Back to JFK: Most of you are too young to remember the "Solid South" of the Democrats, or that people of color (those few who were actually able to vote) were predominantly Republican up through 1960. Martin Luther King, SR, was Republican. Jackie Robinson was Republican. They were Republican because Lincoln was Republican, and Reconstruction was Republican, and the "Good ole boys" and the KKK who harrassed and lynched them were all Democrats down south.

When RFK, who was at the time JFK's campaign manager, helped get King, Jr., out of jail during the 1960 campaign, things started to change.

It was much more complicated than I can possibly fit into this constrained space, involving northern migration after the war, etc. 1964 was the last time that the Democrats held the solid south. In 1968 Wallace ran and actually won the electoral votes of a couple of southern states, the last time a 3rd party candidate did that, and by 1972 or so Jessie Helms and Strom Thurmond became Republicans.

We can look back at the early 60's and see that Kennedy was still a cold warrior. We can sneer at his sexcapades if it makes us feel superior, or make any other smug, cynical, ironic musings to help us each feel intellectually and morally superior to those who actually cared about what happened back then.

But the country around Kennedy changed during his short administration. People started making fun of HUAC instead of quaking in its path. White college kids became activists, willing to put their bodies as well as their money into the civil rights movement, which morphed into the anti-war movement during the LBJ administration. Without the civil rights activism on campuses, the anti-war movement would not have been what it became, because the successes of the civil rights movement among young people, along with their organized structure, gave them the belief that they could also stop the war. People believed that they could actually make a difference, in ways that no one born after 1960, let alone 1970, can understand. It was this early success that led to the frustrations and riots and violence that marked the late 60's.

Again, it is easy to feel smug and cynical and make ironic musings and wonder what all the fuss was about when you weren't there.

Much of the rehashing that I've seen seems to come off, unintentionally, as an attempt to inflate the status of those who are reminiscing. Here in NYC, Ch 4's local news had a sports segment which recalled the NFL's reaction — games were played, but not televised. Could anything be found about which we care less, than whether or not they played football games? And how is our understanding of the event enhanced by knowing what the Giants' owner went through? Or Chuck Scarbrough? I frankly didn't care a whit about their mundane recollections.

I do see your point but the media want to hit on a traget that is of intrest to the public and I know I'd much rather watch about a possible conspiracy then an aids viticm.

Oh, Frank, you don't just don't know how controversial that NFL decision was at the time, how much flak they got for doing it, and how much that played into baseball stopping its season temporarilly after 9/11. Admitedly, the fact that no one could fly helped make the decision, but those who knew remembered the fiasco of the NFL playing during JFK's funeral.

It was, at the time, and for years after, a VERY big deal.

Well, whatever the late local news may be doing with the coverage, there are plenty of reasons to go back to JFK's presidency. For one thing -- to pick an example that just happens to be at hand -- here's how JFK tackled the question (fomenting even then) about the hostile use of the term "Liberal."

"It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves."

Call me crazy, but not only would I say that's not "abstract," I'd say it's downright relevant.

When there are ratings to be reaped (without risking total backlash, as on 9/11), you won't get far betting on the media to underplay their hand. But that doesn't make the man unimportant. There's plenty to look back on and criticize, and there's plenty to admire. Understanding the unbroken link from JFK to W would be a profound history lesson, if we were pursuing it seriously. But part the reason they're still able to crank up the echo chamber is that he reached people with his eloquence and ideals, and he changed the way they saw their country.

We can (and should) have the conversation about the media and Hype of the Week versus Real Problems. But JFK and people suffering in 2003 are not mutually exclusive. In fact, this would be an excellent time to carefully review his presidency and reflect on the current state of the union.

