JFK, not liked by the Left Wing, or Right Wing Establishment

Page 1 of 1 [ 9 posts ] 

CommanderKeen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2014
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,137

07 Sep 2015, 4:58 am

Does anyone else get this vibe? I mean when you think about it, it makes sense. JFK was a Democrat, but he was very pro second amendment. The right wing establishment would never mention JFK, simply because he was a democrat. The left wing establishment never mentions JFK, because he does not represent the current democratic party. It's a real shame he doesn't get more credit and is barely talked about in schools.



Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

07 Sep 2015, 5:07 am

What did he accomplish?



Grebels
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2012
Age: 79
Gender: Male
Posts: 545

07 Sep 2015, 5:17 am

Quote:
What did he accomplish?


He stood up to crazy Khrushchev. He did enough wrong things but stood up for what he believed with great courage.



Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

07 Sep 2015, 5:31 am

Grebels wrote:
He stood up to crazy Khrushchev.

Kennedy could have started WWIII if it hadn't been for former ambassador Tommy Thompson, according to Robert McNamara.



Grebels
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2012
Age: 79
Gender: Male
Posts: 545

07 Sep 2015, 7:13 am

Quote:
Kennedy could have started WWIII if it hadn't been for former ambassador Tommy Thompson, according to Robert McNamara.


I give way to your knowledge of the USA.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,696
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Sep 2015, 11:44 pm

To be sure, JFK was hardly a liberal Democrat in the current sense. He had said confidentially that, if he didn't get the Democratic Presidential nomination, he was going to vote for Nixon.
That said, people of that time still associated his Presidency with the new sense of freedom of the 1960's. Sometimes historical figures become associated with one thing or another, despite themselves.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,747
Location: On top of the world

10 Sep 2015, 11:54 am

JFK and his brother were responsible for the big push on civil rights.

He spoke his own mind because, similar to D.Trump, he didn't need the capitalist/industrial complex money to fund his political ambitions, so he did and said what he thought was right. I believe this is what got him killed.

He was, despite his human failings, an exceptional human being, totally unlike the political drones each party now dredges up....people whose only thought is to grovel for scraps before their investor masters and lick their nether parts, more like dogs than human beings (this is what we have to "lead" us). :roll:



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,696
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

10 Sep 2015, 1:17 pm

ZenDen wrote:
JFK and his brother were responsible for the big push on civil rights.

He spoke his own mind because, similar to D.Trump, he didn't need the capitalist/industrial complex money to fund his political ambitions, so he did and said what he thought was right. I believe this is what got him killed.

He was, despite his human failings, an exceptional human being, totally unlike the political drones each party now dredges up....people whose only thought is to grovel for scraps before their investor masters and lick their nether parts, more like dogs than human beings (this is what we have to "lead" us). :roll:


Most certainly the Kennedy brothers had been important for the civil rights movement, but ultimately, the President who was most responsible for the fight for racial equality was Lyndon Johnson.
And while there were people who were definitely pro-segregation and racist among the cabal suspected to have been responsible for JFK's death (professional Anti-Communist Guy Bannister, and mob boss Carlos Marcelo, just to name a couple), I think the primary impetus for the assassination was based in the CIA/Mafia's secret Anti-Castro war. Rogue CIA contract agents and contacts, most of whom had been affiliated with the Cuban exile underground, right wing extremists, and organized crime, had all been fanatically dedicated Anti-Castroites, and believed Kennedy had betrayed them. I believe they had hoped to place the blame of Kennedy's murder ultimately on Castro (hence the Pro-Castroite Lee Harvey Oswald in the sniper's nest) in order to justify a new invasion of Cuba. What they hadn't accounted for was that Lyndon Johnson, believing it, tried to cover up any alleged Castro connection with the Warren Report for fear that US retaliation would bring in the Soviets, thus sparking off WWIII. At least that's my theory.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,254
Location: London

10 Sep 2015, 5:27 pm

CommanderKeen wrote:
Does anyone else get this vibe? I mean when you think about it, it makes sense. JFK was a Democrat, but he was very pro second amendment. The right wing establishment would never mention JFK, simply because he was a democrat. The left wing establishment never mentions JFK, because he does not represent the current democratic party. It's a real shame he doesn't get more credit and is barely talked about in schools.


The Democratic party was a completely different party in the 60s.

I think the parties have been quite typecast, and polarised. Certainly the general rhetoric is tiresome.

Having said that this was height of the cold war, which did quite a lot of damage to American politics, thegeneral psyche and is quite pervasive. Arguably it dumbed down the politics, becuase it limited to scope to which people and parties were prepared to operate. Also the political language/label are influenced by that period.

From 50s on civil liberties, such as citizens being spied by government without recourse and other abuses of power justified under the banner of "anti-subversive". Proscribed patriotic activity, devaluing the principles of the constitution.

Also Vietnam doesn't get talked about enough as a mistake. People talk about Iraq as a mistake, but arguably there even less justification for Vietnam. People have a lot of respect for Vets which is understandable, but questioning the decision isn't the same thing as criticising vets.

I can think of another reason why JFK isn't so revered amongst some. He was a womanizer, he was famously treated for VD whilst rising in profile.

I think culturally is quite hard for folk to separate that out from being able to lead. In France for instance, private life is usually of limits, the politicians are judge on their performance.

If there is a moral objection to adultery that is one thing, but the moral objection have to be consistent with other digestions (greed etc).

The 60s were also massive change is culture and push for universal suffrage and rights. There is enviably a push back and certain resentment.

This is why it not always good to think in term of party political. You may belong to a party but you don't need to toe the line on everything ,you can make you own mind up. Some of this discussion belonging outside of the party political scope anyway. I'm talking collective 'you' rather than you the individual :wink: