Do you know about JFK? I have news for you. He was a liberal.

He gave this speech in 1960. Were you alive then? If not, perhaps you have been brainwashed in learning to hate liberals by the so-called "liberal media" and right-wingers.

Don't believe Ann Coulter. The media is NOT liberal. Don't let Matthews and Hannity and O'Reilly fool you. JFK was a liberal, as much as they hate to admit it.

Are you open-minded enough to know why JFK considered himself a liberal? Then read this speech. It may just change your life.

Oh, by the way. How is it that right-wingers hate liberals but we can't say we hate Bush?
...........................................................

What is a liberal?

Sen. John F. Kennedy, acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination, September 14, 1960.

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. 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.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.

Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education for their children and for the children's development. They went to night schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb.

Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war hangs over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in the minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so doesn't make it so. More will be needed than goodwill missions or talking back to Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will be needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads.

In Winston Churchill's words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist."

And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not only our defense but our image abroad as a friend.

This is an important election -- in many ways as important as any this century -- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party here in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States, should be associated with us in this great effort.

The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.

I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time. Our national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the history of the great Republic.

Some pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all over again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time to move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond the new frontiers of the 1960s.

when things were not always perfect, but the truth still mattered and we were respected as a compassionate country.:cry:

and had a more expansionist anti-socialist/anti communist policy than most democrats wanted at the time...but on the whole, I think he was a good president

....after all, since he was a proponent of cutting taxes and cut taxes on the richest the most.

for the middle class. And, unlike Bush, liberal programs were not targeted for extinction.

And in 1945, he wrote, "Mr. Roosevelt has contributed to the end of capitalism in our own country, although he would probably argue the point at some length. He has done this not through the laws which he sponsored or were passed during his presidency, but rather through the emphasis he put on rights rather than responsibilities."

imagine that. :eyes:


goes to show how the electorate will respond when you have a message and proudly stand behind it.

When JFK first ran for the House in 1946, he described himself as a "fighting conservative".

JFK was a political opportunist. Period.

And I don't know whether or not his assassination was the product of a conspiracy (there are so many arguments and counter-arguments -- I wouldn't know here to start), but if he was, it's wasn't because he actually presented a challenge to the status quo.

Yes, they both worked on the House Un-American Activities Commission with Joe McCarthy.

But they each had the ability to change and grow in office.

And you are wrong about Viet Nam. He was going to pull the 1000 advisors out, starting in Dec. 1963 and completing the pullout in 1965. He told this to his closest aides.

Then tell me he was going to pull out of Vietnam with a straight face.

I never cared much for the Kennedys. They've always struck me as a bunch of spoiled brats. Joseph Kennedy was a huge asshole. I detest the whole idea of "Camelot" and American royalty. The personal conduct of the Kennedys has been repugnant.

The Kennedys all supported the Vietnam War until it was no longer politically convenient to do so. JFK was the worst in this regard; he was a rabid Cold Warrior who attacked the Republicans for not being hawkish enough, and *never* planned to withdraw from Vietnam, contrary to popular opinion. And he was never very fond of the "liberal" label. He got elected by campaigning as a moderate, and fundamentally opposed the New Deal. He was personal friends with Joe McCarthy and politically supported him, refusing to publically support his censure until 1956. He cut taxes on the rich, and stand-offish towards the civil rights movement.

I'm sure we'd all be interested to know.

Rethinking Camelot by Noam Chomsy demolishes the myth that JFK wanted to withdraw from Vietnam.

Everything else I mentioned is a matter of historical record. I'd imagine one could find it in any encyclopedia.

Chomsky never met a person in power he liked.

His problem is with power, not specific people (such as Kennedy) who exercise it.

That is fine with me because I think power can be quite an awful thing. On the other hand, in today's world, someone has to have it. As far as the powerful goes JFK was quite a man.

Anti-war protestors and Hippies would have been screaming "hey hey JFK, how many babies did you kill today!"

Because of this and other reasons, I wonder what the Democratic Party as a whole would be like had JFK lived.

I don't blame you for not knowing the truth. Establishment politicians and historians have done all they can do to hide the truth about JFK's decision to withdraw, memorialized by National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) 263, signed October 11, 1963, six weeks before he was shot. The order called for a withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of '63, and of all remaining US troops by 1965. Earlier, in June of 1963, at the SecDef's conference in Hawaii, the chiefs of each service had reluctantly submitted their schedules for the withdrawal of their respective services. The reply they got from McNamara was that their plans must be speeded up.

JFK's NSAM 263 was reversed by NSAM 273 issued the Monday after JFK's funeral.

What I'm telling you is unequivocal truth, and is supported by documentation as well as by the oral and written histories of the men most intimately involved--especially McNamara. It is only now coming to light because of a 40-year long effort to suppress the truth in view of the fuel it lends to assassination conspiracy scenarios.

For an excellent discussion of this, read the article on Salon.com last month:

Kennedy, Vietnam and Iraq

The evidence is clear: JFK decided to withdraw from Vietnam a month before he was assassinated. Setting the record straight is crucial as Baghdad continues to explode.

by James K. Galbraith

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/22/vietnam/

I've been posting the truth about the Kennedys for years on here, only to get flamed - so I thank you! :thumbsup:

Kennedy's rhetoric about being a "liberal" was just that - rhetoric. He rarely lived up to it.

He had no plans on pulling out of Vietnam either. Every NSA document is required to have corollary alternate plans, to anticipate as many outcomes or policy changes as possible. So a "plan" for withdrawal was drafted, but so was a plan for staying in - which is most likely what he would have done.

His approval rating the day before the assassination was in the mid 30's. The assassination made him a martyr with a 99% approval. Had he lived, he may not have been re-elected, and if he was, he would have met the same fate as LBJ with Vietnam. "Hey Hey JFK! How many kids did you kill today?" And so on...

The entire Kennedy clan is not many notches better than their neighbors the Bushes. Both are patrician criminal blueblooded political mafia families.

in a landslide.

Check your facts.

Kennedy's actions in dealing with Cuba were hawkish, provocative, and stupid.

:wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf:

Hey Truth, I got your message. But I'm afraid, really recently, that we're fucking doomed!!!

:puke:

in Cuba. That was provacative? He fought the Joint Chiefs who wanted to go to war with the Soviet Union during the Missile Crisis.

Ever heard of Northwoods? The Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted war with Cuba. In 1962, they pushed for Operation Northwoods, a black operation, in order to justify war with Cuba. They were prepared to sacrifice Americans to do it. JFK would not do it. So how is that provacative?

As for the Bay of Pigs in 1961, that was a Nixon/CIA operation in which they tricked JFK into believing that the Cubans would rebel against Castro. They never did, so he ended the invasion.

I suggest you educate yourself. By the way, were you alive in 1963?

One of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's plans for getting the public behind a war with Cuba was to blow up a civilian airliner over Cuba and blame it on Castro. Hmm....

which went ahead only after he cancelled a much bolder plan for invasion of Cuba.

Think about what George W. (or Nixon or Reagan for that matter) would have done in such a situation.

-Kennedy campaigned as more anti-communist than Nixon to pull the national security rug out from under Nixon's feet. Kennedy governed a different way. EVERY SINGLE member of JFK's cabinet told him to invade Cuba. Only JFK said it wasn't worth it.

- The Joe McCarthy thing was bad. Eleanor Roosevelt said about it that the young senator from Mass should probably show a little more courage and a little less profile. But, anti-communism was brutal then, and JFK had to coopt that line of attack somehow, and he did it the right way.

- The economy in the 60s was not the same economy in which the tax rates had been created. There was bracket creep, and it wasn't as easy for money to make money. Part of having progressive taxes is to match rates and brackets to economic reality. That's what Kennedy was doing with his tax code.

He was no liberal. Most liberal historians--including myself and my very liberal colleagues--who know anything at all about Kennedy will tell you that he was no liberal.

durutti, you will find that most who disagree with you haven't studied extensively the life or political career of JFK. A speech does not a liberal make. (If that were the case, then some of Bush's orations could be considered "liberal" but we know that they are not.)

He fought US Steel. Got them to roll back their prices.
He fought to get blacks into the Univ. of Missisppi.
He fought to get MLK out of prison.
He fought the Joint Chiefs during the Missile Crisis.
He started the Peace Corp.
He would have exited Vietnam
He was a liberal, yes, duly influenced by his brother RFK.
He challenged us to bring out the best in all of us.
He believed in using rationalism and logic to solve problems (the essence of liberalism).
He was flexible to change (another trait of liberalism).

Those he fought, the establishment, were NOT liberals, but conservatives. Therefore, he must have had opposing views - of a liberal

It's getting late, Mr. Historian. I could go on and on.

Don't try to steal JFK away from the liberals. Perhaps he was a moderate. But he would be considered a flaming liberal today in comparison to the usurping BushCo fascists.

especially civil rights history. He DID NOT fight to get blacks into Ole Miss. Have you not heard the tapes of the conversations between Ross Barnett and RFK during the Ole Miss Crisis? RFK, with JFK's permission, capitulated to most of Barnett's demands.

And, considering that JFK had power to enforce Brown v. Board, if he was so liberal, he should have forced integration during his tenure, especially in Mississippi. But he didn't.

In all actuality, LBJ is to be thanked for the civil rights advances of the 1960s, but most people don't recognize that. Indeed, he was far more liberal than JFK, but his achilles heel was the war. If it had not been for Vietnam, we would probably recognize LBJ as one of the greatest twentieth-century presidents, and many presidential historians believe he was one of the best, if the war is not taken into account.

