The Magazine
The Right Stuff
Where was John F. Kennedy on the ideological spectrum?
Nov 25, 2013, Vol. 19, No. 11
• By RONALD RADOSH
Reading this provocative and compelling analysis of
John F. Kennedy’s political vision, I could not help but think of the
reaction Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. had when his colleague John P.
Diggins told him he was writing a book favorable to Ronald Reagan’s
presidency. “Please,” Schlesinger said, “don’t make him look too good.”
If Schlesinger were still alive and able to read Stoll’s new account, he
would undoubtedly turn purple. One thing is certain: Ira Stoll’s
Kennedy is not the same as Arthur Schlesinger’s.
For
a long time, the writers who evaluated the brief Kennedy presidency
have discussed him as the epitome of liberalism, as a president who
carried out the liberal agenda and paved the way for Lyndon Johnson’s
Great Society and its dramatic increase of the welfare state from New
Deal days.
What Ira Stoll has accomplished is the first real
challenge to this consensus view, which has been widely shared by both
historians and journalists. Stoll argues that Kennedy’s politics and
programs, rather than being liberal in the tradition of Franklin D.
Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman, were closer to those of Ronald Reagan
than to anyone else. Stoll argues, and presents evidence to back up his
claim, that Kennedy was a conservative by both the standards of his own
day and ours.
As president, Kennedy increased military spending; but in
other areas, he sought to drastically reduce government expenditures. He
sought to obtain economic growth not through deficits but through tax
cuts that, he believed, would promote a healthy economy and eventually
increase government revenue—without having to impose new taxes to build
the government’s monetary well-being. When Reagan was president and
promoted his own program of cutting tax rates, he accurately cited
Kennedy’s precedent and said that he was following in JFK’s footsteps.
In a number of speeches, Reagan, quoting Kennedy’s own
words, argued for what he called “a cut in tax rates across the board.”
And JFK, Reagan said, “was proven right.” Those Kennedy tax cuts, Reagan
told fellow Republicans, produced more revenue for the government by
stimulating the economy, which led to more people getting jobs and being
productive. Reagan’s own proposed cuts, he declared, were “based on the
same principle.” And those cuts, he said in 1982, were “the first
decent tax program since John Kennedy’s tax cut nearly 20 years ago.”
We should not forget that, at the time, liberal Democrats
were aghast at Kennedy’s policies. John Kenneth Galbraith complained
that they were wrong and urged Kennedy, instead, to increase government
spending. Friend, adviser, and speechwriter Theodore Sorensen called
Kennedy’s speech advocating tax cuts “the worst” he ever gave. When
Kennedy asked Senator Albert Gore Sr. what he thought he should do about
a tax cut, Gore answered, “Forget it.” Gore thought that money should
be put into the public sector, not the private one. Kennedy sought,
without success, to persuade Gore to the contrary—and he stood firm in
opposition to Gore’s standard liberal views about tax policy.
On other issues of the day, Stoll shows, Kennedy can be
seen to have favored policies regularly endorsed by conservatives, then
and now. In foreign policy, Kennedy adhered to hawkish policies opposed
by those who sought what they believed to be a more nuanced, less
confrontational attitude towards the Soviet Union and America’s other
enemies. In one of his 1960 debates with Richard Nixon, Kennedy ran to
the right of Nixon on the issue of what to do about Fidel Castro’s
increasingly Communist revolution, stating that he favored American
support for Castro’s opponents, which Nixon believed to be a violation
of the U.N. Charter.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy sought ways to
prevent nuclear war, but opposed suggestions from administration
liberals to avoid a quarantine or blockade. That kind of provocation,
they believed, might well lead to war. Kennedy’s goal, however, was not
just to avoid war but to avoid it through what Stoll calls a “skillful
use of American military power” in conjunction with the quarantine,
which, along with diplomacy, eventually forced Nikita Khrushchev to back
down.
Stoll reveals that historians dealing with Kennedy’s
famous 1963 speech at American University—in which he called for the
United States to “reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union”—have
taken the speech out of context in order to suggest that it was
Kennedy’s defining approach to world affairs. Left out are other lines
in which Kennedy said, for example, that “as Americans, we find
communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and
dignity.”
Moreover, shortly before announcing the resumption of
atmospheric nuclear testing—in response to the Soviets having broken
their pledged moratorium—Kennedy said that the Soviet tests might well
provide the Russians with “a nuclear attack and defense capability”
that, without a firm Western response, could “encourage [their]
aggressive designs.” Kennedy’s liberal advisers wanted him to do the
opposite and announce that the United States was not taking the
bait and would continue to show what they believed to be a commitment
to peace. But a scant 16 days later, Kennedy went to West Berlin, where
he spoke about communism being “an evil system,” told a Free University
of Berlin audience that “a police state regime has been imposed on the
Eastern sector of the city and country,” and predicted a unified Germany
living under freedom.
In this, and his many main points, Ira Stoll has succeeded
in changing our very perception of Kennedy as one of liberalism’s
heroes.
Source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/right-stuff_767133.html?page=1
Well, it has made the must read list for sure. In my heart, I always felt JFK would be aghast at the policies of BHO.
Source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/right-stuff_767133.html?page=1
Well, it has made the must read list for sure. In my heart, I always felt JFK would be aghast at the policies of BHO.
No comments:
Post a Comment