March 8, 2004

THE PROBLEM ISN'T THE SICKNESS, IT'S THE SYMPTOMS

JFK Disease (Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal, 3/4/04)

I have been wondering how much of Mr. Kerry's career is an essentially unreflective meditation upon the life of John F. Kennedy. Or to put it more directly, how much of his professional life has been a case of JFK disease.

The murdered president dominated the imaginations of more than a generation of Democratic politicians, and continues as their most formative role model. President Clinton had a famous JFK complex. No one who was there will ever forget the moment at the 1992 Democratic Convention when the famous picture of teenage Bill Clinton pushing himself forward to reach out to shake hands with President Kennedy flashed across the screens that loomed over the convention floor. I was there in Madison Square Garden, and the impact on the crowd was electric, as if Michelangelo's painting had come alive and they were actually seeing God touch Adam. . . .

Sen. Kerry has had his JFK moments too. The other day I watched a clip of Mr. Kerry's famous testimony to Congress on Vietnam 30 years ago. Have you ever heard it? It was a total JFK impersonation--"hoff" for half, etc. In the pictures that exist of Lt. Kerry in Vietnam he seems startlingly similar in pose, squint and physical attitude to pictures of John Kennedy with his crew in World War II. PT boats, Swift boats; "Mahs-CHEW-sitts," the initials JFK . . .

I have no problem with current presidents and presidential candidates trying to emulate great presidents of the past, or even mostly competent presidents with good pr. George Bush, after all, is self-consciously modeling his presidency after Ronald Reagan's.

There is, however, a key distinction between Mr. Bush's homage to Mr. Reagan and Mr. Kerry's essentially creepy aping of Mr. Kennedy. Bush is echoing those things about the Reagan presidency that actually contributed to its success: Reagan's tax policies, his economic policies, his immigration policies, his rhetorical support of the religious right and his image as an amiable dunce. Kerry is doing something else. He has chosen not to emulate the policies of a successful president but the hairstyle and accent (and initials?!) of a president who, at best, didn't have enough time in office to succeed.

Even odder, he completely ignores Kennedy's policies -- particularly his foreign policy. A few weeks ago, I was reading Kennedy's inaugural address. Today, it could only be given by a conservative Republican, and the media would immediately jump on him for unilateralism, bellicosity and injecting G-d into the public sphere. Our new JFK is not our fathers' JFK, and more's the pity.

Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge—and more.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do—for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom—and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.

To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge—to convert our good words into good deeds—in a new alliance for progress—to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.

To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support—to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective—to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak—and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course—both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms—and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah—to "undo the heavy burdens ... and to let the oppressed go free."

And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.

Now the trumpet summons us again—not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are—but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"—a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

Posted by David Cohen at March 8, 2004 12:37 PM
Comments

Related note - was flipping around the tube recently and came across a PBS special on Jack Paar. Among the show clips was about a 5 minute section with JFK as a guest during which he took questions from the audience. I'm not a big fan of Kennedy but as OJ notes he sounded much more hawkish on foreign affairs and more in line with today's GOP than the Dems. Another slightly OT - remember during the tax cut debate in 2001 the GOP ran ads with JFK extolling the virtues of tax cuts that drove Ted nuts?

Posted by: AWW at March 8, 2004 12:50 PM

In Steven Hayward's first volume of The Age of Reagan, Hayward quotes Lyndon Johnson, shortly after he took office, as saying, "Truth be told, Kennedy was too conservative for me". (I'm probably not quoting it exactly, but it's close enough.)

It's fascinating how Jack Kennedy continues to be the icon for liberals, when their party as a whole, beginning with Johnson, has continually moved further and further to JFK's left. Kennedy's now routinely quoted by conservatives such as President Bush, and was once made an honorary Dittohead by Rush Limbaugh for his tax-cutting.

On the other hand, Kennedy had far better hair than McGovern, which may explain it all.

Posted by: Ed Driscoll at March 8, 2004 2:59 PM

Reading these words has reminded me of the times that surrounded the Thousand days presidency. While JFK had great speech writers, his actions did not always agree with his words. He faced election against the VP of a very popular president. Thus, he had to appear to stand far to the right of where he was before or after the election.

This new JFK is a chameleon as well. His latest statements about the war show a rapid move to the right on national security. I expect him to run a campaign similar to the one Kennedy ran, and the donkey machine to scream each time the Bush team compares his latest statement to his record. If Bush can keep Kerry's record in front of the voters, he will walk to victory. One thing Kerry has that Kennedy did not is a 20 year record with which to compare his latest lies.

The idea of having another JFK in the White House is, to one who remembers those years, absolutely frightening. Both men would run the White House the way they ran their patrol boats: with an irresponsible temerity (which my dictionary defines as: unreasonable or foolhardy contempt of danger or opposition).

Posted by: Michael Gersh at March 8, 2004 3:10 PM

Ed Driscoll is (perhaps)facetious with the hair wisecrack - but I bet that he is righter than he knows. We are attracted to the handsomer, taller candidate in ways that we do not fully realize.

I also remember the JFK taxcut ads for the GOP, and can't wait for the JFK foreign policy quotations followed by Democratic apoplexy...

Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at March 8, 2004 3:24 PM

Oj

Right on. That was a different Democrat party. One I embraced for the rhetoric. I hope we use some of JFK's speeches in the campaign ads; portions of which are truly supportive of GWB's policies during the years since 9/11. I've used them on dedicated JFK Democrats and they elicted a thunderous silence.

Posted by: genecis at March 8, 2004 3:38 PM

Ted Kennedy would probably be a Lieberman Democrat today or -- gasp! -- even in the same territory as Zell Miller had his brothers not been slain, since they would have been the targets of the Port Huron left in the mid-1960s, not JFK, and the blood ties would have embittered the younger brother to that group, given JFK's hawkish policies and their support of North Vietnam.

As it was, he gravitated to the left in the 60s because they turned both his slain brothers into icons for their cause, and Teddy wanted to be at the head of the parade in order to help any future presidential bid and (later) to maintain his leading role in the party (though an ideologically more conservative Edward M. Kennedy probably would have had the same morals as the EMK in this universe).

Posted by: John at March 8, 2004 3:52 PM

Ms Noonan writes that being rich doesn't give one a special aura among Dems anymore, but it seems to me that it's just Kerry's personality that prevents it from happening.
If Kerry were like Richard Branson, he'd benefit handsomely from being wealthy.

Also, what's with attacking salmon ties ?

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 8, 2004 3:58 PM

I now have a functional definition of neo-conservative. A neo-conservative is a person who supported, or would have supported Jack Kennedy, and who has been abandoned by the Democrat party in its surge to join the left wing of Europe.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at March 9, 2004 6:08 PM
« CELLULAR MATTERS: | Main | AN ARGUMENT THAT WORKS FOR BOTH SIDES »