Posted on 11/21/2003 6:43:23 AM PST by presidio9
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:50:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Exactly
If you prosper through auras and charisma and television magic, then you fade when your image does. Christopher Booker's The Neophiliacs, a study of English society during the Kennedy era, was a good examination of the phenomenon: great collective dreams are created, grow, burst like bubbles and leave a bitter taste behind.
Those who did not live in his time cannot truly gauge his impact, he is only a historical figure not much different than George Washington or William Henry Harrison or Caligula.
But among historical figures some are remembered and some are not. In every generation most are not sure of the current president let alone the record and importance of previous generations. But among the literate? I think Kennedy is still a powerfull voice.
Is that not correct?
I remember what I was doing when I heard that Kennedy had been shot. I also remember what I was doing when I first read the news about Teddy's accident on Chappaquiddick.
Nope. I went back and read the post. No ocean liners. Sorry. So not only are you uninformed, partisan, and a bad writer. You're delusional to boot. Poor Larry.
The government of the United States does not change its policies and committments every time a new President is elected. It's like an ocean liner; except in an emergency it takes miles to change direction.
from Post #135
"Ask not what your country can do for you...."
Was it you who said this was plagiarized? Is this what you were referring to
John F. Kennedy is credited for saying, “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” But it was really his ghostwriter, John Kenneth Galbraith, who wrote it. And Galbraith may have lifted the idea from Oliver Wendell Holmes who said, “We... recall what our country has done for each of us, and to ask ourselves what we can do for our country in return.”
If so it's a pretty lame criticism
More generally, you say that Hitchens point is that Kennedy's style is what's idolized, not his actions - which didn't amount to much and can be harshly criticized. You agree completely.
And you think that Kennedy, personally, didn't amount to much either - that he was largely the creation of a rich, ambitious, and dishonest father, and was an addled drug addict, incompetent and weak.
Is that a fair summation? I want to be sure before I reply.
Here is the official account of how PT109 was lost and what happened subsequently.
Do you have any evidence that it is inaccurate or doctored? If so, cite it.
Joe Kenneddy picked a PT boat because they were statistically one of the safeest combat deployments a member of the armed forces could have in WW II
Does the description of combat described above seem to you to be a "safe" combat deployment? If it is accurate would you say that the actions of Kennedy and his men were "heroic"? Have you ever tried to swim for miles in unfamiliar ocean waters? In the dark? In combat?
from his article
Can we not at least agree that his zeal for the assassination of President Diem -- whom he had installed at some price in blood
Diem was installed by the Eisenhower administration, in the aftermath of Dien Bien Phu, after a conference which divided the country.
No historian/reporter of Hitchens stature and knowledge would make such a mistake if he were at the top of his game. A sure sign it was Hitchens who was addled and careless - and not just here - but throughout his piece.
On VietNam.
Kennedy continued a policy begun under Truman. We (the U.S.) took the position that Indo-China was vital to our interests, that we could not let it fall to the Communists. At first that meant supporting the French, then it meant installing a government favorable to us. When that government began to fail we began supporting it militarily and financially. Hitchens gets his facts wrong on this one. Kennedy cannot be blamed or credited for this policy. The fact is it began failing almost from the start.
Dallas and the assassination.
The South was not friendly to Kennedy. Much of it was dangerous territory. Nonetheless American Presidents of the time simply did not have the security we now consider normal. They did not think it proper to ride around in bullet-proof vehicles in fear of the populace. You cannot imagine the changes that have taken place in American attitudes and practices as a result of the war in VietNam. How could you? You weren't there.
Drug addiction.
Kennedy had a lot of ailments and took a lot of drugs. Various "experts" have various opinions of their effect on him. I can tell you that he never showed any sign of distress or addiction in his public appearances (I personally watched him run and swim in the Pacific ocean from a distance of feet rather than yards and noticed nothing). Nor do most who knew him well say anything about debilitating effects on his mentality.
Mafia connections
Joseph Sr. was a brilliant guy who made money in a lot of ways; stock speculation, shipping, movie distribution, etc. He also seems to have engaged in illegal liquor running. But you believe that his connections to the Mafia were dominant. Scwartz and Kessler your sources?
Policy towards Russia.
Too complicated to summarize.
Bugging the Oval office
A misunderstanding here. I thought bugging the office to be quite reasonable. Therefore I thought Hutchins criticism to be a cheap shot and utterly meaningless.
VietNam again.
No not bullied. The policy he was following had been in place since Truman. It was bipartisan for the most part - except that the Republicans also wanted to blame the Democrats for losing China under Roosevelt. To deviate from it was dangerous; it invited an immediate accusation of being soft on communism or - even worse - of being a sympathizer. And, there was no clear alternative. Letting VietNam go communist was unthinkable. Committing massive ground troops to Asia was unthinkable. Using atomic weapons was unthinkable. So Kennedy did what was considered prudent; he escalated minimally. It wasn't enough - the government of South VietNam collapsed. How he would have responded isn't known.
Generally, you and Hitchens point to the less than stellar achievements of Kennedy - VietNam, Cuba, stalemate in Europe - and conclude he wasn't effective.
That's wrong. It doesn't capture the context or spirit of the times. Containment was our policy. Atomic war was a dreadful possibility just barely removed from reality. Ground war in Asia was to be avoided at all costs. The Russians seemed powerful and growing in strength. Kennedy did well, very well, in inspiring us, in giving us strength and pride. You can see the value of that when Reagan replaced Carter. Why can't you see it in Kennedy? Sure not everyone felt that way about him. Do you think love of Reagan was universal? You'll just have to take my word for it - Kennedy's spirit moved not just Americans but people the world over. Hitchens is flat out wrong in his assessment of Kennedy as fluff.
