JFK was the first president for whom I ever voted, and his assassination was felt as, first and foremost, a loss of energy driving what portended to be the advancement of a truly progressive (not at all in the Communist or socialist sense or Hillary's use of the word to hide a liberal) coming of age for a new and idealistic generation. The political persuasions of the assassin(s) were of little interest while the answer to the question, "Why?" was of first concern and, "Who?" followed in second place for prominence among us. Oswald was portrayed, and accepted, as a nut-case with ambiguous and irrelevant ideology and, most prominently, a tool. Johnson was high on the list of populous suspects, as was Nixon---and the putative "ideology" here was reduced to largely "personal" motives.
So, the author's intellectualizing is a distant, post-hoc confabulation of sensible events arranged to falsely suggest a cause and its effects.
At the time, it was plain and simple as Why?, Who? and, the one not yet settled, How?
It was not the Death of Kennedy, per se, that fueled the anger, one which was not directed at his assassin either. And, the anger of that young generation turned, not against Conservatives (as opposed to Liberals, and as the author suggests), but toward "The Establishment." The reason for this being the focus was not the ideology of Oswald, or anybody for that matter, but rather the fact that post-mortem machinations pulled the curtains back to expose the really seamy core of the then political and cultural establishment. The last straw was the sealing of the Warren Report from any form of public inspection. From that moment on, those "in power" were no longer trusted. That was the spawning of the american radical movement of the '60's.
I have to agree. I was 19 at the time of the assasination, and remember quite well the overall reaction to the sealing of the whitewash job. The anger rose quickly, and soon became random violence the like of which had not been seen in this country.