Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe that the Kennedys will be compared to Nero or Caligula 1000 years from now. The beginning of decadence of the old Republic.
Whay such a fuss for such a negative figure only good for glossy magazines?
It is just as likely that no one will remember Nero or Caligula in a thousand years.
But probably when some magazine prints a story on the anniversary of Garfield being shot, there will be a posting on the history forum of C-D about what a monster Garfield really was and how all of America's problems really began with this villain.
Yes and no. In terms of substance, an argument can be made that JFK did not accomplish a great deal during his thousand day presidency. Congress was sandbagging his attempts to push civil rights legislation into law and his requests for tax cuts to forestall a recession were not getting much attention either.
However, I think what people who criticize JFK fail to understand is the effect that a charismatic individual can have in terms of inspiring citizens to do to their best and work for a better future. In the end, JFK may have been the most inspirational President that was ever elected to public office. JFK delivered speeches on a level that was perhaps second only to Franklin D. Roosevelt. Other Presidents were "tongue-tied" compared to JFK. His choice of Ted Sorenson to write his speeches was also brilliant. No one could turn phrases the way that Sorenson could. He was the master of masters at the craft of speech writing.
The establishment of a program like the Peace Corps brought out the very best in Americans. Kennedy's idealism in creating such a program meshed well with the realities of the time, which primarily involved demonstrating to the Third World countries why our system was better than communism.
When Kennedy announced the goal of "landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth" by the end of the 1960's, he got everyone's attention. I wonder if any other President had demanded such a goal if he would have gotten the reception that JFK got.
Kennedy spoke in 1963 at the American University in Washington, D.C. in support of a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The speech, in essence was an overture to Premier Khruschev and the Soviet Union to join with him to eliminate a threat to every person in the world. When Kennedy talks of "our common link to humanity" in this speech, he may have given the best speech a President ever gave. It is a most powerful and stirring talk.
There were myths in the Kennedy presidency. They were these:
1. Far from being a specimen of physical health, JFK was a pretty sick man with Addison's disease, colitis, and a very bad back. During the 1950's he was frequently hospitalized and once even given his last rites by a priest.
2. Rather than being effective with Congress, JFK was struggling to get most of his program through Congress.
3. Rather than being a wonderful family man, JFK was having affairs with more than one woman.
So, when you assess whether he was a good President or not, it really comes down to how much value do you put on the ability to speak and inspire the public? If you put a lot of value on that criteria, JFK and his myth endure.
and dont forget the 10's of billions of dollars spent on the space program(which many didnt ,even to this day,believe even happened), all just to impress the soviets.
I think we elect presidents and love them by how good they make us feel about our problems.
There was an article in the recent issue of the Rolling Stone by Robert Kennedy's son that kinda opened my eyes to how courageous and insightful John F Kennedy was. I was kinda of the opinion that President Kennedy was all hype and myth until i read the article. Kennedy wanted to end the Cold war and peacefully co-exist with the USSR which he indicated in that speech he gave at the American University in Washington D.C. in 1963. He realized the CIA was a threat to democracy because they deliberately lied to him before the Bay of Pigs fiasco about the Cubans trying to overthrow Castro not needing US air support for their invasion to succeed in an attempt to trap him to committing US air support when it would be obvious they would be defeated without air support. To the CIA and the Pentagon's anger and dismay he refused to be drawn into the conflict with Cuba. The CIA and the Pentagon were insubordinate to him concerning his directives about US involvement in Vietnam and was planning to divide the CIA into 1000 different pieces and scatter them to the winds. He was planning to bring back all the military advisers from Vietnam after the 1964 elections when he wouldn't have to worry about red baiting Presidential opponents. He was very angry that 100 US advisers died in Vietnam in 1963 because he explicitly stated he didn't want the advisers involved in combat and felt the CIA and the Pentagon was doing their own agenda in Vietnam. He wanted to let the Vietnamese solve there own political problems. He and Robert visited Vietnam in 1951 when the French was fighting the guerrillas and he was marveled by the French Legionnaires fearlessness and bravery but saw in his own eyes the French was doomed to fighting a hopeless cause and he didn't want to repeat France's mistakes. Kennedy viewed the French-Indochina War as a conflict of nationalism vs colonialism and rich white people vs poor non white people. Kennedy said how do you defeat an enemy that is everywhere and nowhere at the same time and had support from the people in general. He kept a cool head during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis when the Pentagon was pressuring him into airstrikes on the Russians and Cubans in Cuba after the US spy plane was shot down over Cuba. He thought the military establishment was insane because the military leaders wanted to do a preemptive first nuclear strike on the USSR while the USA had the advantage but Kennedy didn't want to be the man that caused the greatest loss of life in human history. If he would have lived the Cold war would have ended 25 years earlier and the USA wouldn't have got bogged down in the Vietnam quagmire.
I have to disagree with much of this assessment. Kennedy didn't believe in "peaceful co-existence". He was a Cold Warrior through and through. What he didn't believe in was nuclear war, and he was more than willing to compromise with the USSR to avoid that. Even during the Cuban Missile Crisis, he was willing to make a deal with Khrushchev in order to do that, which is what happened. The US agreed to withdraw missiles from Turkey in exchange for the Soviets not bringing missiles into Cuba.
On the issue of Vietnam, Kennedy oversaw the first escalation of American forces in Vietnam from a few hundred to several thousand. His idea was for the US to keep a low profile in countries like Vietnam and let the countries take the lead in battling the Communists with US troops only as "advisers". The problem in Vietnam is the Diem regime was corrupt and incompetent, and the US troops ended up doing the fighting.
There was a coup d'etat against Diem in the summer of 1963, and he was killed. I don't know off-hand what role the CIA played in that and if Kennedy sanctioned it. Would Kennedy have committed more troops to Vietnam like Johnson did in 1964? I don't pretend to know. He was committed to fighting Communism, the South Vietnam military wasn't capable of fighting on its own, and Kennedy didn't like to lose. I wouldn't have bet much that he wouldn't have done pretty much the same thing that Johnson did.
Well Camelot was not just Jack, but JFK, RFK, and Ted Kennedy, that trio dominated politics in the early 60s, and their influence got other Kennedy's elected (Joe Kennedy II, Joe Kennedy III, Patrick Kennedy II, (all Us Reps), and Kathleen Harrington Kennedy (Lt. Gov Maryland) and Caroline became ambassador to Japan, Jean Kennedy became ambassador to Ireland). Couple that with Citizens energy and the special Olympics, hardly a family in US history can compare to their legacy, that said, it is romanticized because he was killed (as well as Lincoln).
Actually, "Camelot" referred to just JFK's presidency, and Jackie was probably at least as big a part of it as Jack. It was the first time that a US President and First Lady appeared as the upper class sophisticates that they were rather than attempting to appear more "folksy". Jackie, in particular, was a patron of the arts, and it was her sophistication and taste that gave the Kennedy administration its artistic patina. Jack added his touch to "Camelot" with bringing his "best and brightest" to his White House staff and cabinet.
The other Kennedys were important for building the family "dynasty" but they weren't actually part of "Camelot" except for RFK who served as his brother's Attorney General.
There was a coup d'etat against Diem in the summer of 1963, and he was killed. I don't know off-hand what role the CIA played in that and if Kennedy sanctioned it. Would Kennedy have committed more troops to Vietnam like Johnson did in 1964? I don't pretend to know. He was committed to fighting Communism, the South Vietnam military wasn't capable of fighting on its own, and Kennedy didn't like to lose. I wouldn't have bet much that he wouldn't have done pretty much the same thing that Johnson did.
The CIA definitely sanctioned the coup against President Diem. That has been established by public investigations of the CIA by the Church Committee during the 1970's. Its a long story, but even though Diem was an elected leader he became very unpopular because of the repressive way he chose to govern and because he was a Catholic and the vast majority of South Vietnamese people were Buddhist. Several priests set themselves on fire in Saigon to protest Diem. It made for some pretty provocative pictures in the newspapers in those days. We perceived that the communists were making inroads because of Diem's unpopularity. There were also military people in South Vietnam who didn't care much for Diem either. There was General Minh and Colonel Ky. The CIA basically gave Minh and Ky the "greenlight" to overthrow Diem.
Here though is the part that some people don't understand. Neither Kennedy, nor top administration officials expected Diem to be murdered. Diem became aware that a coup was taking place and contacted the American Ambassador in Saigon at that time who was Henry Cabot Lodge. Ambassador Lodge had been instructed to offer Diem safe passage out of the country. Diem made the mistake of refusing this offer and instead, escaped from the presidential palace with his brother. Sometime after that occurred, the two were taken prisoner by military forces who were involved in the coup. The best evidence is that Diem and his brother were fatally shot while riding in an armored personnel carrier pursuant to orders from General Minh. When JFK got word that Diem and his brother had been murdered, he was quite shocked.
I personally think the talk that Kennedy would have gotten us out of Vietnam to be implausible. What is not understood is that the public pressure to stand up to the communists at that time was overwhelming. A politician not doing so, risked unpopularity and defeat in the next election. It took years of hopeless fighting in Vietnam to turn a bare majority of the American public against the Vietnam War. Its reasonable to think JFK may have pursued a different kind of war against the communists than Johnson did. However, its unreasonable to think he would have skipped it altogether. When it comes down to it, its not much more than a difference in style.
Really? What could be more decadent than Thomas Jefferson living the life-style of a European aristocrat while screwing his slave concubine and running up huge debts all over Virginia while waxing lyrical about the glories of republicanism, freedom, and the virtue of the "yeoman farmer"?