Galbraith, writing in Salon: "To be sure, there are those who wanted us in [Iraq] and do not want us to leave; their next move will be interesting to watch. Now, as then [in Vietnam], the government is divided, and neither faction is anxious to lose. So it is worthwhile to read the history of Kennedy and Vietnam now, partly for its own sake, partly for general lessons about neocolonial war, and partly with a view to understanding how the questions of national security and domestic politics play out in Washington. "

[more]

Or, for a brisk trot around the complex cultural yearnings that the assassination engendered on the left, check out my friend David Greenberg's recent essay in Slate, particularly his conclusion:

"Above all, in the 1970s increasing numbers of Americans were concluding that the government was hopelessly unresponsive to the popular will. After a decade of seemingly fruitless protest, once-impassioned activists withdrew into cynicism, accepting the bleak view that all politics was a rigged game. "Since the assassination of John F. Kennedy," Norman Mailer later wrote, 'we have been marooned in one of two equally intolerable spiritual states, apathy or paranoia.'

"Today the political climate is cooler than in 1973. But if frustration over an open-ended war, misgivings about the honesty of government officials, and cynicism about the health of our democracy tend to foster a belief in conspiracies, then it shouldn't surprise us that most Americans still doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone."

You don't have to feel it, NS, but I can almost guarantee you that JFK's death has affected you more than Lincoln's. By all means, let's deflate the hype. But don't shortchange one of our greatest just because you happen to be in Boston.

In fact, since you're right in the thick of it, you should be asking what you can do for your country! Tell you what. Next time I'm up there, we'll go to the Union Oyster House, sit in JFK's booth, and have a chat about it.

(It's a fine booth, actually. I've been there, I've eaten steamers there... and I, sir, am no Jack Kennedy.)

I think it is way too early to move on. We lost one of the greatest Americans ever that day. A man whose accomplishments speak for themselves. A man who made a huge mark in American culture and politics and, had he lived, may have been one of the greatest influences on history ever.

Yes, when that small plane went down over Nantucket, it took with it a truly great man. And his wife, let's not forget her. Cathy or Cammie or something. And that other girl, too, whoever she was. She was probably great too. There may have been a great dog involved as well, but I can't really remember.

But I'll always remember where I was that terrible August day. Or possibly July. I recall it was hot.

I thought the 40-year anniversary you'd be celebrating around now, N, would be the 40th anniversary of the first ever episode of Dr Who ...

Chris -- did you hear the rumors about Eddie Izzard being the next doctor ? That would be hillarious, esp if they kept him out of drag (it's too easy).

Jimpy -- as usual, you have added your own unique ironic stamp to the memorial events.

Speaking of memorial events, that woman in Florida whom you would have starved to death, is not brain-dead. Check out Nat Hentoff's series in the Voice. This link is the first of three articles. As long as you are going to be flippant and ironic about death, take a look at these articles as well.

Although we are post-M-----, I guess Mike never formally repealed the "say anything" decree that dispensed with the need for any kind of decorum. So rather than take umbrage at your half-truths and mean-spirited shots at me, I'll just correct you:

1. I'm not being "flippant and ironic about death." I'm being flippant and ironic about Kennedy-Worship.

2. What I actually said about "that woman in Florida" was not that I would "have starved [her] to death," but that if her wishes were truly being complied with and she were already "dead," in a sense where such treatment was medically acceptable, I have no issue with what they are doing (meaning, removing a feeding tube vs. letting her die in some other way).

If you didn't mean to mischaracterize me in that nasty way because you truly didn't hear that, you might want to re-read the thread, since I gave you the last word on it and at that time you, um, well . . . agreed with me.

And as for Nat Hentoff? Well, I just think it's great that an unbiased and highly regarded bastion of journalism like the Village Voice is willing to assign its crack "Jazz Advocate" to this important case. One can only hope Mr. Hentoff's insights aren't taking precious time away from his sequel to "Talkin' to Ya, Listen to the Stories: Nat Hentoff on Jazz and Country Music."

To be fair, he has written on law before. Why, Amazon.com notes his newest book on the 'Gathering Resistance' (to George Bush, of course) is "digressive, reiterative, and poorly organized," and that "he is unremittingly shrill and preachy." Whee! Sounds fun!

Jimpy, your last line in that thread was:

>>"If Terri is already "dead," I have no issue with what they are doing. If she isn't, I agree with you. I just lack confidence that I can say for sure, in light of all the mutually exclusive spin I've seen. "

And I agreed with you that I lacked the confidence that I could say for sure that she was dead, either. I was simply pointing out here that, in fact, she is not brain dead at all.

