-
The Inoperative Jay Carney
May 23, 2013 | 135 comments
-
IRS Union Chief Stonewalls
May 21, 2013 | 57 comments
-
Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?
May 20, 2013 | 70 comments
-
The Liberal Union Behind the IRS
May 16, 2013 | 146 comments
-
Cumulus Media: Suicide of a Company?
May 14, 2013 | 64 comments
Political Hay
JFK and the Death of Liberalism
John F. Kennedy, the father of the Reagan Democrats, would have been 95 this week.
(Page 4 of 5)
Self-identify with that kind of treatment? Of course not. Compounding the problem for liberals is that this attitude is linked to what Tyrrell accurately calls Obama’s “Stealth Socialism.” And the combination of the two is proving to be politically deadly.
Here’s a JFK-Obama contrast.
In 1960, JFK determined that if he were to win the Democratic nomination he would in fact have to win the West Virginia primary. Why West Virginia? Because Kennedy was Catholic, no Catholic had ever been elected president — and West Virginia was heavily Protestant. It was a knock-down, drag-out fight — a furious battle against Minnesota Senator Hubert Humphrey. In an upset, a legend in West Virginia politics to this day, JFK won. By emphasizing his PT-109 heroism in World War II and his support of coal mining — and coal miners.
What happened the other day in the West Virginia Democratic primaries? That’s right. A Texas prison inmate named Keith Judd paid the $2,500 filing fee to get his name on the ballot opposing Obama — getting 40% of the vote. Why this particular humiliation? Right again. The President’s ”Stealth Socialism” — specifically in West Virginia his energy and environmental policies — are seen by West Virginians as savaging the state’s coal industry. A world away from the JFK approach.
And let’s not forget the double standard that elitist liberals in the media love when it comes to their fellow countrymen.
What was one of the most notable stylistic aspects of the Kennedy presidency that had Georgetown parlors and the liberal media of the day swooning with admiration?
Exactly. They loved Jackie Kennedy — specifically they absolutely adored that the First Lady was an accomplished horsewoman. Scenes like this video of Jackie riding with her children in the Virginia hunt country - as JFK watched from nearby — were staples of the liberal media, the only media, of the day. If one grew up in the Kennedy era it is recognized instantly, particularly the scene where Caroline’s horse “Macaroni” is nibbling on JFK as the President laughs. Horseback riding as Mrs. Kennedy pursued it was an expensive hobby then — as now. And this fact was lavishly presented to the American public as a sign of class — both financial class and as in “classy.”
What was the big story about Ann Romney the other day? Take a look at Breitbart.com where they have neatly caught onto the sneering elitism that is falsely ascribed to Ann Romney because — yes indeed — just like Jackie Kennedy, Ann Romney rides horses. With one very big difference. In Mrs. Romney’s case horseback riding was prescribed as therapy for her multiple sclerosis. Now, however, as was true with a big front page story in the New York Times, Republican Ann Romney is involved with a “rarified sport.” Translation: Mrs. Romney is a snob. What’s fabulous for Jackie is snooty for Ann.
Which leads us back to where we began.
Had John F. Kennedy been alive and well this week, celebrating his 95th birthday, one can only wonder whether liberalism would have survived with him.
This is, after all, the president who said in cutting taxes that a “rising tide lifts all boats.” Becoming The favorite presidential example (along with Calvin Coolidge) of no less than Ronald Reagan on tax policy. This is, after all, the president who ran to the right of Richard Nixon in 1960 on issues of national security.
In fact, many of those who voted for John F. Kennedy in 1960 would twenty years later vote for Ronald Reagan. One famous study of Macomb County, Michigan found 63% of Democrats in that unionized section of autoworker country voting for JFK in 1960. In 1980, same county, essentially the same Democrats — 66% voted for Reagan. The difference? Liberalism was dying.
There is a term of political art for these millions of onetime JFK voters — a term used still today: Reagan Democrats. It is not too strong a statement to say that in point of political fact John F. Kennedy was the father of the Reagan Democrats.
Would JFK have let the arrogant liberal elitism that was bubbling under the surface of his own administration metastasize to so many American institutions — including his own party — had he lived?
Would he have sat silently as the liberal culture turned against the vast American middle and working blue collar class and its values, sending JFK voters into the arms of Republicans in seven out of twelve of the elections following his own?
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (102) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jeffrey Lord
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/05/31/jfk-and-the-death-of-liberalis
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A President Loses His Power
- Sarah Palin’s Rack
- Inside the Gates of Eden
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
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.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
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?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Gary B| 5.31.12 @ 8:05AM
It is interesting to speculate about a completed Kennedy administration. Come to find out, he was interested in pursuing peace and, I believe, he was also taking steps to strengthen our currency. If you are president, these are two dangerous pursuits, as you're threatening the rice bowls of some very powerful people. In hindsight it looks like one of Kennedy's greatest qualities was his tremendous courage.
bsg| 5.31.12 @ 6:49PM
I used to teach my students that the 2 best things to happen to the Kennedy heritage were Author Schlesinger and Lee Harvey Oswald.
What might have happened had he stayed in two terms and not been so shielded by a fawning press would be that the world would see a president in way over his head, much like the boob currently serving
Derek Leaberry| 5.31.12 @ 8:54AM
As a successful governing ideology, liberalism might be dead. Yet as an electoral coalition, liberalism is very much alive. Think of the liberal coalition. Government workers. Teachers. College Professors. Lawyers. Hollywood. Blacks. Homosexuals. Jews. Hispanics. Big Labor. Boutique liberal whites living in David Brooks' Latte Towns. Computer geeks and IT professionals. Dependents on the government. That's a big, powerful coalition that Republicans have helped allow to grow and will difficult to defeat.
dickdata| 5.31.12 @ 1:05PM
And women, especially single women. On the other hand, Republicans have a lock on white males and whites currently over 65.
Derek Leaberry| 5.31.12 @ 1:24PM
Right. Single women are a vital part of the Democratic coalition. Marriage leads women down the better political path.
Truth to Power| 5.31.12 @ 2:16PM
You name the disfunction or bad behavior and you will find Democrats cleaning up on those votes.
chuck| 5.31.12 @ 7:42PM
Truer words have never been written.
Excellent.
Beldar| 6.2.12 @ 11:48AM
It's called the Hegelian Dialectic.
Jack in Wi| 5.31.12 @ 3:13PM
I would not talk about the death of liberalism. The demographics are against any conservative rebirth. Fifty years after Goldwater we haven't had a conservative nominee for the Republicans since 1984. We had dam few before that. The Eastern banking elites have almost always run the party's upper eschalon. Romney is just their latest front man.
Occam's Tool| 5.31.12 @ 5:39PM
Dear Jack:
By the way---Paul got his ASS stomped in Texas. ASS STOMPED. STOMPED. STOMPED HARD. IN HIS ASS. Dearest Jack---ASS STOMPING OCCURRED. YOUR ASSES KICKED IN. STOMPED HARD. THEN WE TURNED YOU OVER AND STOMPED ON YOUR FACES, REAL DAMN HARD. HOBNAIL BOOTS ON YOUR FACES. FOREVER STOMPING HARD. BLOOD FLYING, JAW BREAKING, TEETH SHATTERING HARD FACE STOMPING. YOU BEGGED FOR MERCY BUT WE KEPT STOMPING AND STOMPING UNTIL ALL WE COULD HEAR WAS A GURGLE. I am, of course, in this and other posts, speaking figuratively about legal electoral face stomping, just as Clint did.
Now, go home, STFU, and leave the adults alone, and vote for Cynthia McKinney, who agrees with RP on foreign policy ALL THE WAY.
Occam's Tool| 5.31.12 @ 6:00PM
BREAKING NEWS: RON ("PRO-LIFE") PAUL VOTES TO MURDER BABIES-----
from Weasel Zippers (a much better site):
"The House on Thursday rejected a Republican bill that would impose fines and prison terms on doctors who perform abortions for the sole purpose of controlling the gender of the child, a practice known as sex-selective abortion.
The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), H.R. 3541, was defeated in a 246-168 vote. While that’s a clear majority of the House, Republicans called up the bill under a suspension of House rules, which limits debate and requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass. In this case, it would have required more support from Democrats.
Twenty Democrats voted for the bill, while seven Republicans opposed it. The bill would have needed 30 more yeas to pass.
Suspension votes are normally used for noncontroversial bills, but the GOP-backed measure was clearly controversial. Republicans have occasionally put controversial bills on the suspension calendar in order to highlight that Democrats oppose certain policies.
Republicans voting against the bill were Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Charlie Bass (N.H.), Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Robert Dold (Ill.), Richard Hanna (N.Y.), Nan Hayworth (N.Y.), and Ron Paul (Texas)."
Jack in Wi| 5.31.12 @ 7:50PM
Murder is a state crime Occam. Ron Paul wants to over throw Roe by using the Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution, to restrict the juridiction of the Federal courts on the issue of abortion. It would return the regulation of this heinious procedure to the states where it had always been before Roe. Getting that into the Republican plarform is one of the many things that Ron Paul's delegates hope to get into the Republican platform. It should be an intresting convention.
Now Tel Aviv is being racked by pogroms by Jews against black Africans that would do justice to the Cossacks or the KKK. It is being led by racist members of the Knesset and other extremists. Tell me again why the tax money of blacks and other americans should be sent by the boatload every year to support this racist apartheid state.
Occam's Tool| 5.31.12 @ 8:56PM
Murder is also a federal crime, Jack. Depends on how it is done.
But its interesting how the spineless wimp backs down over being pro-life when the rubber hits the road. Just like you, Jack.
Occam's Tool| 5.31.12 @ 8:58PM
Pograms? The Jews let them into the country from the Muslim world you love so much. Every state has the right to let in who it wants, Jack. The Ethiopian Jews were Black, "kibbutzer." (It's "kibitz" by the way, you ignorant illiterate oaf.)
Ghost of Cicero (NB) | 5.31.12 @ 9:55PM
Do you ever stop with your anti Semitic bullshat diatribes, or are you just vying with the former. "Margie" & current Clint for the most religiously biggoted schmuck on this site, Mr "Its Better to be a Live Coward/Proud 4-F?"
Jack in Wi| 5.31.12 @ 10:14PM
Tell me what I wrote that isn't the truth. Race riots have been going on in Tel Aviv for days. It is all over the Israeli and other foreign press. Just because no-one talks about it in this country does not mean it is not happening. Occam is the biggest racist here. He has called for mass murder and nuclear genocide against innocent millions of Muslims. He is a disgrace. Clint and I have never called for one hair on the head of a Jew to be harmed. I just call for them to live up to the Torah and the Commandments. Margie is a vicious anti-Catholic biggot. Both Clint and I believe that good Jews, Muslims, and Protestants can go to heaven. Margie believes that everyone but her small sect is going to hell. I have never preached anything but the Gospel of Jesus Christ here. He Who said. " Blessed are the peacemakers. Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Love your neighbor as yourself. The Truth will set you free. Love your enemies. "
One Mediator 1 Tim. 2:5. | 5.31.12 @ 11:14PM
Interesting comment coming from a man who openly rejects the Christ, having been a Catholic and then thumbing his nose at Him.
You're a hypocrite, a liar, and a libeler as well, as you said (like a coward) in another thread here that I'm committing unemployment fraud, that I posted my ss#, etc. Neither of which are true, in your pathetic attempt at slander. You'll be hearing from my lawyer, kiddo.
Oh, and speaking the truth about any Religion and despising its false and unbiblical doctrine isn't bigotry. It's called loving the truth.
Something you know little of, punk.
God is watching you.
One Mediator 1 Tim. 2:5. | 5.31.12 @ 11:15PM
My comment is at Ghost of Cicero (NB), former Con chef, the coward.
spike59| 6.4.12 @ 6:04AM
you know, OC, the fact that DrEarmark, the Tinfoil Hat Tinhorn, got his 'crazier than an outhouse rat' ass handed to him from sea to shining sea, INCLUDING in TX, gives me renewed faith that the system works!
Dannyboy| 5.31.12 @ 7:43PM
Indeed all those entities are in the most influential and high profile segments of our society where they can influence alot of thought and do the most damage. We are in a spiritual/social/cultural war in this country and have been for 45 years. I thank God that there are still people doing battle with the leftists against the odds, but with God all things are possible. Keep up the fight.
Nancy in NC| 5.31.12 @ 9:00AM
Romney would be wise to adopt "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" from JFK's inauguration speech of 1960. It seems too many have it backwards these days.
It's easy to understand why LBJ was a laughingstock. He was a crude man. However, that's not why the libs were laughing, for they too can be crude. (Think Bill Maher) He seemed too middle class for the elites. Now those same liberals embrace his "Great Socity" and its less than wonderful results.
Let's face it: liberals are small people with small ideas and a streak of meaness that is beyond the pale. I find it humerous that conservatives are accused of being mean and liberals are completely intolerant of those who don't agree with their dream of utopia, via Marxism and Mao. Somehow they completely fail to understand history and the humanity of mankind.
Derek Leaberry| 5.31.12 @ 9:15AM
Yes, Johnson was a crude man. Yet 1965 was one of the most successful years for the Left. Medicare. Civil Rights laws. The Kennedy immigration reform which allowed forty million Third Worlders into the country and led to demographic and political revolution. To steal from the old Sinatra song, 1965 was a very good year- for the Left.
dickdata| 5.31.12 @ 1:10PM
But arguabley none of those bills would have passed if Kennedy had lived. The Kennedys had NO clue about how to get anything thru Congress. Kennedy was talking about getting out ov Vietnam when he was killed. We will never know if that was just election-year talk or if he would have really gotten out. I think the former, but it's just opinion.
Derek Leaberry| 5.31.12 @ 1:28PM
Right. Johnson used 1) the martyrdom of Kennedy and 2) the landslide over Goldwater to ram through the left-wing agenda in 1965. Kennedy had style but was not a nuts and bolts practicioner of politics like Johnson.
Rhoetus| 5.31.12 @ 2:30PM
True!
JFK: a pill popping, womanizing coward who let the USSR build ballistic missiles sites in Cuba then betrayed the Cuban patriots letting them die on the beach, after promising support and air cover.
JmsA| 6.1.12 @ 2:06AM
Ironically, though, LBJ intervened in the Dominican Republic to prevent the spread of socialism in the Caribbean basin.
Dannyboy| 5.31.12 @ 7:47PM
I don't think the liberals in the democrat party of the 1960's did'nt like Johnson because he was'nt liberal enough after all the so called Great Society and War on Poverty were the hallmarks of his administration and passed by democrat senators and congressmen who dominated those two bodies for 40 years and still do pretty much.
DTOM| 5.31.12 @ 9:05AM
Mr Trilling's modern-day liberal exponent counterpart would easily write "In the United States at this time Liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition." And believe it, too.
THAT is their problem. The liberals simply refuse to admit the existence of another political philosophy primarily because they fear that it might surpass their own.
In fact, if they admitted the possibility of another philosophy they could begin to extricate themselves from the sticky, tangled web of lies they have enmeshed themselves in.
They look at conservatism today, and SEE nothing but an olio of special interests whose welfare and promotion requires an inherently contradictory jumble of single-focus principles that can never be reduced to a single, unifying rational principle. Sad thing is, that is not what they are looking at - conservatism actually can be reduced to a single core concept - respect for the Constitution as it was written.
What they see in us, is actually who they, the liberals, are - that jumble of special interests lacking a philosophical core. They think they look at conservatism to criticize it - they are actually looking in the mirror, seeing themselves. Psychologists refer to this as "projection."
That is liberalism's problem. Cannot see the problem to fix it...
Don't Tread On Me!
dickdata| 5.31.12 @ 1:12PM
No, no, we look at conservatism and see an organized philosophy of billionaires wanting to buy a government.
Rhoetus| 5.31.12 @ 2:31PM
Every man deserves the best defense that money can buy.
Truth to Power| 5.31.12 @ 2:57PM
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/spain.....31994.html
This is how progressives and their dreams of green energy do it. Obama has copied their play book so we should be very frightened. Who's next?
Alice Moore| 5.31.12 @ 9:19AM
Mr. Lord, my view is a cynical one. I think JFK would have accordingly trimmed his political sails; like his brothers Bobby and Ted from '63 onward.
