President Kennedy’s False Legacy

jfk-office-350The 50th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s November 22, 1963 assassination reminds us of how thoroughly myth has overtaken the facts in his legacy.

The facts are clear: Kennedy did little to help the burgeoning Civil Rights Movement, expanded U.S. involvement in Vietnam, and jeopardized national security by having an affair with the girlfriend of Mafia crime boss Sam Giancana. He differed from his predecessor Dwight Eisenhower more by his personal style than in political substance.

While some were no doubt influenced by the young president, the notion that Kennedy inspired a new generation of civil rights activists and others to pursue social justice ignores that, while activists were organizing the social movements of the Kennedy era, the President was an opponent or bystander. Kennedy’s values were so counter to the changing of the times that in 1959 he joined right-wing Senator Barry Goldwater in condemning rock and roll music and supporting a bill limiting radio stations’ ability to play it.

Why does Kennedy’s mythic legacy matter today? Because millions of Americans still believe that great presidents, rather than grassroots activists, inspire and implement progressive change. And as we saw after Barack Obama took office, this has led to people sitting back and waiting for a President to “make change” rather than getting personally involved.

“When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”

This memorable quote from John Ford’s classic 1962 film, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, explains why the legend of John F. Kennedy has supplanted the actual facts of his presidency. Even leftist filmmakers like Oliver Stone bought this myth in his 1991 film JFK, in which Lyndon Johnson — who actually did boost civil rights and enacted a progressive domestic agenda that never happened under Kennedy — is the villain. Amazingly given his usual leftist foreign policy views, Stone even portrays Kennedy as an enemy of the military industrial complex and the national security state.

If Stone wants to believe that the first three years of the Kennedy presidency were not indicative of the future, that’s his business. But the false narrative of an idealistic President Kennedy battling for social justice is everyone’s concern. Kennedy’s unearned exalted status has left many viewing political elites as the driving force for change rather the grassroots activists who actually build social movements and create progressive change.

The real JFK wanted nothing to do with activists, including Martin Luther King, Jr.. He saw the Peace Corps as a way of offsetting challenges to U.S. imperialism, not as a vehicle to rally people for social justice (and while Kennedy did start the program as President, Senator Hubert Humphrey introduced legislation for a Peace Corp over three years before Kennedy’s 1961 Executive Order).

The media was enthralled by the access to the social elite granted to them through President Kennedy, and it created a myth of the Kennedy years as “Camelot.” But the Kennedy years were far from Camelot for many Americans. Identifying Kennedy’s presidency as the catalyst of the nation’s hopes for a brighter future ignores the ongoing African-American civil rights movement, cultural changes reflected in the rise of rock and roll and the Beats, and a growing “Boomer” generation that was not content to be organization men (the women’s movement remained years away).

Many were inspired by Kennedy to work for positive change, but this was an era when The Times Were a Changin’. It was Lyndon Johnson who increased civic engagement through the War on Poverty, and Kennedy was so “morbidly afraid” of the 1963 March on Washington that while his administration helped to increase turnout, there was no legislative follow up in the three months prior to Kennedy’s murder.

The Kennedy Family Legacy

While JFK is lionized to this day, it was his brothers who aligned with grassroots activists and who cultivated alliances with movements for change.

Unlike JFK’s killing, the murder of Robert Kennedy can be said to have changed the course of history. Robert was as hostile to progressive interests as his brother prior to JFK’s death, but by 1968 he was a changed man. Robert Kennedy recognized that change is driven by farmworkers, African-Americans and working people, and avoided the elite trappings that his older brother embraced.

Many believe Kennedy would have won the Democratic nomination in 1968 and then prevented the nation from a Richard Nixon presidency. If Oliver Stone wanted to revisit how an assassin’s bullet changed U.S. history, this is the Kennedy he should have focused on.

randy shawEdward “Ted” Kennedy was the greatest progressive legislator of his time. He compiled a record of progressive legislative achievements that may never be matched. Ted Kennedy followed in the footsteps of Robert, not John, yet was always seen by some as falling short by not restoring Camelot.

