I stumbled across this on Pinterest today …
“If by a ‘Liberal’ they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a ‘Liberal’, then I’m proud to say I’m a ‘Liberal’.” -John F. Kennedy (1960)
Looking at the record, I would say that JFK was a conservative.
Rgds,
*p*
You might say that. But at least parts of ‘the record’ (in this case the history of that traditional hotbed of psychedelic and liberal activism, the U.S. Marshal’s service) show differently.
Recording Kennedy’s role in the integration of Mississippi State University with the figurehead enrolment of James Meredith …
The job of seeing to it that Meredith was safely admitted to the school clearly fell upon the federal government, and soon enough, President Kennedy sent deputy marshals into the fray.
Three times, Chief U.S. Marshal J.P. McShane led a small contingent of deputies — without loaded guns — to register Meredith. But in each instance, they were stopped by state politicians and state troopers who were taking orders from Barnett. Finally, President Kennedy escalated matters by ordering a much larger group of deputies — 127 — to get the job done.
http://www.usmarshals.gov/history/miss/02.htm
Let’s play ‘Spot the conservative’ in this passage:
In his book, “An American Insurrection: The Battle of Oxford, Mississippi,” author William Doyle stated that the NAACP’s backing was a key component in Meredith’s eventual success. Doyle also noted that two other factors were equally important: John F. Kennedy, seen as the first president to support civil rights, took office in January 1961; and the Brown ruling was still the official law of the land.
Kennedy, who scored a narrow election victory with the help of many black voters, would indeed turn out to be sympathetic to Meredith’s cause, but the same could not be said of Mississippi’s governor, Ross Barnett. In a statewide television broadcast, Barnett stated, “[Mississippi] will not surrender to the evil and illegal forces of tyranny … [and] no school will be integrated in Mississippi while I am your governor.” Later, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Meredith attending classes. But Barnett was still defiant. He went on to call Meredith’s attempt to enter Ole Miss “our greatest crisis since the War Between the States.”
Now, poormastery, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least to learn that many of those opposed to the civil rights movement or to JFK’s social reforms (actually carried out after his assassination with the catch-cry ‘not one word changed’) were Democrats. That’s kind of my point: the labels need defining at a granular level.
You and I are both liberals and we’re both conservatives. We share much agreement.
– P
Peter,
Was the Bay of Pigs invasion a show of JFK’s liberalism?
Or perhaps the Cuban Missile Crisis showed how JFK was going to “break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad”?
Perhaps starting the Vietnam war showed JFK’s liberal credentials best?
Were CIA interventions in South America and Asia under JFK liberal?
Perhaps strongly supporting the Israelis against the Arabs was quintessential liberalism? I suppose this would make CIA support for the coup against the Iraqi government could then similarly be described as liberal?
Maybe JFK authorising MLK to be wire tapped was an expression of his liberalism? JFK was in general regarded as fairly lukewarm in his support of the Civil Rights movement.
Personally, I am not so sure how well JFK measures up against his “liberal” definition, but I think that he was fenerally a very good President in any case. Oliver Stone style revisionism of what JFK actually did isn’t really needed?
Rgds,
*p*
Fair points all, except the King wire-tapping which, given Hoover’s real politik ascendancy would have occurred off-book anyway.
My sense of it, and we have discussed this aspect before, is how plausible the Domino Theory was — and how the USSR’s demonstrated expansionism and belligerence (e.g. Berlin) as well as Communist China’s proxy war in SE Asia — against France, if you recall, before the USA — *must* have cemented mindsets in the US establishment. Including Kennedy’s.
Really, my ponderings these days about labels and self-identification lead me to consider you and me as part of fairly broad church [insert label here] rather than on opposing ‘sides’ of a spectrum.
I’m exploring what it means (to me) to be in part ‘conservative’, ‘moderate’, ‘liberal’, ‘centrist’ … perhaps in a way that seems pedestrian to you (?) but I’m feeling my way.
In my view, despite your litany, Kennedy was a ‘liberal’. He should be measured by the ambience of the political times — yes, sure, ‘a new generation’ compared to Eisenhower etc, but as a WW2 veteran himself, and a student of the rise of fascism, JFK was not a million miles from the prevailing world view of the establishment elite.