The Kennedy Clan would have worked like mad to slough off any responsibility of the Viet Nam War to any one but themselves. The media would have been all in to help with that.
JFK did have the ability to make one think he was bringing you up to his level. It's hard to explain. When he did speak you felt you were already on Mt Olympus with JFK and he treated you(the Audience) like you belonged there. Reagan had the same quality.
scotchieguy| 5.31.12 @ 12:10PM
That's because they were adults, and treated us like we were adults.
Now, contrast that to the current POS occupying the WH. This thug treats us as if we were morons and little children. He thinks we are scum. Then again he thinks this country scumville.
The real difference is JFK and Reagan had real class. The current prez has zero class, none at all, just haughtiness, narcissism, and contempt.
dickdata| 5.31.12 @ 1:15PM
Kennedy was a compulsive womanizer. Is THAT real class??? Reagan sold weapons to Iran and violated the Boland act numerous times - both CLEARLY impeachable offenses. AND Reagan ran clearly racist campaigns.
Truth to Power| 5.31.12 @ 3:02PM
If you are looking for racist campaigns, check out the Democratic Party. If you are worried about weapons being sold to foreigners, check out Fast and Furious. Stop living in your imagined past and face your reflection in the mirror.
JmsA| 6.1.12 @ 1:52AM
Thank you for saving me the trouble, TTP.
spike59| 6.4.12 @ 6:14AM
"AND Reagan ran clearly racist campaigns."
-------------------------------------------------
PROVE it...come on, Einstein...let's see anything to back up your childish hyperbole....
Kwan| 5.31.12 @ 9:34AM
The Democrat Party has obviously given up on liberalism and believes now that it is only through Marxism that they can accomplish the high holy and sacred goals of "social justice" and "fairness". Of course the Constitution must be disposed of post-haste as an authoritarian regime is unable to operate with the restrictions imposed upon it by the Constitution.
Anthony| 5.31.12 @ 9:37AM
An interesting take Mr. Lord. I am 3/4 's through "Passage", and have read the previous 3 volumes in this series.
While you quote correctly from Caro's book about JFK's treatment demand of LBJ, you miss the subtext that JFK's attitude towards LBJ was conveyed to all through his surrogate-in-chief, Bobby Kennedy, who despised LBJ with every fiber of his being. Kennedy gave the appearence of remaining above the frey, because he had his thugs to do his real bidding.
But the most important revelation in the book is the one simple sentence when LBJ tells a Kennedy aide shortly after the assassination, that he was uncomfortable with Kennedy because he was too conservative for him, and that he (LBJ) was a Roosevelt New Dealer.
Kennedy was pro business and a tax cutter. He understood how the economy worked, unlike the current generation of lefty nincompoop economists, like Paul Krugman.
Despite his cowardly debacle in the "Bay of Pigs", (failure to send in air support) Kennedy was not afraid to use America's military for good.
While the Kennedy mafia were indeed lefty arrogant academics to the core, had Kennedy served his two full terms and continued with his proclivities, leftism would have indeed died at the hands of Kennedy himself.
Truth be known, Kennedy was a Reagan Democrat before there were Reagan Democrats.
benny havens| 5.31.12 @ 11:19AM
You are kidding yourself if you believe that JFK would be supporting a Republican today over Barack Obama. We all know whom his brother Teddy supported. And brother Bobby, was greatly supported by the left. We all know what side of the aisle daughter Caroline stands. JFK may have called for tax cuts in 1960 but at 95 he would be in the Oval Office advising the present occupant, in my humble opinion.
CJW| 5.31.12 @ 11:28AM
Kennedy ran to the right of Nixon in 1960 arguing for more defense spending to close the "missile gap" that did not exist. Kennedy's father contributed to Nixon's senate campaign.
Kennedy was a supporter of Joe McCarthy, who dated one of his sisters, and checked himself into the hospital to avoid voting on the McCarthy censure.
Kennedy was also an interventionist, attempting to kill Castro, supporting the murder of Diem in S.Vietnam, and involving us in Vietnam.
Democrats before McGovern in 1972 were different than today's bunch.
Kennedy may have been the last national Dem to support a tax cut.
Derek Leaberry| 5.31.12 @ 1:37PM
Correct. Yet Kennedy would have moved with the times had he lived long enough. He would have ended up alongside Ted on the ideological scale. For instance, his religion meant nothing to him, or his father, except to slap Brahmins like the Lodges in the face. Jack Kennedy would have supported abortion rights and, had he lived to 95, homosexual marriage. He would have supported school busing, racial quotas, socialized medicine, higher taxes, defense cuts and Detente.
Of course it is unlikely Jack Kennedy would have made 70 due to Addison's disease.
Dannyboy| 5.31.12 @ 7:55PM
It's arguable as to whether Kennedy would have turned into a liberal himself or resisted it or gone along with all the bullshit (abortion, homosexuality, quotas and the rest) either willingly or unwillingly. One thing we do know: the democrat party was high jacked and taken over by liberals after Kennedys death.
Doctor Right| 5.31.12 @ 9:40AM
The Kennedys are nothing but white trash with money.
Now that Fat Teddy is dead, they've lost a substantial portion of their political muscle and begun the slide into irrelevancy.
Good riddance.
Gary B| 5.31.12 @ 10:09AM
Notwithstanding the concentration of power the left has within many of our institutions, it will most likely stall out from lack of oxygen. The left thrives on other people's money, which is now nearly exhausted. I see liberalism as a luxury, a long-running social experiment that Americans were willing to fund. Now, that it's been proven an obvious failure, it's been cut from the budget so to speak. And liberals are squawking like spoiled brats who have lost their allowance. They had better acquire skills marketable in a real-world economy if they want anyone to pay attention to them. To them, I say, "Welcome to the free market. You are free to fail."
