A fascinating and interesting article, Mr. Lord. Thanks. It happens to dovetail quite nicely with a recent book on the same subject, by James Piereson; Camelot and the Cultural Revolution. Your musings parallel those of Mr. Piereson, who posited the theory that the assassination of President Kennedy was the root cause of the unraveling of modern American liberalism.
Similarly, you quote from the book by the Kennedy sycophant, William Manchester (1967), who it appears, repeated a theme from another book written by another Kennedy acolyte, the recently deceased, unctuous, bow-tied popinjay, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. (1965). Both men saw Dallas, Texas as a hot bed of hatred (right-wing, of course) spawned by the civil rights movement, rather than focusing on Cuba, the Cold War, and Communist provocateur and sympathizer, Oswald. Interestingly enough, both men made scant mention of Kennedy’s Texas vice president, LBJ; probably because this fact did not fit well with their liberal template. For the past 40 years, liberals have vilified the South, while ignoring the more subtle, but still deplorable, apartheid of the North.p>But you go farther than Mr. Piereson and bring us to today’s unhinged American Left and how this theme has repeated itself, only this time, reversed, and far worse. It is the height of irony that these bourgeois-hating leftist “champions” from the '60s, are now seeking to impose on America, the most illiberal, undemocratic, and anti-individual policies, heretofore unseen in our history. The new politics of hate, pedaled by Hillary & Co., will, if successful, bring us a new world order, Orwellian style. br> — A. DiPentima /p>
Mr. Lord writes that he was around at the time of the JFK assassination. I wonder how “around” he was. At the time, I was an adult, working for a living in Washington D.C., and active in GOP politics in Montgomery Co., Md. I know that the only reason for the JFK trip to Texas was to shore up support for the primary season that was upcoming in a few months. JFK was wildly unpopular with a large segment of his own party, and it was wondered if they could even keep him from being re-nominated. Even Walter Cronkite carried the speculation on the news, while offering that he didn’t see how you could deny a sitting president the nomination of his own party.
It was precisely the far Left wing of the Dem party that disliked him the most. They loved brother, Bobby, but they were disillusioned with JFK. Yes, the right was not fond of him, but they couldn’t have denied him the Dem nomination. The whole Texas trip was for LBJ and the then Texas governor, Connally, both wildly popular in Texas, to showcase their support for JFK and to cement the support of the Texas delegation to the Dem convention the following summer.
The Left was furious with him due to his across the board income tax cut that took the top rates from 90% down to 70%. They were especially furious precisely because the cuts worked and jump started the economy. They were also of the opinion that JFK had been way too bellicose toward the USSR and Cuba in the missile standoff. One popular opinion had it that, if brother Bobby hadn’t stopped him, JFK would have gotten us into a shooting war with the USSR. Of course the defense establishment Right also was upset because they felt that he had given up too much in the negotiated compromise.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?