JFK - his historical legacy

Bodhidharma

I have been studying this man for the past three months now, reading all I could and watching everything I could find on him. I am still not sure how he should be regarded from a historical perspective and I am interested in the opinion of others.

Firstly, I should state from the outset that I am not interested in conspiracy theories or Marilyn Monroe. Yes his death was suspicious to say the least and his flings were numerous but I am interested in what historians say about him.

I think that he was an unremarkable navy commander and senator who got where he got through a mix of an influential family history, money, luck and in fairness intelligence and charisma.

His presidency is a mixed bag. Initial failures (Bay of Pigs, being outmanouvered by Khruschev in Vienna, escalation in Vietnam), consolidation in foreign and domestic policies, followed by successes (Cuban Missile Crisis, Berlin crisis and Test Ban Treaty).

His domestic policies were somewhat disappointing, no real success with civil rights, healthcare and tax reforms. Perhaps it would be kind to suggest these would have come to fruition in his second term.

Overall I think he was a promising president who was growing in the role and could have achieived more. Ultimately his perfomance duringthe Cuban Missile Crisis leads me to believe he should be looked at favourably as a president of great skills.

So, thats my two cents. How about you?

(BTW I think there was a conspiracy, I believe the military had some involvement, he cut the Chiefs of Staff off at the knees and was hated by the ' military industrial complex')

Denerick

JFK and the Camelot era is not so much history as it is myth. Not so much politics as it is drama.

During his three (Two? Hard to know since President-elect then becomes actual President during the transition...) years he was a decent President, not a great one. His great achievement was the quarantine of Cuba, an action that either could have precipitated WWIII or prevented it. Frankly, that outcome was decided almost entirely by the particular mood of the Kremlin on that particular day.

What has established him in American hearts is his assassination and his occasionally soaring rhetoric. He was above all else, a fine orator. He was the great communicator of his time. And sure, he was glamourous, and lended a degree of gravitas and colour to an institution (The US Executive) that had traditionally been dominated by greying, staid figures like Dwight Eisenhower or the entire list of Presidents during the 19th century (Except Andrew Jackson and Theodre Roosevelt)

Aaron Sorkin (Maker of the West Wing) couldn't have invented him.

Like most myths, his death is infinitely more interesting than his life. His death sparked another romantic race for the Presidency from his brother, who also died in tragic circumstances.

The legacy of JFK will be Irish Catholic, glamourous and ballsy... But this owes more to the subsequent dramatists and TV producers than it ever did to the man himself.

Bodhidharma

Denerick wrote: »

His great achievement was the quarantine of Cuba, an action that either could have precipitated WWIII or prevented it. Frankly, that outcome was decided almost entirely by the particular mood of the Kremlin on that particular day.

The legacy of JFK will be Irish Catholic, glamourous and ballsy... But this owes more to the subsequent dramatists and TV producers than it ever did to the man himself.

I dont think you're giving enough credit to JFK there. The Missile Crisis was not solved on a 'particular day' and was certainly not at the whim of the Soviets. Given the amount of hawks in the administration and military who advised air strikes and such, I think he did well to maintain a level head. Admittedly Khruschev created the crisis and ultimately was forced to end it.

Do you agree that the legacy you described is deserved? Or do you believe he had more substance? I would go with the latter.

Einhard

I think JFK is vastly overrated, especially by Irish people, who seem to equate greatness with being of Irish heritage, and being assassinated. Having said that, I do think he was growing into his role, and had he lived, would probably have achieved the legislation that Lyndon Johnson gets credit for.

Just to add, a friend of mine hasjust finished American Caesars by Nigel Hamilton, and he was pretty shocked by JFK's sexual antics whilst in the White House. Funyn how someone so adored by Catholic Ireland could have been the very antithesis of what it stood for sexually.

Sgt.Peppers

Einhard wrote: »

Funyn how someone so adored by Catholic Ireland could have been the very antithesis of what it stood for sexually.

..priests?

brianthebard

Bodhidharma wrote: »

I dont think you're giving enough credit to JFK there. The Missile Crisis was not solved on a 'particular day' and was certainly not at the whim of the Soviets. Given the amount of hawks in the administration and military who advised air strikes and such, I think he did well to maintain a level head. Admittedly Khruschev created the crisis and ultimately was forced to end it.

I think what denerick is saying is that Jfk put an embargo on cuba in the first place, pushing them closer to the soviets and basically caused the cuban missile crisis as much as anyone.

Number 10 Shirt

Bodhidharma wrote: »

I have been studying this man for the past three months now, reading all I could and watching everything I could find on him. I am still not sure how he should be regarded from a historical perspective and I am interested in the opinion of others.

Firstly, I should state from the outset that I am not interested in conspiracy theories or Marilyn Monroe. Yes his death was suspicious to say the least and his flings were numerous but I am interested in what historians say about him.

I think that he was an unremarkable navy commander and senator who got where he got through a mix of an influential family history, money, luck and in fairness intelligence and charisma.

His presidency is a mixed bag. Initial failures (Bay of Pigs, being outmanouvered by Khruschev in Vienna, escalation in Vietnam), consolidation in foreign and domestic policies, followed by successes (Cuban Missile Crisis, Berlin crisis and Test Ban Treaty).

His domestic policies were somewhat disappointing, no real success with civil rights, healthcare and tax reforms. Perhaps it would be kind to suggest these would have come to fruition in his second term.

Overall I think he was a promising president who was growing in the role and could have achieived more. Ultimately his perfomance duringthe Cuban Missile Crisis leads me to believe he should be looked at favourably as a president of great skills.