Dannyboy| 5.31.12 @ 7:59PM
Exactly, the liberal experiment that started 45 years ago is a miserable failure. That is what every conservative should be saying over and over whenever possible. It's factually provable.
Bob K| 5.31.12 @ 10:35AM
If liberalism is dying it it taking an awful long time to do so!
So many government life support systems have been arranged for that it is beginning to resemble one of those creatures one sees on Sci Fi shows like Dr. Who with all the tubes and wires attached to it to keep it alive!
Bob K| 5.31.12 @ 10:38AM
That would be "it is taking and awful long time to do so!" and "government life support systems have been arranged for it....."
My apologies.
Bob K| 5.31.12 @ 10:40AM
"an awful long time..."
I give up!
Albert Constantine Jr.| 5.31.12 @ 7:23PM
Funny, I mis-read it the way you mis-wrote it.
Rhoetus| 5.31.12 @ 3:09PM
"Left-liberalsim" It should just commit suicide to save face.
Obadiah Plainman| 5.31.12 @ 10:54AM
It's accurate that LBJ was a hick in D.C. but he drove a leftist freight train agenda after JFK was gone. So whether he was a "proper" liberal from Mass or a crude redneck from Texas is irrelevant...he had support, even if they weren't part of the same D.C. social circle.
I respect JFK in many ways, but Mr. Lord's article almost smacks of the unchecked deification of him that continues. The cult of personality is a dangerous thing, as we saw in 2008. The straight truth is that Kennedy was quite vulnerable in 1963. Goldwater made headway, the conservative movement was on the march (eternal thanks to WFB!). The assassination killed Goldwater's campaign as well as martyring JFK, locked up the LBJ successorship.
Goldwater thought JFK an honorable man who would have debated him straight-up and with dignity. Not LBJ. And Bill Moyer's infamous and despicable "daisy girl" ad ushered in the modern age of hysterical attack ads. But what would a 2nd JFK term have looked like? What would have unfolded in Vietnam? What about the economy? Cold War crises?
It is true that JFK would probably be a Reagan Democrat by today's standards and he understood economic principles to a FAR greater degree than his modern Democrat species. But to claim that JFK would have ushered in the death of liberalism is a stretch--it sadly, perversely reinvents itself, with new leaders, manifestations and ways to kill liberty. Timeless conservatism in practice is the best medicine.
Bob K| 5.31.12 @ 11:29AM
Obadiah,
Your analysis of the cult of personality is correct. John Lukacs defined it similarly as the cult of celebrity and it is a result of the continuing growth of the publicity industry which has effectively taken over our news media outlets.
For this reason I do not think that the Kennedys, Jack or Bobby, would ever have become Reagan democrats. Both were lightweights and intellectually lazy and Bobby compounded it with a nasty streak. Teddy did not become a Reagan democrat and he existed because of the Jack Kennedy myth and was in fact a creature of his brother's publicity machine from his very beginning in politics.
The myth continues because this publicity machine continues and Mr. Lord has shown here that even he still can not rid himself of it's influence.
Even Massachusetts voter's were able to rid themselves of this influence when they emphatically agreed that the Senate seat of the deceased Ted Kennedy was not the Kennedy seat anymore but the peoples seat.
Obadiah Plainman| 5.31.12 @ 2:41PM
I'm glad you expanded on this because you're correct. I couldn't succinctly hit upon that in the space I had, but you're right about the mythology of the entire Kennedy family. It's quite pervasive even today and, as such, not difficult to see how Obama snookered everyone. At least we KNEW who JFK was even back then. Fast forward to now and with global instant technology we knew nothing about Obama and the media failed its role as watchdog. The cult of personality is as dangerous as liberalism, although both lack substance yet can be appealing for weak minds.
PatriotGal2257| 5.31.12 @ 11:28AM
Wasn't JFK the author of what has become one of the bigger stones around the neck of municipal, state and national government -- public sector unions? If he were living today, not only might he be horrified at what Liberalism has become, but also over how the public sector unions are diametrically opposed to his tax policies and are intent on extorting more and more money from the taxpayers.
Petronius| 5.31.12 @ 11:44AM
There is one great omission here about JFK. on economic issues, he was Not a Liberal. John F. Kennedy believed in true economic independence for average Americans which was an affront not only to the beltway bandits and snobs, but the hierarchies of both parties. His speech to the Economic Club in N.Y. advanced that cause publicly, and the establishment reaction to Joe Sixpack having money in his pocket was one of abject fear. Nothing scares them more than the thought of some guy who does not wear a suit to work asking one of their daughters for a date. The very idea that some carpenter or clerk could accumulate enough money to quit working and paying taxes to them was and still is the ultimate horror. And I believe that is the real reason he was assassinated, and that his own party leaders on and off the Hill were behind it. Does anybody still believe the Warren Commission now? Only 26 more years until we can find out the real truth.
Derek Leaberry| 5.31.12 @ 1:51PM
Jack Kennedy was two-headed when it came to economics. Because his father was such a talented businessman, Kennedy respected the business community. He was a fairly conservative urban Democrat when first elected to the House in 1946 and much more conservative than his successor, one Thomas "Tip" O'Neill. Yet Kennedy understood that labor unions were the dominant power in the Democratic Party and hedged his bets accordingly. Thus he could make Wall Street insider Douglas Dillon Secretary of the Treasury, pass a tax cut, and yet lean on big business in favor of unions when it came time for wage bargaining. Remember that in the early 1960s, one-third of American workers were union members. Moreover, Kennedy knew that his father was often dishonest in his business dealings and thus considered it typical that most businessmen were as unscrupulous as his old man.
Obadiah Plainman| 5.31.12 @ 2:45PM
Another good comment--I had forgotten about Dillon. And this is also one reason why there was such a potential storm brewing over the 1964 election: because Goldwater saw the encroachment of unions upon individual liberty and took a stand. He didn't roll over and make nice. JFK played his hand wonderfully--I give the credit as a pragmatist AND politician--but in doing so, he merely kicked the can. And that can, like a snowball, became quite untenable. We're seeing the events in Wisconsin unfold in no small part to that inaction of past generations.
RJ| 5.31.12 @ 11:56AM
Excellent article, Jeff. It is interesting at how much the left focuses on superficial appearances and ignore the values and character of people. They are the style snobs, the self-appointed in-crowd. The empty Obama vessel that they have poured their identities into have shown them to be devoid of substance.
scotchieguy| 5.31.12 @ 12:55PM
I especially like the part about the horses Jackie rode vs. the ones Ann rides. What a bunch of damn hypocrites. These people really are insufferable. Amazingly JFK seemed to be above the fray. Maybe he just had his tyrant of a bro do his dirty work for him, but he seemed so much more presidential than any of the liberal successors since, esp the last two.
Simon Templar| 5.31.12 @ 12:02PM
Ninety percent of what is known of JFK and his reputation is myth manufactured by the Left. This is not to say that the man did not have some good qualities as all man are rarely the caricatures that we develop about them either completely good or evil.
The most tragic and sad aspect that developed from his assassination was the cynicism and paranoia that has developed in this society as a result of this assassination and the myths and facts that surrounded him and this government.
I have read a great deal about the man and this time over the years including the inside scoop on the Cuban missile crisis and the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
It will put to rest any of the silly notions that he was a great President or knew really what he was doing. Patriot gal, I believe that the first public sector unions began in the 1920's with unionizing of teachers. The first U.S. state to permit collective bargaining by public employees was Wisconsin, in 1959. Figures, eh?!
By the 1960s and 1970s public-sector unions expanded rapidly to cover teachers, clerks, firemen, police, prison guards and others. In 1962, President John Kennedy issued Executive Order 10988, upgrading the status of unions of federal workers.(Wikipedia reference)
RAM| 5.31.12 @ 12:22PM
Elite snottiness is age-old, and not limited to liberals or whatever. This manifestation was only one snapshot in time.
Frank Natoli| 5.31.12 @ 12:41PM
If Liberalism is dead, then why has neither party nominated a Conservative since 1984?
scotchieguy| 5.31.12 @ 1:07PM
Cuz the media is in charge. Think about it. If the population of voters is 20% lib, and 40% conservative, you would think conservatives should win twice as many elections, but they don't. It is around 50-50. Think about every presidential election since Ike. Repubs (Ike), followed by 8 years of dems (LBJ/JFK, although clearly LBJ was much more liberal than JFK), followed by 8 years of repubs (Nixon/Ford), followed by 4 years of dems (Carter, followed by 12 years of repubs (Reagan and Bush), followed by 8 years of dems (Clinton), followed by 8 years of repubs (Bush 43), followed by 4 years of dems (Obama). Like a pendulum, back and forth, back and forth. The symmetry is amazing. My guess is we will get 4 or 8 years of Romney, he'll screw things up, then we'll get 4 or 8 years of some dem, who will screw things up, etc, etc.
I think part of the reason libs are so damn cocky is because they have the media in their pocket. Think about it. Obama has zero fear of being called to task on anything he says or does. Part of it is his narcissism and arrogance, part of it is he just knows he is thought of as the Messiah, and plays it to a tee.
scotchieguy| 5.31.12 @ 1:11PM
I just re-read your comment. The reason why neither party has nominated a conservative is libs would never do so for obvious reasons, but acc. to
Rush, the GOP is paranoid of repeating the '64 debacle with Goldwater and so they lean left to get the indeps. This explains Ford, Bush 41, Dole, McCain and Romney. Reagan was the exception.
Frank Natoli| 5.31.12 @ 5:18PM
I believe a much stronger case can be made that Conservatism is dead, at least on the basis of nominations to national office and how Republicans in the Congress sabotage Conservative programs. Mark Levin, a voice crying out in the wilderness, very ably articulated how it was Republicans in the Congress who torpedoed Reagan's efforts to cut government. And the same can be said [and Levin said it] about McConnell and Boehner today. It's PATHETIC.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 5.31.12 @ 7:33PM
"although clearly LBJ was much more liberal than JFK"
I am open to facts or conjecture that could change my mind, but notwithstanding the political agenda that he advanced, I have never been certain that LBJ was a committed liberal. I've tended to see him as a deft and cynical politician, who used his skills at backroom deals and arm twisting to pass legislation that provided government funding to try to wrap up various blocs of voters for the Democrats, and increase his power. If he thought invading Canada would guarantee him another term (when he was still running and interested), I'm not sure he wouldn't have tried.