That said, Mr. Hentoff has been writing about civil liberties for the Village Voice, in all its incarnations, since before you were born. His reputation as a civil libertarian is beyond reproach. It is not that the Voice is "willing to assign its crack 'Jazz advocate' to this important case.'" You have no idea how ignorant that statement makes you sound!!!
If you do a google search on "Hentoff civil liberties" you get 65 pages!!!!

Reviews of The Nat Hentoff Reader, found on Amazon:

Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
It becomes clear from this collection of his writings over the past 25 years that Hentoff iconoclast, muckraker and critic par excellence has been remarkably consistent in his beliefs. And these beliefs come down to an absolute insistence that human freedom and the right of individual expression are sacrosanct, and that any challenge to them whether from the left or right is to be resisted. Many of the pieces here thus focus on First Amendment issues from the banning of books and the censoring of student newspapers in high schools, to community attacks on a grade school teacher as being a Satanist for reading her students fairy tales. He also lashes out at college campuses where demands for political correctness and racial sensitivity have led to the banning of controversial speakers and the pillorying of dedicated professors for innocent remarks interpreted as racist. But he also confronts America's continuing struggle with race, with pieces on persistent school segregation, the neglect of black crime victims by the mainstream press, and black anti-Semitism. His most loving pieces, however, are portraits of musicians Lester Young, Dizzy Gillespie, Louis Armstrong, even Merle Haggard. Risk takers all, such artists personify what unbridled voices can create. As the World Trade Center lies in ruins, Hentoff offers an uncannily timely reminder of the care that must be taken in the protection of rights.
Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

From Booklist
For nearly 50 years, Hentoff has been sounding off in print--in magazines such as the Atlantic Monthly, the New Yorker, and Jazz Times; as a columnist for the Village Voice, Editor and Publisher, and Legal Times; and in books on his obsessions: jazz and the U.S. Constitution.... Many readers will alternate between loving Hentoff and hating him. Even those who disagree with him, however, will grant that Hentoff expresses his firmly held opinions powerfully and even eloquently. Mary Carroll
Copyright Â(c) American Library Association. All rights reserved

Sorry I couldn't get my "bold" and "italics" to work correctly.

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Just weighing in on Hentoff -- I consistently read his column in the Voice on civil liberties and find him to be a valuable resource. I have no idea of his value as a music writer.

And interestingly enough, I always considered Hentoff to be a writer from the right, but a bit of an iconoclast and a libertarian. I remember he was critical of Roe v. Wade and had a fairly well developed critique of abortion rights.

That said, the two of you are pretty close to agreeing @ several points, yet for some reason your disagreements seem to become personal fairly quickly.

NS, I think you are right. First off, I have always believed that the spectrum from Libertarian to Authoritarian was a much more important spectrum than Left to Right. I don't always agree with Hentoff, but his passionate defense of the Bill of Rights is always worth reading.

I also agree with you that for some reason my disagreements with Jimpy seem to become personal fairly quickly. I have a guess as to why, which follows.

Above, I wrote that Jimpy had added his own "own unique ironic stamp to the memorial events." I ask you, is that a slap in the face? Is that a remark that is disrespectful? No. It is simply an acknowledgement that Jimpy has his own unique ironic stamp that he was adding to these memorial events.

His response: "I'm not being "flippant and ironic about death." Did I say that he was being flippant? No. Did he take offense where none was given? Yes. If the shoe fits, should he wear it? Well, that's up to him.

Also, on that previous thread, when I asked if anyone really thought that she should be denied food and water, Jimpy came out and said, "Well I, for one, might indeed tell you that I think she should be denied food and water. But it depends on those pesky facts." The facts being whether she was brain-dead. So I wrote up above that the woman he would have starved to death was not, in fact, brain-dead.

His response? First to accuse me of M------like behavior, and then to make a sophmoric attack on Hentoff. It was a pretty foolish thing to imply that Hentoff was a jazz advocate thrown into an argument that was outside his realm of expertise!

