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.
The Fitzgeralds and Kennedys were earlier equivalents of the Daley organization in Boston and the Boston Irish. They did about anything they wanted to. Whether you would call it a mafia or not is a matter of personal taste. But it had an iron grip on Massachusetts politics. There were, and probably still are, some italians in Boston. They used to complain about the dirty Irish tricks because the Irish typically used a bit of ethnic-oriented political finesse.
Maggots, feeding on the body politic!
Is the reference here for the story. It referees you to the Miami Herald. Using Jimmy Blue Eyes in their 2001 archives will get to the story. But they have changed policy and will charge you $2.50 to read it.
Not one person, but Jackie Kennedy, had EVER thought in terms of " CAMELOT " , regarding that presidency. Some time after the assaination , she hd E.B. White to lunch. He is the author of " THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING ", BTW, and kepet repeating , over, and over , and over again, that " CAMELOT " bildge. He finally " got the message ", and the rest, as they say, is history.
Where are the chapters, in today's history books, about WHY JFK was in Dallas, to begin wiwth ? He was ONLY there, becuase he was going to lose the nextx election, and even with LBJ as a runningmate, he WAS going to lose Texas ! Where are the chapters about the many steele strikes, which almost shsut down this nation, under JFK's watch , and which he mucked up horridly, by making rataher stupid speechs ? Hmmmmmmmm ? No books, no chapters in history books, no nothing; just lies/ propaganda / revisionist , psuedo history.
.
.
.
.
At least not for a while anyway.
--------------------------
Texas was in a state of revolt. I remember it was irst thought an angry right wing Texan must have hot him because of the hatred there for Kennedy. Kennedy was in big political trouble in many places. America had had enough of the Kennedys. His getting killed saved his presidency and made a saint out of him.
I remember us riding our bikes toward home hollering, "Yea, Old Kennedy is dead!" In those parts Kennedy was not liked in the least. Of course when we reached home and our parents heard us cheering, they stopped us and told us that it was not appropriate to be happy when someone got killed, even if it was someone as bad as Kennedy.
I have never heard anyone else relate a tale like this. All us kids knew was that our parents hated him and reviled him loudly. I remember hushing up because I didn't want a spanking but it seemed hypocritical at the time. It took a while to understand. some oral history from parsy.
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.