Posted on 11/20/2013 7:43:30 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Invariably at some point in the history of a nation an event occurs which precipitates or dramatically accelerates the potential demise of that nation or empire. The United States experienced such an event in Dallas fifty years ago Friday.
Within months of the assassination of John Kennedy, America turned dramatically to the left as the avowed disciples of Franklin Roosevelt and European socialism assumed the reins of power and were the catalyst that unleashed into the American mainstream those true-believers in Marxist ideology determined to transform the nation, and who have now metastasized into a cancer on the American society.
President Lyndon Johnson, in league with an overwhelmingly Democrat-controlled Congress, shamelessly exploited the nation's grief over the death of its youthful President and willfully steered the nation onto the course of massive government intervention into the day-to-day lives of all Americans, and unfettered social spending as personified by a myriad of welfare programs enacted under the rubric of the "War on Poverty", the passage of Medicare and Medicaid, and the unleashing of an avalanche of new regulations. The inexorable transfer of unbridled power to Washington and the political expedient of unsustainable promises to the American people had begun in earnest.
Over the past 50 years the Democratic Party became the unabashed promoters of these policies, while many in the Republican Party, the most notable exception being Ronald Reagan, the enablers. As a result, the American economy is now in a near-permanent state of stagnation and the nation has embarked on a headlong dash into bankruptcy. While the population of the country has increased by 70% since 1963, the national debt has ballooned (on an inflation adjusted basis) 620% over the past half-century from $2,400 Billion to $17,200 Billion;
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
It was rumored at the time that the transition from Kennedy to Johnson on the plane trip back to Washington was actually a takeover of the U.S. by another power.
Lee Harvey Oswald would be so proud of his accomplishments.
With one pull of the trigger he ushered in a "Era of Marxism" into America.
And it only took 50 years.
I think this is a bit of a rewrite actually.
The change came as objections to the Vietnam War took shape. Guys like McGovern capitalized on the unrest, reached out to the Marxist element among the movement, and then the rest is history.
One could argue Kennedy would have executed the war better, or not gotten involved deeper. In that regard perhaps his death did change things. We can’t be sure of that.
We can be sure what the real dynamic was that caused change, and in my opinion the Russian efforts to sew unrest in Europe and the U. S. was masterful, and a success.
Many a young person was turned in the manner Hillary Clinton was.
This would suggest that the group with
the highest motivation to kill JFK was
the Marxists in the Democrat Party.
It was JFK’s election in 1960 that set this country on a sharply leftward course.
RE: It was JFK’s election in 1960 that set this country on a sharply leftward course.
Not FULLY on tax policy.
For his 1980 campaign against Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan made a television commercial in which he praised JFK’s broad tax cuts 20 years earlier, saying, “when he cut taxes everyone gained from an expanding, fully employed economy … If I’m elected, we’ll do it again.”
Kennedy said he was committed to “an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes.” The tax system, mostly designed during World War II, “exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking,” he said.
Many lawmakers worried that reducing taxes without cutting spending would create unacceptable budget deficits. But Kennedy, who famously noted that “a rising tide lifts all boats,” insisted tax cuts would generate broad-based growth.
Nah, If JFK were alive today and held the same beliefs as he did in his era he would never be accepted by today’s Democrats. JFK was a big business champion as well as a tax cutter even though his tax cuts were shot down in an overwhelmingly Democrat Congress.
Not saying he was a Conservative but he was more Conservative than many in the Rep Party today.
Excellent point. I have noticed some conservatives are uncomfortable with the notion of JFK as a conservative but by co-opting Kennedy we can use it as a weapon to attack the radicalism of modern liberalism.
i.e. “I am not a conservative but a classic JFK liberal. I support the NRA, lower taxes to stimulate economic growth. I am anti-communist and support free enterprise. I am a veteran and support our military.”
Unless the liberal you are arguing with chooses to reject the beloved icon of JFK they are forced to assume a position on the very far left...
In 1962, the Kennedy administration was pressuring steel companies not to raise prices, and using the Department of Justice, headed by his brother to "persuade" steel executives to go along. He was reported to have said, “My father always told me that all businessmen were sons-of-bitches, but I never believed it till now.”
Angry businessmen responded by wearing buttons reading, "SOB Club."
Co-opt JFK? Let's co-opt FDR, Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton as well. That'll show those modern liberals!
I agree with that. What I've learned in the past 12 or so years about Active Measures utilized by Soviet Intelligence to ideologically subvert our culture make me wonder sometimes if perhaps our economic victory over the Soviet Union was not a phyrric victory. While our economic system and our technology triumphed over them, they managed to penetrate and influence (if not control) the "transmission belts" of our society. The more one learns about it, the more one sees it's effects and results everywhere.
Wasn’t there an executive order written (but not yet signed) on Kennedy’s desk to pull out of Viet Nam?
bttt
There was/is a real tangible backlash from the lack of a focused adversary, or more properly one our citizens could focus on.
The whole world changed when the big threat disolved.
Once that happened, it became somewhat of a joke to preach about the evils of Communism, or the type of system the U.S.S.R. represented.
As that system entrenched here, it was no longer easy to point and say, this or that is what you’ll have if you aren’t careful.
Folks now even laugh off China, it’s Communist entrenched government.
Our professors are enamored with socialism. Communism isn’t a problem for them. To a large degree, they are the hippies from the 70s, who still haven’t learned a damned thing since, and are now doing their best to validate themselves, by selling it to a new generation.
It’s a real problem to be sure, and you’ve touched on it nicely.
CPO, you may be on to something there. I am not aware of it, but it’s possible.
It wasn’t talked about so much in the day, as it has been talked about so much after the day, as in the later part of Johnson’s, Nixon’s presidency, and beyond.
d:^)
Agreed, although I will broaden the context slightly for the benefit of some others to include what I think is the important historical setting. The left was solidly in place during the 30’s, at least in the State Dept and it was sprinkled elsewhere throughout the federal government; those numbers of Soviet supporters grew substantially during WWII. By the early 60’s the left was well-positioned in Hollywood (McCarthy’s message had merit but was not effectively presented), and the left was well-represented in the MSM. After the thirty years ending 1960, the left was also solidly entrenched at the university faculty level (as it is even more so today).
My sense is that Kennedy’s death cleared the way for the simmering left to mobilize and launch into the public eye mere months (logistically speaking) after the assassination.
To your point, the actual trigger to hit the streets and thereafter saturate all forms of a willing and cooperative national press undoubtedly was Johnson’s initial expansion of our involvement in the Viet Nam war. Certainly Russia, who had an important principle at stake (it is said to have invested more of its GDP in the war than did the U.S.), thereupon intensified its involvement in, and support of, our raging civil turmoil - with evident eventual success.
I agree with your take on it. In a broader perspective it is true the socialist left had long been at work. The initial income tax and the clamoring for the League of Nations, as well as the social programs put into effect during the Roosevelt administration, saw us well on our way.
Then dear Lyndon’s “Great Society” programs, which could pass then without help from the Republicans, pretty much gave us what we’re stuck with today.
Medicare and Medicare Part D are some glaring exceptions.
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.