Where's the Aura? (Without Question, The Best JFK Editorial That I Have Read This Week)

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Friday, November 21, 2003 | CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS

[presidio9]

A short while ago, I chanced to be in Dallas, Texas, making a documentary film. One of the shots involved a camera angle from a big commercial tower overlooking Dealey Plaza and the former "book depository," and it was later necessary for us to take the road through the celebrated underpass. The crew I worked with was younger than I am (you may as well make that much younger) and consisted of a Chinese-Australian, an English girl brought up in Africa, a Jewish guy from Brooklyn and other elements of a cross-section. As we passed the "Grassy Knoll," and looked up at the window, and saw the cross incised in the tarmac, I was interested by their lack of much interest. The event of Nov. 22, 1963 isn't half as real to them as the moment, say, when the planes commandeered by suicide-murderers flew into the New York skyline. Nor, as I realized, is it half as real or poignant to me as the site of Ford's Theater in Washington D.C. Time has a way of assigning value.

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

OK- I guess I follow that. I may have missed the point because I hate basketball and never read sports columns about it.

[Helms]

4-29-02: Culture Watch

Joseph Kennedy and the Jews
By Edward Renehan, Jr.
Mr. Renehan's most recent book is The Kennedys at War, 1937-1945, published in April 2002 by Doubleday.

Arriving at London in early 1938, newly-appointed U.S. Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy took up quickly with another transplanted American. Viscountess Nancy Witcher Langhorne Astor assured Kennedy early in their friendship that he should not be put off by her pronounced and proud anti-Catholicism.

"I'm glad you are smart enough not to take my [views] personally," she wrote. Astor pointed out that she had a number of Roman Catholic friends - G.K. Chesterton among them - with whom she shared, if nothing else, a profound hatred for the Jewish race. Joe Kennedy, in turn, had always detested Jews generally, although he claimed several as friends individually. Indeed, Kennedy seems to have tolerated the occasional Jew in the same way Astor tolerated the occasional Catholic.

As fiercely anti-Communist as they were anti-Semitic, Kennedy and Astor looked upon Adolf Hitler as a welcome solution to both of these "world problems" (Nancy's phrase). No member of the so-called "Cliveden Set" (the informal cabal of appeasers who met frequently at Nancy Astor's palatial home) seemed much concerned with the dilemma faced by Jews under the Reich. Astor wrote Kennedy that Hitler would have to do more than just "give a rough time" to "the killers of Christ" before she'd be in favor of launching "Armageddon to save them. The wheel of history swings round as the Lord would have it. Who are we to stand in the way of the future?" Kennedy replied that he expected the "Jew media" in the United States to become a problem, that "Jewish pundits in New York and Los Angeles" were already making noises contrived to "set a match to the fuse of the world."

During May of 1938, Kennedy engaged in extensive discussions with the new German Ambassador to the Court of St. James's, Herbert von Dirksen. In the midst of these conversations (held without approval from the U.S. State Department), Kennedy advised von Dirksen that President Roosevelt was the victim of "Jewish influence" and was poorly informed as to the philosophy, ambitions and ideals of Hitler's regime. (The Nazi ambassador subsequently told his bosses that Kennedy was "Germany's best friend" in London.)

Columnists back in the states condemned Kennedy's fraternizing. Kennedy later claimed that 75% of the attacks made on him during his Ambassadorship emanated from "a number of Jewish publishers and writers. ... Some of them in their zeal did not hesitate to resort to slander and falsehood to achieve their aims." He told his eldest son, Joe Jr., that he disliked having to put up with "Jewish columnists" who criticized him with no good reason.