This is probably your central point.
It's a vast oversimplification of history. Wars are fought over many years, with many strategies, and with lots of defeats and victories.
Kennedy may have been bullied and made mistakes but, ultimately, he forced Khruschev to back down - a very significant event in the Cold War. That, together with the inspiration and example he provided, certainly had an effect upon the captive peoples of Eastern and Central Europe as well as free peoples everywhere.
When Reagan came to power, the Soviet Empire was already in dissarray, a victim of the problems inherent in communism and the effectiveness of the policy of containment. It might have survived longer had he adopted a different policy - I don't want to detract from his achievement. But neither do I wish to support your contention that Kennedy did not contribute significantly to the demise of the Russian empire. Conveniently you don't notice that Reagan was not effective in the Middle East.
Bush is busily defeating those who attacked us on 9/11, you say. I hope so - but your judgement on the success or failure of his actions is premature. This also is a decades long battle whose outcome is far from pre-determined. Bush's strategy is bold and I support it. But bold is not always right - and a man's mettle is more accurately measured in adversity than in success.
To that I must add the death of Roosevelt, and someone even older would append Pearl Harbor. But you're absolutely right. These are the seminal events of current American political life.
It's not mine vast oversimplification of history... it's your. I was summing up your posts to me throughout the afternoon.
And I think it is too funny that to liberals, Democrats stood strong against Communism even while they appeased and backtracked and Reagan did nothing but shoot a bullet into the dead corpse.
Not that you would actually bother supplying it...
Don't. Anybody who would equate the Kennedy assassination with 911 is beneath my contempt.
You are missing the point. Had Kennedy performed his job adaquately, there would never have been the need for "heroism." As has been pointed out here, in the entire course of WW II, exactly one naval vessel was lost due to ramming: Kennedy's PT boat. PT's were light, fast, highly-maneuverable torpedo boats. In order for a much larger, slower, noisier destroyer to ram a PT, either the PT must be disabled, of someone had to screw up. Badly. The report indicates that the engines were fine. Kennedy screwed up. Three men died because of his screw up. And he was rewarded for this incident with a medal? Please.
Your summation has the same flaws as Hitchens summation of Kennedy's flaws.
But that's partly my fault.
Hitchens wants to say that Kennedy accomplished far less than his reputation implies and that that reputation is based more on charm and rhetoric than substance.
That can be debated rationally.
But Hitchens was careless with facts and characterizations as in
"President Diem -- whom he had installed at some price in blood" (Eisenhower installed Diem)
"willing to solicit Mafia hit-men for his foreign policy" (Eisenhower solicited the Mafia for the Castro hit. Kennedy didn't find out about it until a year after he became President)
"a president willing to risk nuclear war to save his own face" (John Foster Dulles recommended nuclear strikes after Dien Bien Phu. Perhaps Eisenhower acquised - it's not clear. In any case the threat of nuclear use to prevent Soviet agression was standard U.S. policy)
""Kennedy's War." (Kennedy was continuing a policy begun in the Truman era, a not unreasonable thing to do - especially for a newly-installed President with a strong anti-Communist bent)
and so on...
It irritated the hell out of me - especially since I knew Hitchens was smart enough to do better. So I figured I'd respond in kind - with carelessness and insults - to anyone who bought that kind of s**t.
No apologies. I had a good time doing it. :)
And I think it is too funny that to liberals, Democrats stood strong against Communism even while they appeased and backtracked and Reagan did nothing but shoot a bullet into the dead corpse
Each side seeks to denigrate the achievement of its opponents. What else is new in politics?
Not sure which I like better. This one, or the old "...but he would have gotten us out, had he lived." Doesn't matter. In either case, it's his war.
I can tell you that he never showed any sign of distress or addiction in his public appearances (I personally watched him run and swim in the Pacific ocean from a distance of feet rather than yards and noticed nothing).
Thanks for your expert opinion. Did it occur to you that you observed Kennedy immediately after he go a fix? In any case it matters not. His drug problem is well documented, and nobody can function at peak levels indefinitely on the substances he has taking. Remain in denial if you wish.
He also seems to have engaged in illegal liquor running.
This is the primary source of the Kennedy family fotune. Again, there is no disagreement on this.
Policy towards Russia.
Too complicated to summarize.
In other words, "I either can't defend his amateurism behavior that led Kruschev to disrespect the man and the country, or I have no idea what I am talking about."
A misunderstanding here. I thought bugging the office to be quite reasonable.
LOL. You tried to argue that it didn't happen. Go ahead and change your tune if you must.
VietNam again.
Who comitted the troops? Refresh my memory.
Kennedy was president for less than three years. In that time, he accopmplished very little. Why is this so hard for you to accept.
a)Ross was the lookout
b)Kennedy was at the wheel
c)They were patrolling on one engine at idle
d)It was dark
e)The destroyer was first spotted at a distance of 200-300 yards, and bearing down on them at high speed
f)Kennedy attempted to turn towards the destroyer in order to fire his fish but was rammed first
I'll repeat
Is the report innacurate or doctored?
If not then why do you disagree with it's findings - which do not charge Kennedy with a screw-up? I'm sure its authors were well-aware that destroyers were larger, noisier, and slower than PT boats.
I doubt your claim that only one vessel was lost to ramming in WWII but I'll have to research it.
And how about a reply to the latter part of #227. After reading the report do you still claim that PT duty was "safe"? Or are you going to weasel about "statistical"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.