Frank Natoli| 5.31.12 @ 9:25PM
I agree with your assessment of LBJ, but I also think weighing a man's motivations is a waste of time. You can't stick a fork into motivations. But you can into deeds. And in that respect, LBJ was outdone as a Lib only by FDR.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 5.31.12 @ 11:14PM
As they say in many of the projects LBJ helped to create and segregate: "Tru' dat".
gravity| 5.31.12 @ 2:45PM
I remember the fury I felt when Clintonites described Paula Jones as what you got "when you dragged a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park"
spike59| 6.4.12 @ 6:16AM
i always thought that 'what you got' was Clinton's family tree
JD| 5.31.12 @ 2:52PM
Our government is larger and more complex than ever, the tax code is more complex and progressive than ever, government manages more aspects of our lives than ever, and we forever move left socially. In what way is liberalism dying?
Occam's Tool| 5.31.12 @ 3:10PM
I have never listed JFK among my Great/Near Great Presidents. The Cuban Missile Crisis came about because of the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
My top Presidents:
1. Washington
2.Lincoln
3. FDR
4. Reagan
5. Polk
6. Jackson
7. Eisenhower
Jack in Wi| 6.1.12 @ 12:56AM
Washington, Reagan, and Eisenhower were all right. All the rest of them were awful. They were warmongers and potential and even actual tyrants, especially in the case of Lincoln and Roosevelt. My personal favorite is William Henry Harrison. I love Warren Harding. In two and a half years in office he slashed Federal spending 60%, signed the Washington Naval Arms Treaty, and slashed taxes. He ended the big Depression of 1921 in one year by doing nothing except cutting spending and taxes. He pardoned all the political dissenters from Wilsons jails, especially Eugene V Debs. He even had Debs to the White house for a visit. He put the League of Nations to bed, just like most americans wanted. No wonder he was so popular when he died.
Obadiah Plainman| 6.1.12 @ 2:31PM
Polk is rightfully recognized as having annexed Texas and much of the Southwest, and his being one of the first southern presidents merits some serious consideration given the bias to the NE that existed (exists today?) at the time. But bringing TX in as a slave state also really accelerated tensions that led to the Civil War. He avoided this like the plague and, while politically expedient, it was a decision I have a hard time swallowing even in hindsight. For that alone, I can't place him anywhere in that pantheon.
Good call on Harding though, Jack in WI...very under-appreciated and not terribly well-known.
Occam's Tool| 5.31.12 @ 3:12PM
Yeah, I know about FDR and the Great Depression, etc., but he did win the biggest war in our history decisively.
chuck| 5.31.12 @ 7:58PM
Love you long time OT, but gotta disagree. The long term damage done to the country by FDR may be irreversible. So in a sense, he saved the country from the Nazis and Imperial Japan, just to set the course for self-destruction.
And GI Joe won the war.
JD| 5.31.12 @ 8:12PM
Read FDR's Folly before you rate FDR. Realize that WWII came about because of the regimes that came to power because of economic collapse. Without the economic failings, would there have been a war to win?
Occam's Tool| 5.31.12 @ 9:08PM
Like I said, Chuck, I knew FDR was highly controversial. But I got 6 out of 7?
OK, 1. Washington
2. Lincoln.
3. Reagan (before him, Commies winning--after him, Commies gone---it was not HW who set the fall)
4.Polk
5.Jackson
6. Eisenhower
7. Chet Arthur (NOT TR---let me give reason below)
One thing that you should know about my picks is that I value competence more than flashiness, and look for quiet times more than times of great chaos, when possible. Antoninius Pius is my favorite Roman Emperor.
Chet Arthur calmed stuff down and left well valued. He may be forgotten today because his term was fairly quiet, but competence is rarely accidental.
And man, I love Polk. Massive expansion and completed ALL of his objectives and greatly improved his country. All in 4 years and then had the decency to rapidly get off the stage. Eisenhower's period is generally considered a great time in America despite the Cold War.
TR's second term was not impressive, and he was tied up with "Progressives." Jefferson did not realize the value of a strong defense until it was chucked at him (and I preferred Hamilton anyway).
What always amazes me is how well we have done despite the fact that most of our Presidents were not outstanding.
Occam's Tool| 5.31.12 @ 9:09PM
Note I removed FDR and the overrated Truman.
RJ| 5.31.12 @ 10:36PM
Now that's a list I can join in on. All good selections. I am looking forward to reading Amity Shlaes book on Coolidge later this month. After reading it, I might want to add Mr. Coolidge to the list. Agree with you on Truman being overrated and no Progressive (e.g. TR) should be on the list.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 5.31.12 @ 11:18PM
I would suggest consideration for Coolidge, as well.
chuck| 5.31.12 @ 10:24PM
"What always amazes me is how well we have done despite the fact that most of our Presidents were not outstanding."
What has made this country great is the people, given the power to choose and pursue their own destiny. The best Presidents, like Reagan, are those who recognize this, and gets, or keeps the government out of the way.
BTW, I agree with most of your choices, but have mixed feelings about Lincoln. I may have lived too long in the Deep South, although I was born in PA.
1928DOB| 5.31.12 @ 3:17PM
JFK by Executive Order recognized Federal Employee Unions. All prior Presidents refused. JFK stopped air cover at the Bay of Pigs. Had he lived, he may have been as bad a President as was the Socialist LBJ.
Gypsy Boots| 5.31.12 @ 3:48PM
1) If JFK had not been shot, he would have been dead from his Addison's disease before the end of his term; 2) Sorry, liberalism was killed by Roe v. Wade.
St Reformed| 5.31.12 @ 4:04PM
“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for [Putin] to give me space,” Obama told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.
“After my election, I will have more flexibility.”
[“open mic” conservation in South Korea in March, 2012]
If nothing more, they reveal the sneering contempt this president has for the very people who permitted him the privilege of his current position. Never again.
mwv| 5.31.12 @ 4:12PM
Wow, it would seem LBJ and Lady Bird were the original "tea******* rednecks" as a noted historian and political scientist once proclaimed on the now-defunct "Countdown" with you-know-who.
