[Peace-discuss] The Kennedys' fake liberalism, then and now

[n.dahlheim at mchsi.com]

Carl,
   First, there never has been any real Left-leaning liberalism in America that took hold of the 
mainstream political discourse in America---even the Progressive movement at the start of the 20th 
century failed at creating that.  But, since WWII made America the hegemonic global power rather than 
just a regional power---with the rest of the "civilized" world in tattered ruins---a Left-leaning 
imperialism was never going to materialize without at least a strong consensus liberalism surviving and 
thriving in spite of the pressure to militarize.  I think this is the real meaning behind Ike's cryptic 
farewell speech in 1961.  So, consider the appropriate standards I am employing here in judging the 
various Administrations.  If your measuring stick is a very principled Left-leaning liberalism, I don't 
think we can adequately assess the progression and the machinations of our odious militaristic state.  
That said, Kennedy was the most liberal President we have had since Truman without a doubt.  Yes, LBJ 
passed the Great Society but his radical escalation of Vietnam through the manufactured Gulf of Tonkin 
as well as the vicious repression of race riots and student protests mitigates that accomplishment.  
Also, the virtual destruction of Great Society programs today more generally as a result of Reagan, Bush 
I, Clinton, and Bush II makes the point null and void.        

I think you also underestimate the importance of the unique inner dynamics of the Kennedy White 
House.  I never have tried to indicate that the Kennedys were anything other than managers and 
stewards of an imperial, expansionist state.  They were not progressives, and with the exception of RFK 
during moments in 1968, never spoke that way in their rhetoric.  They were liberal-minded imperial 
stage managers and ruthlessly practical politicians who would appeal to the liberal intelligencia of the 
day in media and academia----people like Lippmann and Hofstadter who would be viewed as pinkos in 
today's media right-wing discourse.  The Cuban Missile Crisis was largely saved by backroom 
negotiations between Kennedy and Kruschev---if anything, the madness of the CIA and the Joint Cheifs 
shows up in the EXCOM meetings of the Cuban Missile Crisis most poignantly of all.  Kennedy, 
supported only by Sorenson and his younger brother, really had to play a careful game.  The Cuban 
Missile Crisis nearly occasioned a military coup---Kennedy had to work with those people and assuade 
and placate them.  I don't think Kennedy was some dove fighting a moral crusade against them, nor do 
I think he was reckless in discharging the Cuban Missile Crisis considering the presence of nuts like 
Lemnitzer and LeMay who placed heavy pressure on the President to go to nuclear war.  I think JFK's 
pragmatism and his willingness to talk to Kruschev (who himself was facing hawks similar to our Joint 
Chiefs at the same time as Kennedy was) really made the critical difference in staving off a nuclear 
holocaust.  I think you have to look at the Kennedy years more generally in a wider context---Kennedy 
was as good as we progressives were going to get...  Things are far worse now than then---at least 
then we had the pretense of following international law and engaging in a multilateral, realist foreign 
policy.  The whole reason JFK was assassinated was that he didn't view a major escalation in Vietnam as 
a prudent policy----the detailed archival work of Peter Dale Scott and especially John Newman really 
bear this out.  

This segues to one final point----we cannot look at politics by only judging individual leaders.  We 
tend to personalize political eras and particular administrations, but we also must situate them within 
broader ideological, political, and cultural contexts.  Administrations also are complex and function not 
so much as a direct reflection of a President's peculiar temperment and personality; but as an 
amalagamation of bureaucratic relationships amongst competing departments, personalities, and 
interest groups that also have a fair degree of private motives and autonomy (insofar as there is some 
divsersity amongst interests working for the ruling classes primarily) within the framework of 
government operations.

Best,
 Nick  


----------------------  Original Message:  ---------------------
From:    "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
To:      peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Kennedys' fake liberalism, then and now
Date:    Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:54:40 +0000

> I'm astonished that anyone can look at the Kennedys with the advantage of 
> distance and see them as anything other than what they were -- arriviste 
> apparatchiks of an oppressive American empire.  They made great efforts to hide 
> what they were of course, but they're clear in hindsight.
> 
> The vicious JFK administration "got this country  moving again" by substantially 
> increasing the crimes of the Eisenhower admin -- which had an impressive list of 
> its own, including Iran and Guatemala.
> 
> JFK began with a massive tax cut for the rich and then started a war -- far more 
> murderous than Iraq -- based on fear and lies.  His admin launched subversive 
> military operations around the world ("Green Berets"), installed death squads in 
> Latin America, and was willing to blow up the world in order to stop the USSR 
> from doing in Cuba, defensively, what the US was doing offensively around the 
> world.  Luckily Khrushchev's good sense and the bravery of a Russian naval 
> commander saved the world from Kennedy's madness.  (Vasili Alexandrovich 
> Arkhipov: see <www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB75/>.) 
> 
> Those crimes are being celebrated again, and Mike Taibbi points out one 
> contemporary parallel:
> 
>     http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12502
> 
> <excerpt>
> 
>     There's no denying the clear difference in the
>     two campaign styles. In Barack Obama versus Hillary Clinton, we've
>     basically got Kennedy-Nixon redux, and I mean that in the most negative
>     possible sense for both of them -- a pair of superficial, posturing
>     conservatives selling highly similar political packages using different
>     emotional strategies. Obama is selling free trade and employer-based
>     health care and an unclear Iraqi exit strategy using looks, charisma
>     and optimism, while Hillary is selling much the same using hard, cold
>     reality, "prose not poetry," managerial competence over "vision."
> 
> <end excerpt>
> 
> But it's much worse than that.  --CGE
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss