That question, and the answers to it, one of which you can see here, form one of the two dominant trends in the inevitable media coverage of the 50th anniversary of his assassination. The other trend is the inevitable loss-of-our-national-innocence commentary that surfaces from various sources, primarily from conservative ones who want to see Kennedy's tragic death as some kind of Pandora-box opening to all of the evils of the 1960s. On the other hand, most of the what-ifs come from the other side of the spectrum, the imaginings of those who think that JFK, given two terms, would have inevitably led America to even greater heights of progressive politics that it otherwise achieved, and would have helped us avoid the descent into right-wing disaster that began with Richard Nixon and the Southern Strategy.
Neither side is completely correct because, as Anthony Lappe explains in the linked article above, history "is a dialectic. What may seem like a miracle in the present might have long term consequences no one can predict." While it is true that history has many before-and-after moments, and Kennedy's assassination was certainly one of them, how we respond to those moments, in literally millions of decisions great and small, have as much of a bearing on the unfolding of history as the moments themselves. A decision other than the one made at any given moment has, at the very least, the potential to become yet other before-and-after moment.
In consequence, the answer to the question "What if he had lived" is that it may not have mattered, in a purely political sense. I am, in saying that, completely sensitive to the fact that it was an enormous personal tragedy for Kennedy's family, friends and political supporters. Indeed, regarding the member of the latter group, JFK's death was also the death of their political involvement. But, for many more, it inspired them to rally behind his Administration's stalled domestic agenda, which, in turn, may well have been the force that made much of that agenda a reality. That, and Lyndon Johnson's legislative skills, which illustrate history's dialectical nature in yet another way. What if Kennedy had been succeeded by a President with lesser legislative skill? Perhaps, for the left, the real takeaway should be that progress is a force that can draw as much strength from tragedy as it does from anything else.
And, for the those on the right, the takeaway should be that Kennedy's assassination was simply one of many corks that, once removed, unbottled many oppressed voices that had been held back for decades, especially during the repressive climate of the 1950s. There was already plenty of violence, especially racial violence, surfacing in the early years of Camelot. And the public grief to the tragedy of his death did not spare the nation from enduring more grief five years later, when Martin Luther King, Jr. and Kennedy's brother Robert were also assassinated. Whatever "innocence" was enjoyed by Americans prior to November 22, 1963, it was an innocence waiting to be shattered--because far too many of our countrymen and women did not enjoy this supposed state of grace.
If there is any aspect of JFK's Thousand Days that I consider to be truly indispensable, it was his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was a crisis essentially forced upon him by his failed efforts to appease right-wingers through the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the maintenance of outdated NATO weapons systems. Those reactionary forces did not let up once they learned what Kennedy learned about the Russian missiles in Cuba; as represented by the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they demanded an immediate military strike. They were, in effect, asking their President to compound two major mistakes with one more that would have launched World War III. Kennedy knew this, and resisted their efforts, finding a solution that saved political face for everyone and, more importantly, saved the world. As a practical consequence, and as an everlasting example of the value of diplomacy over war, it is enough of a legacy for any President. It's possible that someone else could have pulled it off, but I doubt it--especially considering the crucial role that his brother played. If you have never read his account of the crisis, "Thirteen Days," you owe it to yourself to do so.
Oh, and as for those conservatives like George Will, who claim Kennedy as a conservative because he cut tax rates, forget it. If they really want a 70% tax rate on top earners, I'll be happy to be bipartisan with them any day.
What if he had lived? Ask not, to borrow a phrase. But remember to ask what you can do for your country, and do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment