Sat Nov 22, 8:01 PM ET
 |
Add Op/Ed - William F. Buckley to My Yahoo! |
Posted on 11/25/2003 7:22:18 PM PST by AgThorn
|
Sat Nov 22, 8:01 PM ET
|
|
By William F. Buckley Jr.
I was asked by a television network to comment on the career of President Kennedy. I agreed to do so and do not know how many other views were solicited, or when the program was aired. I have to assume that it went out because the 40th anniversary of the assassination seemed to wipe out all unrelated television fare with the exception of Michael Jackson, who got if not equal time, very nearly that.
|
Curiosity just goes on and on about Mr. Kennedy, and I subscribe to it, having recorded (but not yet seen) the two-hour show presided over by Peter Jennings at which we shall have one more chapter of the Grassy Knoll. The advertisements promise a computer re-creation of the assassination. I think it's about as clearly established that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy as that John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln, but seeing it all again, you can use up a little agnostic curiosity on that morbid episode, draining it for a year or two. It is always exciting to read about the assassination of Julius Caesar, particularly when the tale is told by the greatest tale-teller in dramatic literature, never mind that we know that Brutus did it. It goes that way, also, for JFK.
But the question I was asked didn't have to do with who killed JFK, but with what was his legacy. It was, said I, entirely personal. Nothing that Mr. Kennedy did in the way of public policy was either singular or enduring in effect. In foreign policy, he lost out on Berlin, presiding over the death of the Four Power Agreement over that city.
Kennedy did not consummate his war against Castro at any level. At the military level, he failed at the Bay of Pigs. At the dirty-dog level, he failed in four or five attempts to assassinate Castro; failed with toxic cigars, impregnated wet suits and poison pills. At the diplomatic level, we focus more appropriately on the arrival of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba than on their withdrawal. It is acknowledged by everyone that we very nearly had a nuclear exchange in October 1962, and historical adjudications correctly deal with the fact of the missiles being deployed there, rather than of the fact that they were finally shooed away.
It is pointed out, even by the school of political thought least eager to associate itself with low taxes, that JFK called for tax reduction -- which he did, though it was left to Lyndon Johnson to consummate the proposal. Civil rights is adduced, and it is true that Mr. Kennedy came eloquently to the cause after hearing Martin Luther King give his great speech and weighing the implications of it. He arrived finally (sooner than I did) to the cause of equality under the law, but was a recruit to it, spurred by others. It was only in the summer of his last year that he turned to the subject of a civil rights bill.
In Vietnam, he engaged the communist aggressors intending two things: the first, to abide by George Kennan's long-standing doctrine of containment; the second, to challenge the evaluation of him by Khrushchev as a "pygmy." That was the character reading by Khrushchev, who proceeded, after their personal encounter in Vienna, to build the Berlin Wall and to send missiles to Cuba.
Maybe, if Kennedy had lived, he'd have reversed the course he took in Vietnam, adopted by his successor, Lyndon Johnson, who continued to press the doctrine of containment. But it is asking too much, at eulogy time, to compliment a dead man on the grounds that you feel certain he'd have proceeded, if he had lived, to undo what he did when alive. I can think of any number of reforms I would myself undertake after I am dead.
What I said to the interviewer was that the legacy of John F. Kennedy is his sheer ... beauty. I have visited yurts in Mongolia, adobe huts in Mexico and rural redoubts in Turkey and seen framed pictures of John F. Kennedy. He was all-American, splendid to look at, his expression of confident joy in life and work transfiguring. Add to this that he was slaughtered, almost always a mythogenic act, and what we came to know about the awful physical afflictions he suffered, making his appearances as a whole, vigorous man the equivalent of seeing FDR rise from his wheelchair and play touch football.
That is why JFK is worshipped, which word exactly describes the attitude we have toward him.
Anyway, highlighting to the article is my own, but it's a good piece. Ann Coulter made me aware that JFK got us into VietNam shortly after his Bay of Pigs fiasco and look at THAT legacy. Talk about lives lost, prestige lost, etc.
Others who seek to criticize Kennedy worship - in particular Christopher Hitchens - should be forced to read this and see a master at work; command of the facts, easy to read and understand, no ad-hominems, credit and criticism where due.
I thought Buckley was over-the-hill. Apparently I was wrong.
Maybe in your eye, Bill, but not in mine. You are not the only beholder who was beguiled by this rather unremarkable man, but what you mistook for "beauty" was in fact something else. William of Carmichael succeeded in identifying it where you failed:
Some obviously found Kennedy breathtakingly, irresistably attractive. I didn't. I also did not consider him handsome--or "beautiful".
----------------------
That's about it. He and Jackie, with her $25,000 gowns cut an image and fashion swath through the country among those who didn't look beyond that. He was the first TV image president. He had the same effect in person. People would walk in a room where he was, take one look, then become his willing slave for the remainder of their lives.
He was cleaner than most Democrats. He looked like he washed.
On Oct 23, 1957 "Navy Log" had broadcast the story of Lt Kennedy. The famous coconut with the messsage carved in the husk was shown and the swimming feat of dragging an injured crewman belied a physical disablity!
Camelot was hype and spin, to say the least, and his legacy is the dreams that men are made of!
He did set us on our trek to the stars, and I believe that he and Roddenberry, (a naval aviator during WWII) would have hit it off!
And I must say 'DITTO' !! I don't see anything 'beautiful' about any of the Kennedys...........
I could never get past that obnoxious accent (sorry east coast Freepers). However, one positive aspect of his election was the fact that he was the first Catholic elected. Unfortunately, that one teeny light did not signify the end to religious discrimination: witness the "Borking" of all current officeholders and candidates who are professed Christians.
Oh, that is SO creepy. Sounds like predictions of the antichrist.
Do you know what would have been the correct way to say "I am a Berliner" in German?
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.