The most elementary rule of history is that you should never judge people in the past by modern standards or by comparing them to modern political figures. They should be judged in their contemporary setting. No one is trying to steal JFK away from you--love him if you like.

And that's Ms. Historian, by the way. I could go on and on also, but since I am a historian at a Mississippi university, I had to reply to your comments about the Ole Miss situation.

Well, read this, then...

http://www.americanradioworks.org/features/prestapes/a5.html



On Sunday, September 30, 1962 at 6 p.m., James Meredith was escorted onto the University of Mississippi campus in Oxford by a convoy of Federal Marshals. While he got settled in one of the school dorms, more than 2,500 angry students and outside agitators swarmed around the main campus building, the Lyceum. President Kennedy was informed of Meredith's arrival and went on national television that night to announce this apparent victory and explain that it had been achieved without the use of federal soldiers. He reminded viewers that, "Americans are free, in short, to disagree with the law but not to disobey it." Kennedy continued: "For in a government of laws and not of men, no man, however prominent or powerful, and no mob, however unruly or boisterous, is entitled to defy a court of law."

President Kennedy did not know that, as he spoke, the mob at Ole' Miss was pelting Federal Marshals with bricks, bottles and lead pipes. Within moments the marshals fired tear gas at the crowd. This did not stop the violence and the Federal Marshals lost control of the situation. Despite Ross Barnett's assurances, Mississippi patrolmen, assigned to help keep the peace, turned and left. Two men died early in the rioting, a French journalist and a local jukebox repairman.

The night air in Oxford was sharp with gunfire and tear gas. Ross Barnett was at his office in Jackson, on the phone again to Kennedy in Washington, where it was just past midnight. The governor tried once more to finesse the President. He suggested pulling Meredith back off the campus until things calmed down.

Listen to excerpt

President Kennedy: Well, we can't consider moving Meredith as long as, you know, there's a riot outside, 'cause he wouldn't be safe.

Govenor Barnett: Sir?

JFK: We couldn't consider moving Meredith if you -- if we haven't been able to restore order outside. That's the problem, Governor.

more...

Jeez, LBJ just finished what JFK started..

And LBJ let the Joint Chiefs drag him into Vietnam. JFK would have been out of there - had he lived.

How old were you in '63? Where did you get your "information", from one of the JFK revisionist historians?

jchild is right

Look...I understand what you are saying. But JFK was a realist--you HAVE to be if you want to run a country. Could he have forced integration in Mississippi? Perhaps, but think of the outrage and backlash it would have created in similar communities! The damage of such a move would have been FAR worse than letting the process take its course.

give me a break

But maybe it would be helpful to discuss specifics.

Studying the "life or political career" of JFK is interesting--and I have done so extensively--but it does not tell you whether or not he was a liberal.

You are right that "a speech does not a liberal make." But hundreds of speeches do define a person, particularly when backed by action.

Even historians--mired as they are in the conventional wisdom--are beginning to understand that JFK's wisdom and courage kept us from a nuclear war, kept us from breaking faith with Latin America, and would have led to our early withdrawal from Vietnam--before a single military unit had been committed.

The fact that he was an astute manager of the economy does not make him any less a liberal. Liberals who are pragmatically astute recognize the importance of a strong economy with low interest rates.

up to demanding more liberal politicians. JFK wasn't going to go from Eisenhower to Wellston without passing through the middle first.

although many will call it heresy.

We've not see such a one since but hopefully we will again.

assassinated. A record company pulled together exerpts and threw them down and sent the thing out the door in a day. There was no effort to spin, or to present anything but an accurate historical record.

Each one of those speeches contains some of the most liberal political argument that I've ever heard come out of the mouth of a politician with so much power. He fucking skewered the steel industry for raising prices, and strangling development, just because they had the power to do so. They lowered their prices the next day. He gave one of the best speeches EVER on civil rights after the incidents at Oxford, Miss.

His inaugural speech -- ask not what you can do for your country... -- has a second clause you rarely hear: "and to the people of the world, I say, ask not what America can do for you, but what we can do together to make the world a better place" (I paraphrase). When I heard it, I felt like all these years I had been denied a powerful legacy of liberalism.

Every one of his speeches was like a buring coal of truth and liberalism.

You listen to those speeches and you understand why he was assassinated.

Only someone who is entirely deluded or ignorant of American politics could think otherwise. :shrug:

of Reagan. Except that bastard really did deliver for them.

is it the reason why it is attempted to convince people JFK was not a liberal?

ought to read, at the very least, James K. Galbraith's "Exit Strategy." You can here:

http://bostonreview.net/BR28.5/galbraith.html