One can call JFK’s of-necessity pandering to the arms industry (e.g. the phantom ‘missile gap’), the ‘intelligence community’ (ha!) and the cultural and space races cynical posturing … but if tempted to do so, it’s important to remember and pay tribute to the idea — the imperative, even — that one must be elected to change things. (Or, maybe, even, tweak them.) The urge to have your ‘team’ be in power, as opposed to the ‘others’ trumps all.
C’est la vie.
– P
Don’t argue with Peter he’s got opinionated link fodder.
He must be right.
*Reason* with me Craig. I’m open to hearing a point of view. (Although you don’t seem to believe me on that point.)
– P
I don’t have a view on JFK’s leanings. but my point of view here was PM examples far out weigh the evidence he was a Liberal. However politicians regardless of peoples attempts on putting them in a stereo type box it just doesn’t work. For some reason the public continue to do this. Maybe to ease their own slant. ” I am a liberal, I like what JFK stood for” lets find the Liberal actions JFK displayed and focus on those.”
Sure all politicians do tend to lean more one way or another. But like Music its almost impossible to place them in a Singular Genre
Peter,
“Really, my ponderings these days about labels and self-identification lead me to consider you and me as part of fairly broad church [insert label here] rather than on opposing ‘sides’ of a spectrum.”
I think you are far more partisan than I am.
When I was at University, one lecturer asked the students to put their hands up to indicate whether they were a liberal or a conservative. I put my hand up as a liberal (as did about 75% of my classmates – such is the way with youth).
Ever since this time, I suppose I have become more conservative in my outlook. Humans generally find fast change disconcerting. I suspect this fear of change is hard wired from evolution, because dramatic change can be dangerous to survival. Whilst I admire the changes Labour made in NZ 1984 – 1990, I appreciate that this fast change destroyed many lives. There is nearly always shades of grey involved, rather than black and white answers…
My voting patterns (if I bothered) would be unlikely to be consistent to one party. For sure, I wouldn’t vote for any huge government advocates. Big government is the road to totalitarianism, and is responsible for the worst crimes against humanity in the twentieth century (National Socialism, Stalinism and Maoism to name but three).
Of course, I have voted Labour in NZ, and would vote National now.
To be honest, I cannot imagine you voting National / Republican / Conservative (NZ / US / UK).
I think my lack of partisanship is about taking time to work out why people believe what they believe. Putting yourself in their shoes (empathy) often results in someone else’s views not seeming so crazy after all, even if their verbalisation of this view is somewhat colourful and hyperbolic.
Thus, I can imagine say Obama compared to Romney has different appeals to different people. If Obama loses, I won’t simply conclude that he lost because half of Americans are racists, as many liberals will do.
If Obama does win, I don’t think the consequences will be the end of the world (just Mr Carter style muddling along for a few years). Yet liberal fanatics act as if a vote for Mr Romney is like voting for Adolf Hitler, and the world as we know it will end. I strongly doubt Mr Romney as President would prove to be anywhere near as extreme as the liberals claim. They cry wolf?
It is important to ignore the rhetoric of what politicians say, and look at what they actually do. For example, Mr Romney brought in similar health care reforms as Mr Obama (although implementing reforms at State level is typically preferable to the Mr Obama Federal level implemented reforms).
Mr Kennedy was an arch liberal and Mr Nixon was an arch conservative?
No, only if you listen to rhetoric, and ignore the actions.
I think you are correct that for his day, Mr Kennedy could be perceived as somewhat liberal, although history has exaggerated his liberalism. JFK wasn’t wrong about Communism, and in trying circumstances, I think he generally did a good job. Similarly, Nixon in many (somewhat complicated) ways wasn’t so conservative…
I can now read Marx, Keynes and Hayek, and like (and indeed dislike) aspects of all their theories.
I find different views interesting, and I like a lack of neutrality – what is the point of sitting on the fence? This is why I like your blog. I sense this is what Craig finds frustrating?
Rgds,
*p*