The paradox of the USA's BRIEF period of slavery cannot be easily explained since we weren't alive then. But we DO KNOW that slavery was in existence for many many centuries before our country's birth. Just like we cannot comprehend why the first American SLAVE OWNER documented in this period Anthony Johnson, was black. Thanks to a COURT ruling that he could turn indentured servants who were supposed to be freed after 7 years, into slaves indefinitely. So in 1655, a black man created slavery.
Also the paradox that by 1830 there were 3,775 black families who owned black slaves in the South.
Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC):
Quote:
Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another's and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature. Whereas the lower animals cannot even apprehend a principle; they obey their instincts. And indeed the use made of slaves and of tame animals is not very different; for both with their bodies minister to the needs of life.
Nature would like to distinguish between the bodies of freemen and slaves, making the one strong for servile labor, the other upright, and although useless for such services, useful for political life in the arts both of war and peace. But the opposite often happens--that some have the souls and others have the bodies of freemen. And doubtless if men differed from one another in the mere forms of their bodies as much as the statues of the Gods do from men, all would acknowledge that the inferior class should be slaves of the superior. And if this is true of the body, how much more just that a similar distinction should exist in the soul? but the beauty of the body is seen, whereas the beauty of the soul is not seen. It is clear, then, that some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right.
Some people would make a case that the Liberal Progressive statism is creating a new definition of modern day "slavery" in this era/generation of people enslaved the corrupt politicians, the new MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE. And of course, facing institutional poverty in exchange for votes.
Last edited by runswithscissors; 11-27-2013 at 05:56 AM..
The paradox of the USA's BRIEF period of slavery cannot be easily explained since we weren't alive then. But we DO KNOW that slavery was in existence for many many centuries before our country's birth. Just like we cannot comprehend why the first American SLAVE OWNER documented in this period Anthony Johnson, was black. Thanks to a COURT ruling that he could turn indentured servants who were supposed to be freed after 7 years, into slaves indefinitely. So in 1655, a black man created slavery.
Also the paradox that by 1830 there were 3,775 black families who owned black slaves in the South.
Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC):
Some people would make a case that the Liberal Progressive statism is creating a new definition of modern day "slavery" in this era/generation of people enslaved the corrupt politicians, the new MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE. And of course, facing institutional poverty in exchange for votes.
The poster I was responding to claimed that what he/she views as "decadence" began with JFK. I pointed out that behavior that many would consider "decadent" has been part of this country for 200+ years.
If you want to be an apologist for chattel slavery in the US, do it in some other thread. This thread is about the Kennedy administration.
The CIA definitely sanctioned the coup against President Diem. That has been established by public investigations of the CIA by the Church Committee during the 1970's. Its a long story, but even though Diem was an elected leader he became very unpopular because of the repressive way he chose to govern and because he was a Catholic and the vast majority of South Vietnamese people were Buddhist. Several priests set themselves on fire in Saigon to protest Diem. It made for some pretty provocative pictures in the newspapers in those days. We perceived that the communists were making inroads because of Diem's unpopularity. There were also military people in South Vietnam who didn't care much for Diem either. There was General Minh and Colonel Ky. The CIA basically gave Minh and Ky the "greenlight" to overthrow Diem.
Here though is the part that some people don't understand. Neither Kennedy, nor top administration officials expected Diem to be murdered. Diem became aware that a coup was taking place and contacted the American Ambassador in Saigon at that time who was Henry Cabot Lodge. Ambassador Lodge had been instructed to offer Diem safe passage out of the country. Diem made the mistake of refusing this offer and instead, escaped from the presidential palace with his brother. Sometime after that occurred, the two were taken prisoner by military forces who were involved in the coup. The best evidence is that Diem and his brother were fatally shot while riding in an armored personnel carrier pursuant to orders from General Minh. When JFK got word that Diem and his brother had been murdered, he was quite shocked.
I personally think the talk that Kennedy would have gotten us out of Vietnam to be implausible. What is not understood is that the public pressure to stand up to the communists at that time was overwhelming. A politician not doing so, risked unpopularity and defeat in the next election. It took years of hopeless fighting in Vietnam to turn a bare majority of the American public against the Vietnam War. Its reasonable to think JFK may have pursued a different kind of war against the communists than Johnson did. However, its unreasonable to think he would have skipped it altogether. When it comes down to it, its not much more than a difference in style.
Excellent post. I also don't think that Kennedy would have been able to leave Vietnam. At that time, the popular theory about SE Asia was the "domino theory" which said that if Vietnam fell to the Communists, all the other nations there -- Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, etc -- would fall, too.
That Kennedy was able to diffuse the Cuban Missile Crisis and get a nuclear test ban treaty meant that he wasn't an idiot like some in the military. It didn't mean that he wasn't a dyed-in-the-wool anti-Communist.
I think lots of people today simply just don't understand how the fear of the "Communist menace" permeated American society in the 1950s and 1960s. It was a very real thing to Americans of the time, even to kids who didn't understand it all but still got the bejesus scared out of them when they overheard adults talking politics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