Jack London| 5.31.12 @ 5:19PM
So, if liberalism is dead how come as recently as 2008 we elected the most dangerously socialist man ever to walk the Earth as our president?
chuck| 5.31.12 @ 8:00PM
Because we haven't found a way to stop idiots from voting.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 5.31.12 @ 11:17PM
...including many who have already died, and therefore have difficulty obtaining photo ID.
Truth to Power| 5.31.12 @ 7:32PM
Sure something called a Democrat will continue to exist but circumstances have changed. The European fantasy you have been so captivated by is over. States like California, Illinois and New York are in for some Greek like hard times. All those state workers who bribed their way into lucrative pensions are in for a shock that is called bankruptcy. All the while under the rule of pathetic progressives who have no discipline to fix anything. In contrast success stories like Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and frankly all the states that voted out the corrupt Democratic vermin will be healthy. In a mere three years your "leader" and the object of progressive love worship has shown himself to be absolutely incompetent and incapable of making rational decisions. He will have the effect of Jimmy Carter on progressivism, the new word for liberalism. You made a mess Jack and it is time for the adults to clean it up. Paying stimulus money to President O's money bundlers will be seen as bribes and not investment. Sucking up to Russia, China, Iran while treating allies like Canada, Israel, and Poland like punching bags will be seen for what it is, the actions of a gutless political movement. It must hurt to be you.
JD| 5.31.12 @ 8:14PM
Your entire narrative presumes that liberals and their supporters will recognize that the results of their policies are in fact the results of their policies. To date, they have shown a remarkable ability to spin their failings into the consequences of being "too conservative".
Dannyboy| 5.31.12 @ 7:37PM
Your article captures and confirms what I've believed for a while now. I'm 65 years old so I have lived through and experienced the social/cultural/spiritual revolution that took place after Kennedys death. In fact at that time I was politically unaware but I bought into, lived and even defended all that bullshit. Now I'm embarassed and angry at myself for allowing myself to be so decieved. But now, having been on both sides I can argue from experience the destruction bestowed on America by liberalism. When Oboma blames Bush, someone, Romney perhaps, should blame 45 years of liberalism. People can relate. I hope to live long enough to see the end of liberalism and the Democrats relegated to nothingness.
MLGMDJD| 5.31.12 @ 8:43PM
While I enjoyed your article, I do not understand your (and others') reference to JFK as a "martyr."
In what way was he a martyr? Did he choose death over dishonor? Did he willingly sacrifice himself in support of some cause? Please explain.
Obadiah Plainman| 6.1.12 @ 2:33PM
I cited this and used this word. To explain further, and perhaps a poor turn of phrase, he was martyred in the pejorative sense and continues to be by the modern Democrat party. JFK has become one of their patron saints yet they seldom understand what he was actually about or did.
MLGMDJD| 5.31.12 @ 8:48PM
While I enjoyed the article, I do not understand your (and others') reference to JFK as a "martyr."
Did he choose death over dishonor? Did he willingly sacrifice himself in support of some cause? Someone please explain.
Paul McGrath| 5.31.12 @ 10:40PM
Mr. Tyrell is wrong now, and he was wrong when he wrote The Liberal Crack Up in 1984. The reason is that "liberalism" as it is currently defined today, has been around forever and will always be around. Our founders understood this. Here is a letter that Adams wrote to Jefferson in 1815:
"I know not what answer to give you, but this: that Power always sincerely, conscientiously . . . believes itself right. Power always thinks that it has great soul and vast Views, beyond the comprehension of the Weak, and that it is doing God's service, when it is violating all his laws . . . "
There will always be people like this, Mr. Tyrell. Always.
milo| 6.1.12 @ 12:51AM
Well stated, Paul.
milo| 6.1.12 @ 12:49AM
The real death knell for Liberalism was when the far-left liberal LHO gunned down the exhalted liberal peer.
PCPSmoker| 6.1.12 @ 7:58PM
I always thought the death of liberalism came when Bill Buckley was debating Gore Vidal. After Buckley hit him with a zinger by pointing out a failure of the welfare state, Vidal called him a "prototypical Nazi."
The left has been talking to itself since the failure of the Great Society became evident.
BillL| 6.2.12 @ 9:13AM
Interesting that Charles Murray also uses the death of JFK as the turning point for American culture in his new book, "Coming Apart."
Beldar| 6.2.12 @ 11:38AM
The Death of Liberalism? Come off it. For the children in the crowd, during the 60's there was a large group of fiscally-conservative congressional representatives known as Southern Democrats. They were interested in improving the human condition, but not without the lack of restraint or fifth-grade math skills shown by successive generations of congress-persons.
While LBJ may have instituted the activist Warren Court in support of "civil rights", he deftly leveraged such activism as he personally escalated the war in Viet Nam. That endeavor was largely opposed by white college kids, who were economically privileged and made use of deferments (later to be employed as my teachers, who contaminated public school education).
Opposition to the war was much of a minority phenomenom, as who would be stoopid enough to bite the hand that was stacking the Court.
Lastly, neither Caro or Lord apppear to have addressed, which President's in-laws owned Sea Land Containers, which was used to ship everything to/from RVN. Their work reads like the pablum seen in People Magazine: Oh Jackie!
Perhaps one might consider Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex before begging the question of who had the most to gain with the death of the brothers Kennedy.
Then again, one cannot forget Rule #1 NEVER Trust the Russians.