So, thats my two cents. How about you?

(BTW I think there was a conspiracy, I believe the military had some involvement, he cut the Chiefs of Staff off at the knees and was hated by the ' military industrial complex')

I feel that JFK's presidency was far too short for a true assessment to be made but I think he would have been a great president had he lived.

brianthebard

Did he not have 3 years in the hot seat? That's 75% of of a term, many presidents only serve one term, therefore I don't see why one can't assess what he achieved as president?

Number 10 Shirt

brianthebard wrote: »

Did he not have 3 years in the hot seat? That's 75% of of a term, many presidents only serve one term, therefore I don't see why one can't assess what he achieved as president?

I take your point. Perhaps on account of his assassination we may never know the full impact that President Kennedy would of made as he had only 3 years rather than 8 in the oval office. His potential was cut short.

patsman07

I too have had a great interest in Kennedy. Why that is im unsure. Having seen the various films-JFK, 13 days and clips of his speeches on youtube, I have come to the conclusion that his legacy has been exaggerated somewhat. If you disagree, read 'An Unfinished Life'-the lack of domestic achievements is glaring, as is the fact that he only moved on Civil rights when his hand was forced by events. His grand camelot legacy, I believe, as has already been stated, is due to his tragic death, his youth, glamour and vigor.
Despite this I also believe that had he continued for a further 5 years I do believe the world would be a better place today. I believe that he would have moved to end the cold war in his second term. (His American University commencement speech was his first step to this end). Ted Sorensen's two books-Kennedy 1965 and Counsellor-A Life at the Edge of History, are two excellent insights into his administration, although from a pro-Kennedy point of view.
The Kennedy tapes, the actual transcripts from inside the Oval office during the missile crises show Kennedy at his best. As somebody has said above, a lot did depend on the mood of the Kremlin and it should be remembered that is was Krushchev who stepped back from the brink and prevented WW3. However the result of this is that it was Kennedy who scored a massive victory re: the missile crises.
I suppose the loss of what might of been is far more important than we realise when Kennedy's Presidency is being weighed up. His charisma has made me read everything I can, by him and about him despite the fact that im a hetrosexual male. I've become sligtly infatuated so much so that I annoy my girlfriend for up to an hour every so often by speaking with a JFK Boston accent. Its haaard for her to put up with.

brianthebard

Doubt he could or would have tried to end the cold war tbh, at least not peacefully, as mentioned earlier he created the Cuban blockade and committed the US to war in Vietnam. I think its pretty certain that he was hugely anti-communist?

patsman07

Listen to the American University Commencement speech. That was summer of 63 I think. And according to Sorensen he was gonna run on a peace platform in 64. I think the missile crises really shook Kennedy up, with regards to how close he came to nuclear war. Kennedy as a student of history and a politician would have been all too aware of what would have happened had somebody slightly more aggressive been in his seat. With possibly the exception of Jimmy Carter, I think would have bombed Cuba, which we now know would have led to war.
I think these things weighed heavily on Kennedy.
As he says in that speech ending the arms race and the possibility of ending the cold war doesnt mean agreement on all other issues but rather there would contine to be aggressive competition in all other areas.

donaghs

brianthebard wrote: »

I think what denerick is saying is that Jfk put an embargo on cuba in the first place, pushing them closer to the soviets and basically caused the cuban missile crisis as much as anyone.

I'd have to disagree there somewhat. Eisenhower put the economic embargo in place first. Admittedly Kennedy could have reversed it, but since part of his election platform was being more aggressive in the Cold War (e.g. bomber & missile "gap") I don't think he could afford to alienate his voters by taking the first friendly step towards Cuba. By the time Kennedy came to power, Cuba and the Soviet Union had already established close economic and military links. Kennedy also inherited the Bay of Pigs plan from Eisenhower, but choose to go ahead with it.

Its a moot point whether the Eisenhower administration pushed a neutral Castro towards the Soviet Union, or whether he already had intentions in that direction - I dont think the answer is as simple as either.

Krushchev interpreted Kennedy's unwillingness to use all necessary force at the time of the Bay of Pigs as a sign of weakness, and this helped guide his thinking on putting missiles in Cuba. But putting the missiles in Cuba was a rash reckless gamble. The US was either to accept this direct threat, or demand removal, and threaten war. Could this gamble have been worth it? A US acceptance was not an easy prospect, with a US election due in 2 years also. And if the gamble didnt work? The only prospect was backing down or war. There was hypocrisy from the US due to their own missiles in places like Turkey - although i have read they were not as effective as the Russian ones, hence the US willingness to use them as a trade. When Krushchev was removed by rivals like Breshnev, one of the main criticism made against him (and actually justified) was his erratic, impulsive and unpredictable behaviour. Not just in Cuba, but in his ideas on agriculture, his public utterances, and so on.

Kennedy's bockade of Cuba involved stopping and seaching ships entering Cuban waters, it only began after the announcement of the missiles, and ended after.

Kennedy was only in power 2 years, so not easy achieve much, so less to analyze. A lot of popular opinion does tend to look back on him as some sort of liberal, but the most accurate view of him is as a "Cold Warrior". Also, the 1960 election took place against the background of a short recession so that would have been an important factor for voter at the time. Looking back, I think Kennedy could have done more for Civil Rights, but it just was not as high on his agenda as foreign policy, and the economy. To say he was a "Cold Warrior" is not to say he was a warmonger - he showed clear restraint in the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Crisis when large numbers of senior advisors were urging greater use of force.