I think that if the above is any indication, then the reason our "disagreements seem to become personal fairly quickly" is because Jimpy is taking these disagreements personally fairly quickly. And the reason he was so moved to attack Hentoff so quickly and look so foolish in the process is because he needed to attack me.

That's my two cents. I'm sure he will disagree. The only question is how personally he will do so. :-)

OK, time for me to resume my old role...

Although Jim wasn't really correct in calling Hentoff a "jazz critic" primarily, I find you at fault in this exchange, David. First, you claim you did not say that Jim was being "flippant", yet if you scroll up you'll find those very words toward the end of your statement. Secondly, bringing in a past argument about Florida -- well, I didn't see how it contributed to the discussion of JFK worship etc. I mean, neither does talking about Dr. Who, but come on. I'd strongly prefer if everyone here refrains from picking fights and scoring points -- you won't believe what I've been through on that account. Play nice, kids.

David, I'm having a real hard time with your assertation that Jimpy's the one making these arguments personal.

You wrote:
"Jimpy -- as usual, you have added your own unique ironic stamp to the memorial events."

...my immediate impression, anyway, was that this was a rhetorical slap (a la Reagan's 'there you go again') and given your next sentence, I certainly didn't read 'unique ironic stamp' in a neutral sense...

"Speaking of memorial events, that woman in Florida whom you would have starved to death, is not brain-dead."

...saying that Jimpy 'would have starved to death' Terry Schiavo is completely mischaracterizing his posts on the topic. Jimpy clearly was saying in those posts that deciding the right course of action depended on whether or not the patient was actually brain dead with with no hope of improvement, a conditional whose answer he said he couldn't determine. Not only do you mischaracterize him, but you do it in such a way as to suggest that he is generally cavalier about matters of life and death--both Kennedy's and Schiavo's. Then you go beyond suggesting and say so outright:

"As long as you are going to be flippant and ironic about death, take a look at these articles as well. "

...And then in the post above you lie and say that you never said any such thing and you seem to be surprised that Jimpy would take offense...

"Did I say that he was being flippant? No. Did he take offense where none was given? Yes. If the shoe fits, should he wear it? Well, that's up to him. "

Maybe you didn't mean to give offense, David, but what you wrote sure read like it to me. I think you should own up that you were at least kinda sorta taking a shot at Jimpy, or else you should pay a lot more attention to your rhetorical style.

MIke,

I obviously wrote my comment last night way too late in the evening (actually, 12:48 am). Yes, I did not remember using the word "flippant," but apparently I did, so I stand corrected.

And, well, upon further review, he WAS being both flippant AND giving us his own unique ironic stamp.

But it wasn't whether or not Hentoff is "primarilly" a jazz critic or a civil libertarian that caused me to respond as I did. Instead, it is Jimpy's blatant ignorance about who Hentoff is, what he stands for, and his insistence on attacking the messenger instead addressing the message, that led me to respond as I did.

And the poor woman in Florida is not brain-dead.

And JFK has been for 40 years now.

And if any of you were alive when Kennedy was killed -- either JFK or RFK -- you would feel differently. But most of you weren't. I was.

My grandmother remembered where she was when she heard Warren Harding died. She and my mom both remember where they were when FDR died. I have very vivid memories of the weekend when JFK was killed and buried, and I was just four years old. Those of you who have visited my home have seen 40 year old yellowing newspapers from November, 1963, saved by my mom.

It is easy to be flippant and ironical about something that is outside of one's experience. It is easy to look at something 40 years distant, that occured perhaps even before your parents even met, let alone married, and not understand what such an event meant to a generation.

The civil rights movement was still non-violent. Freedom Riders were risking their lives to register voters down south. The big March on Washington, which we remember from King's "I Have a Dream" speech, just happened a few months ago in August. Whites and Blacks were Full civil rights legislation was inevitable, change was inevitable. The Peace Corps was created. A nuclear holocaust had been averted just a year earlier. We were asking what we could do for our country, not the other way around. We were implored never to negotiate out of fear, but to never fear to negotiate. There was a vibrancy, an optimism, that was shattered by bullets in Dallas.

But if you weren't there, I doubt anyone could explain it to you.

Cebra,

We obviously cross-posted.

