Posted on 02/05/2002 9:00:05 AM PST by Angelique
DECONSTRUCTING THE JFK MYTH
A NICE DREAM BETTER LEFT TO THE THEATER
By: SARTRE
"Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country." - JFK
This stirring call to action best remembers the King of Camelot. He inspired an entire generation of youth to the call of public service. What noble intentions they had when entering into the hallowed halls of government duty. It is sad that the premise was so flawed! The invocation needed to read: "Ask not what you can do for your country -- Ask what we can do together to insure individual Liberty" . . .
How different our nation would be if Americans could understand the difference between these two calls to action. By the diminished standards of today, it can be argued that Kennedy was more of a reactionary than many current day Republicans. But let no one be misled, the propagandists of the ilk of Sargeant Shriver and Arthur Schlesinger Jr., designed a legend that defied factual references. Jack was a socialist through to the core. Don't be offended that a hero to some was really a predator with the charm of the tooth fairy. His open smile and quick wit, disguised the left hand that turned into the social excess of the 'Great Society'. What a legacy for decades to come. Its failure is evident to any sane person. The consequences of central planning and federal intrusion have allowed the multiple expansion of coercive government into every facet of society. Just what is great about this kingdom?
The likes of a Stewart Udall and Abraham Ribicoff were certainly in the vanguard of a 'collectivist' revolution. Who could forget good old Abe, taking up the George McGovern cause at the 1968 Chicago Democratic convention! But you don't have to rely on the ideology of appointees to strip away the sentiment of the fair haired hero. He proclaimed proudly to the NY Liberal Party on September 14, 1960:
"But 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."
Note the pompous self delusion when it came to rationalize the 'good intentions' of their cause. Couple this with a willingness to micro manage public policy that established the federal programs that would reshape America society, and we have the proof that for Kennedy, country really means - government. And what is a socialist, if not a 'public servant' of the State?
And who can question that JFK's cold war interventionist credentials? "And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility."
Read that again, 'our government', 'move ahead', 'liberal spirit of daring', the same old internationalist tradition of Wilson and FDR is pure socialism . . . So why not call it for what it is, the surrender of the Republic to the supremacy of the State. JFK surrounded himself with mad men like Robert McNamara and Dean Rusk, who's only allegiance was to project the empire into world affairs. The notion that Communism in Southeast Asia was the greatest threat to domestic tranquillity, when the comrades were devising similar programs down in foggy bottom, decries credulity.
So were we supposed to take JFK at his word when he proclaimed in his inaugural address that: "the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God." Or are we better served by reflecting upon the actual record that created the environment that allowed the next deceiver to establish that Great Society?
The Peace Corp established little accord, but broke ground to instill a false duty to serve the State. His failed attempts to introduce the Medicare approach of cradle to grave health, greased the skids for the dismay we now call socialized medicine. Kennedy's civil rights bill was meant to right former wrongs, but as any credible historian will reluctantly acknowledge, we are more divided today in culture and convictions, than back some forty years ago. The ideological polarization's are clear to any student of current events. So why do we indulge in national denial about the real results and adverse consequences of the 'New Frontier'?
The 'pretender emancipator', had no problem auctioning off the freedoms of the people to the overseers and carpetbaggers of the federal bureaucracy. The Kennedy plantation was extended far outside the Hyannis compound. The rise of the War on Poverty, has brought forth an even greater dependency. But this time, all American citizens are under the yoke of a federal master.
The JFK government admiration society, ushered in the era of State/Capitalism that merges both big business and big government into the same axis of public control. Individual rights became the ultimate causality of this socialism. So how does the Liberal reconcile the inherent conflict in their programs with "the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state"?
As we all know, consistency is seldom practiced while veneration for the federal crumbs are now a way of life. Idealism as the virtue of self sacrifice in support of government policy is a sickness. Kennedy is revered for preaching contempt for your own dignity. The illicit need to infuse a pathetic personal identity into the public persona, causes false heroes to be honored. When they become martyrs, factual chronicles become a fantasy. Just like Camelot, a nice dream better left for the theater.
What did these men do?
Wilson - WW1 and the failure of the league of nations
FDR - Depened the Great Depression, knew in advance the attack of Pearl Harbor and allowed the butchering to happen, not to mention destroying the constitution with his failed socialist programs.
Truman - Korean War and escalation of the Cold War.
Stevenson - Well he is the only Democrap I will ever respect....because he lost and never tasted power!
End analysis, all Democraps are failures who need liberal historians to make them into something that they never were or could be....when they aren't stealing other peoples quotations from other writings....ask Doris!
Just a bit of trivia...
-------------------
Would that he were dead and buried. However, the corruption that he established in life has been elevated into sainthood along with him and is not to be questioned. As Helen Thomas and many others believe, "He was inspired." That he fixed elections with quarter million dollar sacks of small bills sent to necessary people and had leftists gathered around him who subverted the Viet Nam war still haunts the national political scene.
-----------------------
Kennedy was semi-literate and could barely spell simple words. That line was probably penned by Ted Sorensen who wrote most of Kennedy's material for him.
Perhaps you missed the point. Right before our eyes, history is being rewritten. Indeed, the media is calling upon the Clinton admin to analyze the war, the economy, etc. Be careful not to overlook what may come in 2004
Not really.
Led by brother Ted, the whole repulsive family has infected politics throughout the country.
And they got there by waving JFK's bloody shirt to the clueless voters who love to believe the Camelot fairy tale.
The line of Kennedy's day went, "How can we beat the Russians if we still have poverty, segregation, poor roads and schools, etc." Many were convinced at the time.
Higgs has an interesting argument, but I don't entirely buy it. There were liberals like Woodrow Wilson before the Cold War. Reagan was a great Cold Warrior but no liberal. Europe saw its welfare state increase most after national defense concerns became less important. But Brands does suggest that another war could bring back liberalism and statism. I don't know if he put that in after 911 or he was a prophet.
Liberalism had a lot to do with the prospect of vast reserves of wealth that could be tapped by government. Liberal policies sop up that surplus very quickly and when those reserves are gone, liberalism declines. It's a bit like that in non-material terms, abstemious and self-denying behavior creates a secure environment. People born into that environment want to experiment and experience and tear down old institutions and remake society. When the damage is done, social and cultural liberalism recedes.
The problem for the future is that the government now, like those during previous wars, will make a lot of claims and promises that liberals will feel we have to make good on. Patriotism is a great thing, but as in JFK's day or Wilson's or FDR's, it does tend to bring some support for government interventionism in its wake, because when we sign on to win the war, liberals will always claim that we put our signature on other promises.
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.