John Kennedy’s role in building his brothers’ political careers was his greatest contribution to social change. Robert and Ted’s political development after JFK’s death offers a great model for politician-activist relationships, and the credit is all theirs.

Randy Shaw
Beyond Chron

Thursday, 21 November 2013

Published by the LA Progressive on November 21, 2013
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
About Randy Shaw

Randy Shaw is the Director of San Francisco's Tenderloin Housing Clinic and the Editor-in-Chief of the online daily newspaper "Beyond Chron." He is the author of three books, "Beyond the Fields", "The Activist's Handbook", and "Reclaiming America".

Comments

  1. SusieQ666 says:

    I was 14 when JFK was assassinated, and I have to say that his short tenure as president may have left many disappointed, he obviously did have a lasting effect on those of us who followed 3-4 years later onto college campuses around the nation.

    There was plenty to protest in my college years (beginning in the autumn of ’67), but I can’t help but believe (as did so many of my cohort) that it was JFK, followed in tragic premature death by his brother Bobby, that impressed upon us, to paraphrase RFK, “one ‘man’ can make a difference, and every ‘man’ should try”, the importance of banding together, or even speaking out for one’s own beliefs. We must face the fact, fifty years later, that we will never know the “absolute” truth behind the events of 11/22/63, On the other hand, it is the inspiration of the Kennedy brothers that should be their legacy. Our generation can also thank Caroline Kennedy for her quiet, dilligent work in writing books informing the reader about the Constitution and government.
    It’s long past the time for throwing personal grenades at JFK or RFK. Look at the “stellar” politicians of today. Do any of them have a “clean slate”? I hardly think so.

  2. JoeWeinstein says:

    A useful summary of what many of us actually experienced, as versus myths since propagated. Only one demurral: just because it’s a mistake to build a personality cult around Jack Kennedy doesn’t mean that it’s OK to instead build a personality cult around brother Robert (or Ted).

  3. StafCoyote says:

    An unfortunate piece that reads like something from a conservative think tank.

    The author falls into the fatal “progressive” trap of allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. The truth was that Jack Kennedy was a good president, not a perfect president. Nonetheless, there was a style and a charisma to the Kennedy years that enabled Americans to project onto him their hopes for a better future. That we did so was only human, predictable, and understandable, all the censorious, condescending “progressive” cant in the world notwithstanding.

    • An excellent comment! I couldn’t have said it better, and I wouldn’t even try. I will just reiterate what I said in my comment above, and that is that the Kennedy brothers (and I include the late Senator (Edward) Ted Kennedy) were an inspiration to so many of my parents’ generation (“The Greatest Generation”) and my ‘Boomer generation, imploring us to do our part; to make politics not just a “spectator sport”, but one in which all Americans in so many ways, small and large, could and should become participants.
      There will always be those who for one reason or other (probably because of some ridiculous reason such as “The Pope will be calling the shots” in our government, or the more straightforward excuse, the distrust or dislike of Roman Catholics)
      The Kennedy family absolutely had their flaws, but they also contributed a lot of fine ideas (Peace Corps anyone?) that are still a part of the political landscape today. If only a few of the ideas and/or legislation put forth by the various members of the Kennedy family survived, it would still be a major contribution to the American landscape.

  4. Steve Cross says:

    In playing the counter-factual history game, there is no way to know who is right. But, I think that it can safely be concluded that “the great man” theory of the presidency is more likely to be unfulfilled. LBJ probably comes closest to a great president in my lifetime. Yet, his bringing about the Vietnam War will probably forever put him the the ranks of at least secondary presidents despite everything else he accomplished.

    Currently, I think Obama will prove to be a disappointment to many of his supporters because he will accomplish so much less than we thought he would when he came upon the scene.

    There may be some unknown aspect of the presidency that grinds them all down to insignificance.

  5. Karen Dunscomb Grossaint says:

    I was 12 when JFK was assassinated. Most of the adults I knew didn’t care for him. But I believe that his death enabled Bobby Kennedy to create his own political presence and influence. Many of my generation were devastated when Bobby was assassinated because he offered a great sense of hope for us, and influenced the activism of the time.

Speak Your Mind

*

Visit us on Google+