I believe I have answered your post with the above, except to say that it seemed to me that Jimpy actually believed that the woman in Florida was, in fact, brain-dead, and that threrefore the discussion we had (which was largely civil) was primarilly theoretical. I was pointing out that the woman he would have killed because he thought she was brain-dead, was not brain-dead. Perhaps I could have phrased it better.

He had a right to respond to me however he wished. As I wrote above, though, it was his attacking the messenger instead of the message -- especially the way he displayed such ignorance about Hentoff in an attempt to lash out at me -- caused me to reply as I did.

But I did my damnedest to bring the thread back to Kennedy with my post above, so I'll leave it here.

I feel rather that it is a natural and necessary progession for those not involved in events to be flip about them, in order to arrive eventually at a balanced view of the matter. IOW, you have to have Seinfeld’s parody of Costner’s JFK before people start making hard decisions about what’s really important about a man, a situation, an event. As a somewhat related example, I think it was historiographically necessary for people to take Lincoln down a peg on the slavery issue before we could re-respect him as a great president.

The Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations resemble each other in the conspiracy department, and I hope the Kennedy conspiracy issues end up the same way as the Lincoln ones: as occasional mentions in History Channel shows, serving as filler.

I agree with Colin that it is a false dichotomy that Kennedy and contemporary issues are mutually exclusive (yes, yes, excepting for the economics of time and public attention span), and would emphasize that History is a required exercise in a people that have in general the attention span of a gnat.

But to dwell on the IMNSHO irrelevant details of an isolated event to the extent the Boston area media does is a waste of ink and column inches that would be better spent on numerous other things, is an open target to the Right for bashing Libruls for living in the past, and is a means (albeit likely unintentional) of keeping the Irish Catholic masses mired in a dreamstate rather than confronting modern problems.

TK,

Interesting thoughts.

I agree with you that it is a "natural and necessary progession for those not involved in events to be flip about them," though I don't agree that this is what is "necessary to arrive at a balanced view of the matter." Plenty of people who were alive when Kennedy was President have engaged in revisionist history, as early as the 70's, and much of it was unflattering even then. And, in my NSHO, as much as I enjoyed Seinfeld when it aired, it was really and truly a show about nothing to which you are giving to much credit.His parody of Oliver Stone's (not really Costner's) JFK meant as much to the current discussion as his making out in the balcony during Schindler's List was necessary for people to "start making hard decisions about whatÂ's really important" about the holocaust and WWII.

Regarding Boston's obsessive coverage: I think your take on it has merit. Hometown heroes, alas, are always going to get what seems to the rest of us to be an inordinate amount of wasted ink and collumn inches in their hometowns. I lived in Vermont enough to know that Calvin Coolidge got a heckuva lot more ink than Kennedy on annual basis (I know that Vermont is not a "town," strictly speaking, but Boston has more people than the entire state of VT). Why so much ink on Coolidge? Because he was one of their own. So it is, too, with the Boston area and Kennedy, and there is nothing much anyone is going to be able to do about it. To understand it, you have be one of them.

Maybe it's also a "natural and necessary progession for those not involved in events" and are not "one of them" to either point out the negative ramifications, as you do, or, conversely, to "not get it." Both are probably accurate, depending on one's point of view.

To clarify/split a hair, I should explain that my bringing in Seinfeld and Costner/Stone (I sit corrected on the latter; for some reason I’ve always placed Costner as the auteur of JFK) was more about the meta-reflection. That is, that nationally articulating the scorn that many placed on Kennedy’s beatification industry helped curb that industry a bit. And I would hope that in fact the incident w/r/t Schindler’s List served to deflate some of the reflexive fawning around that film and helped to force people to consider issues of representation of true horror, issues of the themeparking of tragedy, if not necessarily in such pretentious terms.

(I’m not about to embark on a discussion of the extensive subject matter I may have just raised.) :-)

FYI, according to an 11/21/03 Gallup poll, Three quarters of Americans told Gallup that they think more than one man was involved in Kennedy's assassination. Only 19% of Americans think it was the work of one individual. (realplayer required).

