedy was not Eugene Debs. But, by perusing the following, could anyone deny that JFK had at least some semblance of courage and vision--unique from his two predecessors and slew of successors? Could anyone deny that he was an enemy to the Right, and perhaps there were reasons why he was taken from us?


-His apprehension about sending in forces in Vietnam, and NSAM #263
-His offers for reapproachment with Fidel Castro in November '63
-His willingness to go against his advisors during the Cuban Missile Crisis, as well as in establishing the nuclear test ban treaty
-His moral disgust with Operation Northwoods
-His speech at the American University, which eschewed many Cold War attitudes by claiming that Russians were, in fact, human beings(!!)

-His confrontation with U.S. Steel over price increases
-His trust-busting campaign against General Electric
-His attack on the oil-depletion allowance

[Reverend_Smitty]

1. You won't hear any argument from me...

Don't forget about the Peace Corps and you know if he didn't die, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could have been another crowning achievement

[DerekG]

4. I'm not sure how that would have played out

Kennedy did not have Johnson's legislative genius, and remember that the passing of the Civil Rights Act succeeded, in partial, because of JFK's martyrdom.

But Kennedy sure would have tried.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

2. JFK was a true liberal/reformer.

[Reverend_Smitty]

3. and I think he was the last president...

that the vast majority of Americans rallied around (except those few months following 9/11) and believed in to provide them with a better future

[NEOBuckeye]

5. It's a real shame that Bobby Kennedy never had a chance to be President.

It seems likely that RFK would have taken this country well beyond the positive, progressive direction where his brother was heading. Sadly, the right-wing corporatists realized this as well, and ended his journey before it ever truly began.

How did we go from true men of character who held humanity in high regard, like Bobby and Jack, to such self-serving, shallow men like George, his father and Jeb? Isn't it one of the greatest ironies of politics in this country that the Kennedys were murdered because they sought to truly help the American people and the world, while the Bushes are praised to the point of blasphemous worship, even while they murder Americans and Iraqis and divide the world against us?

[Minstrel Boy]

6. "What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of peace do we seek?

NOT A PAX AMERICANA enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace; the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living. The kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children. Not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women. Not merely peace in our time, but peace for all time."

His American University speech is the high water mark of presidential rhetoric, and perhaps of the old Republic.

No wonder he had to die.

[Beam Me Up]

11. I still feel the CALL of this vision.

It still resonates as much now, after all these years, after all that has happened to us, as it did when I first heard it as a teenager.

Those National Security State Bastards. Narrow minded bigots who can not see any trace of nobility of spirit; who, apparently, have know nothing of such qualities of being as honor, integrity, loyalty. Sick motherfkrs.

[DerekG]

13. They are criminals

They have sent generations of American boys (children) to die unnecessarily in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, and made a hell of this world by undermining every progressive and socialist movement through coups, rigged elections, and terrorism.

For all his flaws, Kennedy was trying to stop this. And he was taken from us as a result.

[AP]

15. His second Oxford, Miss. speach is one of the best articulations of the...

...importance of civil rights ever delivered by an elected politician at any level.

His first one was meek. But his second is as relevant today as it was when he made it.

Anyone who hasn't heard it should listen to it.

[Eloriel]

7. A great book about JFK, available online

It's also about his assassination, but the picture it gives of him in the process is quite wonderful, IMO:

Farewell America
http://www.jfk-online.com/farewell00.html

[Barney Rocks]

8. He was a man of true character.

But I think that FDR, LBJ, and his brother Bobby were more "radical" than he was. I also think they were further to the left than he was. What FDR did was unprecented in this country.

[DerekG]

10. By radical, I refer to the conflict with the military-industrial complex

Lyndon Johnson offered the most progressive domestic vision in the history of this country. And he would have been our greatest president, but he did not rebel against the National Security State like JFK, and as a result, he lost his presidency--and his soul--to a genocidal war against the Vietnamese.

I don't care whether John Kerry is a liberal--liberal Democrats have conducted as many wars, and killed as many people, as conservative Republicans. My concern lies with the relationship he would have with warlords at the Pentagon, and whether he will follow in the footsteps of his predecessors in satiating the monstrous "defense" budget. That is what plagues us more than any other spectre--the military budget that has held this nation hostage since 1950.

[Barney Rocks]

12. A very good post.

I concur with your thoughtful analysis.

[AP]

16. FDR fought fascism at home and abroad and won. JFK fought it and lost.

[Barney Rocks]

18. yes--to me

FDR is the standard that all Democrats should aspire to. Strong at home and abroad. He won a long-term, wide-ranging, high stakes war that threatened countries on multiple continents. He also had to deal with one of the worst economic situations in American history. He pulled people out of their poverty and from scratch came up with legislation to protect and help the poor. Those who came after (Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton etc) have built on the foundation that FDR built (they all have done good things--but in many ways FDR laid the foundation that they built on). He was the greatest Democratic leader so far in my opinion. But I am not trying to take anything away from the other leaders--who are all good men in my estimation.

[AP]

19. In some ways the battle against domestic fascists like Prescott Bush was

a higher stakes battle than the one against Hitler.

If America had lost that battle, the globe would have been dominated by fascits. Imagine what that would have looked like for American "others"?

Not only did FDR beat the fascists, he beat them in a way that created an almost impregnable defense against domestic fascism which lasted until about 1973 or 74, and which then took another 30 years to chip away before American Democracy once again hangs by a thread.

That's quite an accomplishment. FDR saved American democracy for 70 years. We definitely need another hero to step forward. John Kennedy tried. Bobby did too. MLK tried. I think we'll keep stepping forward even if we get shot down, but one of us is going to carry the American flag to victory.

[Barney Rocks]

20. Excellent post.

I am in total agreement.

[DerekG]

21. I would argue that democracy ended with the death of Roosevelt

General Smedley Butler single-handedly foiled the '33 coup against FDR; but there was no one to save democracy in '45.

I consider it a great tragedy that Roosevelt dumped Henry A. Wallace from the ticket and replaced him with a political hack named Harry Truman. He did not possess 1/10 of FDR's vision, standing by as men like Harriman and the Dulles brothers fomented their war against the Left. He himself drove the nail through the heart of the Republic with the National Security Act, with the help of his vizier, Acheson. Thus came the reign of the CIA, and a monstrous Cold War that would claim the lives of millions worldwide.

[AP]

22. That contradicts your OP thesis. FDR built an America that got JFK close

to extending FDR's gains another 70 or 140 years and it took an assassiination to stop it.

Obviously FDR laid the groundwork for something pretty solid if JFK and RFK and MLK could only be taken out with assassins' bullets.

[DerekG]

23. I see no contradiction

I'm arguing that the democracy FDR so cherished was already compromised by the time the 50's rolled around. By then, there was an entire infrastructure designed to prevent men like FDR, and to an even greater extent, the slain Huey Long and Henry A. Wallace, from attaining power. Kennedy slipped under the radar (you'll recall he had to prove to his party that he was a liberal in a wonderful 1960 speech). Throughout the election, he appeared as a hawk--the "missile gap" nonsense--but he had a rude awakening with the Bay of Pigs plot, and by he time he intensified his efforts to stop the apparatus, he was made the target of a very public murder.

Edit: I see now how a contradiction could be perceived--the National Security State was created under the Truman administration, so I didn't pair FDR with JFK (but you're correct, Roosevelt was a great threat to war-profiteers and captains of industry).

[Octafish]

9. Excellent Post, DerekG! Thank you...

If I may, I'd add that JFK kept the US out of World War III at least twice, perhaps as many as four times.

1. Bay of Pigs: CIA said "They'll welcome us in the streets and rise up and overthrow Castro" (sounds familiar). Then, when things didn't go well -- as they launched the invasion knowing the Soviets had tipped off the Cubans as to when and where it would occur, the CIA urged JFK to send in the Marines. JFK refused, not wanting to draw the Soviets into a confrontation that could escalate to nuclear war. For this, JFK was branded a coward.

2. The Cuban Missile Crisis: The Joint Chiefs, senior Congress critters and most of the Cabinet were hot to attack Cuba and take out the missiles. JFK said, "We will if necessary, but if we can avoid war, we should." For this, JFK was branded a coward.

3. Operation NORTHWOODS: The Joint Chiefs want their war and are willing to kill innocent Americans to get it. JFK said "No" and fired Gen. Lemnitzer, Chairman of the JCS. For this, JFK was branded a coward.

4. Vietnam: JFK listened when Gen. MacArthur said the US could not win a land war in southeast Asia. Vietnam fit the bill to a T. So, JFK ordered (as you noted NSAM 263) the withdrawal of all combat troops after the 1964 election. For this, JFK was branded a coward.

Gee. Brand me a coward. For I, too, want a world of peace.

[AP]

14. Kennedy interfered in Chilean politics this way:

he said that he wanted governments in South America which built up the middle classe. He thought that would prevent disruptive Marxist revolutions. Kennedy had the CIA and the state department finance student groups and even funded a few crazy RW groups to make the moderats look good.

When those governments Kennedy supported came to power, they did an OK job, but inevitiably people turned to the socialists, but the fact that Frei (the moderate Kennedy supported )was a decent guy meant that Frei and the citizens of Chile accepted the transition to the Allende government.

Kennedy had paved the way for a peaceful transition from fascism to a center-right, to a democratic socialist government.

Kissinger and Nixon had to bend over backwards to cause that coup in Chile. Frei refused to participate because he believed in the Chilean consitutional tradition more than he believed in any kind of entitlement of the wealthy to power. That's the kind of guy Kennedy supported.

It's bullshit to intervene in a country, but left wingers who can't see that Kennedy's policies caused the hastiest possible end of power for the fascists are blind, I think. I'm not arguing that the ends justify the means, but fascism is a pretty bad thing, and I think any way you can get rid of it is OK, and Kennedy got rid of it.

Are you gonna blame him for getting assaissinated by people who saw where Kennedy's policies were headed?

[DerekG]

17. I don't get it

Many leftists perform wonderful public services for exposing the underbelly of our system, and yet they can't bring themselves to admit that there might have been an aberration in the presidency; that one might have slipped through the cracks.

I don't get it--isn't the fact that Kennedy was murdered proof that the system is corrupt? Shouldn't these people be embracing assassination theories instead of dismissing them and claiming JFK isn't worth lamenting?

[AP]

24. kick.