Like his father, Joe Jr. admired Adolf Hitler. Young Joe had come away impressed by Nazi rhetoric after traveling in Germany as a student in 1934. Writing at the time, Joe applauded Hitler's insight in realizing the German people's "need of a common enemy, someone of whom to make the goat. Someone, by whose riddance the Germans would feel they had cast out the cause of their predicament. It was excellent psychology, and it was too bad that it had to be done to the Jews. The dislike of the Jews, however, was well-founded. They were at the heads of all big business, in law etc. It is all to their credit for them to get so far, but their methods had been quite unscrupulous ... the lawyers and prominent judges were Jews, and if you had a case against a Jew, you were nearly always sure to lose it. ... As far as the brutality is concerned, it must have been necessary to use some ... ."

Brutality was in the eye of the beholder. Writing to Charles Lindbergh shortly after Kristallnacht in November of 1938, Joe Kennedy Sr. seemed more concerned about the political ramifications stemming from high-profile, riotous anti-Semitism than he was about the actual violence done to the Jews. "... Isn't there some way," he asked, "to persuade [the Nazis] it is on a situation like this that the whole program of saving western civilization might hinge? It is more and more difficult for those seeking peaceful solutions to advocate any plan when the papers are filled with such horror." Clearly, Kennedy's chief concern about Kristallnacht was that it might serve to harden anti-fascist sentiment at home in the United States.

Like his friend Charles Coughlin (an anti-Semitic broadcaster and Roman Catholic priest), Kennedy always remained convinced of what he believed to be the Jews' corrupt, malignant, and profound influence in American culture and politics. "The Democratic [party] policy of the United States is a Jewish production," Kennedy told a British reporter near the end of 1939, adding confidently that Roosevelt would "fall" in 1940.

But it wasn't Roosevelt who fell. Kennedy resigned his ambassadorship just weeks after FDR's overwhelming triumph at the polls. He then retreated to his home in Florida: a bitter, resentful man nurturing religious and racial bigotries that put him out-of-step with his country, and out-of-touch with history.

[lilylangtree]

Since JFK was Clintoon's mentor, describing one is accurately describing the other.

[carton253]

I don't need or want your opinion of the essence of my argument ... especially since it's wrong.

ROTFLOL! You are too much. You do not hesitate to give your opinion on the essence of any one’s argument on this thread. In fact, sometimes for an answer (when you are not changing the argument in mid air) is an attack on my ability to understand your argument. I understand it all too well. Your line of reasoning is not that hard to follow.

I choose Iran to illustrate a point. The analogy was deliberately excessive. Kennedy went because he was courageous and I question your clarity of mind if you can't see it.

The bold makes my point in the above paragraph. What you are saying is that Kennedy was courageous. Bull jive! He was a politician. He went to Dallas because he needed Texas to win the 1964 election. And your reasoning makes Kennedy more of an idiot. If you are going into “Iran”, then put the bubble on the car. Don’t make yourself a sitting duck. I’d leave this argument if I were you… you are only digging yourself a deeper hold.

So taking anti-biotics is equivalent to taking opiates?

Now, I am partisan because people close to Kennedy have said that he received injections that had speed in it.

I was saying that government is machiavellian because the world is machiavellian...and that it's childish to deny that reality. Machiavellian means that the end often does justify the means. I don't know how I can be any clearer.

Thanks for that definition, Captain Scrabble. I don’t know what I would do if you weren’t here to explain such terms to me. You have changed the argument from “everyone else is doing it", to machiavellian… award yourself one point for every syllable in machiavellian.

Kennedy was a relative novice and Khrushchev based his actions on that assessment.

Stop, please stop! My sides hurt from laughing so much.

Of course he bugged his office. So what?

Not what you said for the last umpteen posts. You said that Hitchens was crawling in the toilet with this accusation. Now it seems that you just admitted that Hitchens was correct. We can leave this argument alone.

I think you better study history a little more carefully. Reagan was a very unusual guy - that's why he's revered (and reviled). And Bush? 911 - or have you forgotten?

Well, no, I haven’t forgotten. That’s the point I’m making. According to your assessment: Mr. Kennedy was a weak willed, bullied president while Mr. Reagan managed to defeat the enemy Mr. Kennedy cowered before and Mr. Bush is busily defeating those who attacked us on 9/11. I’ll take a Reagan/Bush over your Kennedy any day.

[Paulus Invictus]

Only one son, Joe, was lost in military service to the country. The other two were a dis-service to the country and were lost to assassins, not in military action where the term '"in service to their country" is always used.

[presidio9]

I trust you are still "dazed and confused." My remarks concerning Bias had to do with unrealized potential and why people still seem obsessed with Kennedy who was long on potential and short on accomplishments. My point was that this obsession is not limited to Kennedy. Some sports writers (Mike Wilbon) are still writing about the unrealized potential of Len Bias.

Three years ago the Basketball Hall Of Fame announced it's top-50 all time team. I forget, where did Bias finish on that list? My point is this: I see Kennedy finish in the top ten presidents of all time rankings all the time. Often, he's top-5. What this tells me is
1) There are a lot of ignorant people in this country
2) The liberal media spin on Camelot has been incredibly effective.

[Wolfstar]

Partisan revisionism at its best.

What the heck are you talking about?! JFK was a terrible president — worse in a number of respects than Bill Cinton. Hitchens is absolutely correct in his description of JFK in this article. It's time to bury the myth and face the truth.

[presidio9]

back... BACK.... a-WAY back... and that baaaaall iiiiiiis... OUTTA HERE!!!

[carton253]

I can't wait to find out how childish, simple-minded, and wrong I am... LOL! I'm sure liberallarry won't disappoint.

[brownie]

I don't think so. The man was a great leader and, like all such, his legacy will be discussed and disputes for a long, long time.

I don't believe Kennedy was a great or terrible president, simply an average president, but one who made some terrific speeches. Indeed, most of the left today would despise Kennedy if he were president today, because of his tax philosophy and forign policy.

The problem I have always had w/ Kennedy worship (I'm not claiming you worship him), is that I am unsure what great, or even lasting things, it is that he supposedly accomplished during his presidency. What great and lasting policy initiatives did he achieve? What great foriegn policy triumphs is he creditd with (the berlin air lift? not starting WWIII over cuba?)? I'm not sure I can think of any.

However, I think Kennedy will always be an icon in America, simply b/c he was a good speaker, good looking, and died young.

[Wolfstar]

...an inspiration to an entire generation of young people...

I was a young person at the time, and he was no inspiration to me — unless it was an inspiration to become a life-long Republican.

[presidio9]

You may be disappointed. Did you catch post 72?

Larry ran away like the child that he is. He made no point other than he did not like the article. He defended none of his position. Then he cut and ran. Yep, typical display of liberal character.

[Wolfstar]

...most Americans alive at the time remember exactly where they were and what they were doing when Kennedy was killed.

Ah, yes, I was waiting for someone to trot out that old meaningless cliche. Hey, I remember where I was and what I was doing when my father died, and when my son was born, and when other significant events happened in my life. I remember where I was and what I was doing when George W. Bush was elected president. I remember where I was and what I was doing the moment I heard Bill Clinton say, "It depends on what the meaning of the word IS, is." That's the way normal human memory works: We more easily remember things that are significant to us, and quickly forget the mundane. Nothing special or magical or Arthurian (as in Camelot) about it.

[Helms]

--- ROSEMARY KENNEDY -- MONICA LEWINSKY ---ELVIS--- WHY NOMINATE AN HONORARY BATHROOM GIRL?

