October 28, 2004

WWJFKVF?

CAROLINE KENNEDY TO BUSH: STOP INVOKING MY FATHER (Drudge Report, 10/27/04).

Ms. Kennedy Schlossberg doesn't like it, but only one candidate for president this year could possibly, if elected, give the following inaugural address. He would, of course, be severly criticized for being a religious zealot, warmongering divisive extremist.

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 October 28, 2004 11:08 AM
Comments

The Dems and the Left seem to think that even after nationalizing their heroes they control how and when they can be used (think the King family). I'll be interestesting to see how conservatives react when Reagan gets invoked (in a positive way) by a Dem candidate in 2016.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 28, 2004 12:44 PM

I disagree, perhaps with OJ and Raoul, Caroline is right. I take it as proof of a continuing inferiority complex on the part of Republicans to have to invoke John Kennedy as a legitimating voice for conservatism. An attempt to use an elite liberal (apropo of liberal elite in post above) to prove conservatism mainstreamness.

Very foolish thing to do. The effect is to take an ineffectual statist (punk also) and giving him a standing he doesn't deserve. It becomes even more stark in the case of ingratiating ourselves by invoking Robert Kennedy (who wasn't ineffectual, but was a mean spirited demagogue). The peculiar smallness of Robert Kennedy is evidenced by his surveilance of Martin Luther King via J. Edgar Hoover. Neither brother was a conservative.

Regarding the Civil Rights movement of which they have become ex post facto leaders of, neither was truly a leader when it counted.

Other than that they were nice guys.

Posted by: h-man at October 28, 2004 1:24 PM

h: I posted this, so we can let OJ off the hook.

I agree that the Kennedy boys were not conservatives and not nice guys. But I think that the President should mention the real JFK as often as possible.

First, a president, as president, doesn't belong to his family and Caroline has no more right than any of us to shape his ongoing public role.

Second, look at the rhetoric Kennedy uses in his inaugural. When W is attacked for saying that liberty is a gift from G-d, do the attackers understand that he is paraphrasing Kennedy: "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." Whenever the President is attacked as extremist, remember that the language he uses was commonplace 40 years ago.

Third, this is, to some extent, an argument from authority. Now, you and I might not think that President Kennedy is much of an authority on anything more important than how to pick up chicks. But W is spending some time this week appealing to Democrats. How better to appeal to Democrats than to show them that, in this race, the politician closest in position to one of their icons is W?

Posted by: David Cohen at October 28, 2004 1:45 PM

David

Your right. As Rosanna Rosanna said "nevermind"

Posted by: h-man at October 28, 2004 2:00 PM

More to the point - the invocation of JFK is to show the contrast with Kerry, a feeble man who claims to be JFK 2, when in fact he is the embodiment of Henry Wallace, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and Michael Dukakis.

If Kennedy were alive today, he might well support Kerry. But he isn't, and his public words (at least) would never be spoken by Kerry on the trail.

Didn't Democrats complain when Reagan kept talking about FDR? Too bad.

Posted by: jim hamlen at October 28, 2004 2:03 PM

Mr. Ortega;

Why wait until 2016? Senator Kerry already doing it.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at October 28, 2004 2:34 PM

I mean someone who might actually mean it. Kerry will cite anyone or anything if he thinks it'll gain him one more vote than it loses him.

I could even see the Dem candidate then using Reagan's own words against the Stupid Party as Bush is using St.JFK's against his would-be successor, and that hypothetical candidate might even be right.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 28, 2004 3:53 PM

That speech was Jack Kennedy's finest moment. But nobody in the democrat party of 2004 except Zell Miller could deliver it with a straight face. In office Jack was squeamish about the use of American power and messed up Cuba, the Berlin wall and Indo China.

His big domestic sucess was the cutting the income tax rate from a top rate of 92%! to a mere 70%. But he never figured out how to deal with the civil rights crusade.

Its hard to remember, but he won the 1960 election by running to Nixon's right on defense -- The Missle Gap, which lead to Eisenhower's parting shot about the military-industrial complex.

A lot of neo-conservatives are Kennedy democrats who were never socialsts, Henry Wallacites or anti-anti-comunists. I think I am one of those people in many ways, although I was only in High school when Kennedy was president.

I did not leave the Democrats. They left America.

Caroline regards that speech as her family property, but it is not. It belongs to the American people. It says many true things about us. And some that we wish were true. But if anyone in public life right now can read that speech and make it his own, it is not Caroline and is not Treebeard, it is George W. Bush.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at October 29, 2004 2:21 AM
« BUT NO ONE ON THE FACULTY OPPOSED SADDAM...: | Main | WOULD YOU LISTEN TO ME, YOU SWINE, I'M AN ELITE... (via Neil Goldstein) »