This is newsworthy because almost every news channel during this anniversary has given face time to "experts" who "conclusively" debunk conspiracy theories. They give almost no time at all to those who believe that Oswald did not act alone.

So why, according to Gallup, do people still talk about this 40 years later, to the exasperations of some people who regularly read this list? Well, first, because Kennedy had the highest approval ratings of any president in history while he was president, and he is still considered to have been a great president by those polled today. Second, most likely because 75% of us believe that there was more than one gunman and the news media is still trying to convince us otherwise.

Ah, but the relevant question of the poll would be something along the lines of “How important is it to you that it be determined whether there was a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy and if there was who was involved?” My answer would be “Not important at all”, but I could still give an answer to whether I thought it was the work of one individual.

Further, I know you know that popularity contests do not equal measures of greatness and vox populi is not always vox veritas. (The examples that can be dredged up are innumerable.)

Hmmm . . . from what I could find, Kennedy actually had the fifth highest approval rating of any president in history while he was president.

And by history, let's note that we mean "since 1938," since the Gallup Organization didn't measure presidential approval before then. And there have only been 11 Presidents since then.

But I turned up a bunch of fun stuff for all you Presidential Popularity buffs - so here is today's fun quiz!

President Kennedy's highest approval rating was 83% - a rating he received after the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

1. For one point each, name the four Presidents who have gotten higher approval ratings then Kennedy (hint: two of them are named "Bush").

2. For two points each, name the event tied to each apex.

3. For a fun bonus, name the two Presidents who scored the lowest popularity ratings of all time.

Winner gets the usual.

Wow -- the thread has actually returned to a constructive discussion of the Kennedy Legacy, or lack thereof. I don't have time to comment more fully, but, for the record, I agree with Jimpy here. Which is a weird enough occurence that I should just be quiet and enjoy it.

Interesting points all.

First to Trip: yes, that would be an interesting question for Gallup to answer. We know your answer. There are lots of us who actually care about who killed Kennedy, because if, for example,
if it was the CIA, then that conclusion would have quite a few ramifications today.

Second, to Jimpy, I respectfully comment that figures don't lie, but liars figure. I'm not calling YOU a liar - don't get me wrong - but the difference between the four Presidents you mention and Kennedy is that Kennedy consistently had high marks as President. Bush Sr., as we all know, went from 91% approval rating to the basement in less than 12 months.

Second, when asked who was the greatest President ever, unprompted, Kennedy came in first, along with Lincoln. Again, this doesn't mean that he was the greatest President ever (going back to Washington), it just means that more Americans polled believe him to be the greatest than they believe any other President to be the greatest.

So you ask, why is the population of this country fascinated by things Kennedy (much to the chagrin of quite a few of the readers of this board?) Because

1. an awful lot of those around back then consistently and highly approved of the job he was doing when he was President,
2. Many of us felt a very strong and heartfelt loss when he was killed, and don't believe the stories we are told as to why and who killed him;
3. and because an awful lot of us, whether we were around then or not, consider him to have been a great President, whether or not we personally agree.

Whoops. Gotta work on that italics thing.

BTW, I lent Jay the book that I linked to. Mark Lane actually got CIA people under oath at a civil trial. From review: Spotlight magazine "...claimed that [E. Howard] Hunt [of Watergate fame] was in Dallas at the time of the assassination while Hunt claimed he was in Washington, D.C. When the appellate court vacated the decision and called for a second trial, Spotlight's owner called in Lane to defend him. Lane saw a case he might well lose, but also his first opportunity ever to cross- examine top figures in Lane's assassination scenario. And indeed he deposes CIA directors Richard Helms and Stansfield Turner, G. Gordon Liddy, Hunt himself--and strikes gold in CIA agent Marita Lorenz, who accompanied two cars full of guns and assassins from Miami to Dallas and, under oath, names all of them, then tells of a follow-up talk with the proud top assassin who pulled off 'the really big one...we killed the president....'''

You would never know this happened if you didn't hear it from me or read the book. The press blacked it out entirely. And Americans really don't like being lied to.



And whether you find it fascinating, or or whether you are bored to tears by it all, as long as enough people care, people will be talking about it every November -- particularly in years ending in "3" and "8."