Rosemary Kennedy knew her glamourous siblings loved her but her letters show she was deeply saddened by the lack of acceptance she felt from her father. She was a teenager now and hadn't been allowed to come back home for years. Her mother who she was named for, was desperately looking for a way to cure Rosemary of her over-eating, her tantrums and her disobedient way of sneaking out of the nunnery to drink and meet guys. Meanwhile her popular sister Kathleen (who was later killed in a plane crash with her married lover) was embarking on a career in journalism. Her current project included research on labotomies as a cure for certain kinds of retardation. When she shared this information at home, Mrs. Kennedy looked hopeful. Kathleen quickly spoke to discourage her mother from thinking of it as a cure to Rosemary's "difficulties" specifying that it was much too harsh a procedure that would leave Rosemary unable to care for herself forever. A few years later the Kennedy girls were invited to be presented at the British Court to Queen Elizabeth... ALL of them! Including twenty-three year old Rosemary, who had attended almost no formal engagements because she had been kept out of high-profile Kennedy affairs. Hoping that Rosemary wouldn't embarass the family, they went through rigorous dress rehearsals practicing how to walk in an elaborate dress making her nervous and agitated. When the big moment came for Rosemary to walk down the aisle to the Queen she tripped on her dress and stumbled slightly regaining her composure quickly, ending with an elegant curtsey. People at the banquet afterwards commented that she was a very sweet pretty girl and a wonderful dancer. A few days later her father took her to the doctor for a "check-up" without telling anyone else. Rosemary Kennedy was labotomized during that dreadful visit. There were no pain killers administered and she was totally awake as they cut away at her mind. She has since been institutionalized, currently living in St. Coletta's Convent in Wisconsin. Now age 82, unable to care for herself since she was 23, Rosemary will always be bathed and fed by strangers, and she's a hell of alot better off with them then that fucked up Kennedy family!

One of Rosemary's last days as a free-thinking human. She was known to be a great dancer and a fun loving party girl with a voluptuous bod! Did bad habits and a bad temper seal her fate?

EMAIL NOMINATIONS TO: bathroomgirls@hotmail.com

[BlessedByLiberty]

Bravo for your observation; I am so happy you said this! Every station is showing the obligatory responses to the "where were you when Kennedy was shot?" question. (Matthews even had segments with Kerry/McCain, et al)

Should they ask those same people "do you remember: insert any significant national or personal event" and the detailed responses will be similar. Only to the Kennedy question does the media link any importance to that collective national memory as significant.

[NYCVirago]

Fer many liberal Democrats--perhaps including LL--you are exactly correct..."Camelot" was a heartstring-tuggin' bit of propagandizin' on a scale never before seen and--with the rise in alternative medias--never to be seen again. If you were a young idealist back in the early-60's, immersed in said propaganda, I can see where it'd be tough to give it up.

And Camelot was completely a posthumous creation of JFK's presidency, conjured up by Jackie Kennedy and William Manchester. There were no references to Camelot until after Kennedy's death.

[cyclotic]

ping to read comments at home. Read the article in WSJ today. Agree.

[Mudboy Slim]

"Camelot was completely a posthumous creation of JFK's presidency..."

It may not have been specifically called "Camelot", but the seeds were sown while JFK was alive, imho...the Medyuh had created this myth of this vibrant young man and his young, pretty, well-dressed wife and perfectly-cute family. Jackie O ran with it after Jack was assassinated, but the Vast LeftWing Medyuh Whore'd was in on the charade since before Kennedy was ever elected. To my understanding, Camelot only ended when John-John died.

FReegards...MUD

[presidio9]

And Camelot was completely a posthumous creation of JFK's presidency, conjured up by Jackie Kennedy and William Manchester. There were no references to Camelot until after Kennedy's death.

It is particularly galling to those of us who were born after he died. When we try to ask "exactly what was the big deal with this joker, liberals huff and explain to us: "You don't understand. I know exactly where I was when I heard that he had been shot." Big deal. I remember exactly where I was when I heard that Regan was shot. I remember exactly where I was when I heard that the Pope was shot. I remember exactly where I was when I heard that Lennon was shot. For crying out loud, I remember exactly where I was when I heard Elvis was dead. So what? You gotta give me more than that.

[jpl]

The most ironic thing of all about the worship of JFK is that, if he were in power today, he'd most likely be considered to be "too far to the right" by the detritus that constitutes most of the Democratic party today.