What If......

That stand for what JFK did. We call them moderate Republicans these days.

Jack Kennedy was liberal, but not insane.
A Womanizer, but discrete.
And he undoubtedly was a masterful orator and a quick wit.
And he was a veteran and a real war hero, unlike what passes for one these days in the party.

I think if he were alive today, he'd be a moderate Republican, or in jail for Fratracide.

Welcome to the Spade, it is always nice to have readers weigh in.

I have a few questions for you that I hope you can give me some answers on.

1. What policies, speeches, or legislation can you cite that shows that John Kennedy was farther left than today's Democratic Party? I understand that he was to the left of the Southern Democrats of his day who were by and large supporters of segregation, but I don't see where he was left of Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, or John Edwards. All of these figures support a socialized, at best, form of government while JFK put on a uniform and fought the forces of socialism as a member of the US Navy and resisted the spread of Communism as President. Today's Democrats have never met a socialist/communist they did not like; see theur fawning over Gorbachev for years, their excuse making for Hugo Chavez now, and their slavish devotion to the great "revolutionary" Fidel Castro.

2. What is it about the "conservative party" that is so right leaning? Their refusal to seal the borders, their expanding of government through programs such as NCLB, or their creation of a brand new entitlement program in the Medicare prescription plan? If that is the hallmark of shifting to the right, then I must be leaning left myself!

3. What is a 28-percenter? I have heard all types of political jargon, but never this one. Could you please enlighten me on what it is?

And feel free to come back and comment any time, all are welcome at the Spade.

That's just my point! JFK has more in common with moderate Republicans than he does with the Party he belonged to; it seems that the Party ran hard left as soon as he wasn't around to restrain them. A lot of people lay partial blame for the Great Society at the feet of JFK, but from all I have ever read those programs were basically LBJ's babies. He just used the memory of JFK to gain support and acceptance by basically telling people that supporting his programs would be a way to honor JFK, and that JFK would have wanted them to become law. I can't say that the Great Society programs would not have existed in some form if JFK had lived, but I think they may have been way more narrow in scope than the sweeping programs that LBJ managed to get passed into law.

And I am just waiting to see BrianR's reaction to this piece, because he does not exactly hold JFK in high esteem; I can just imagine his reaction to my comparing JFK to Reagan...I anticipate a vigorous debate on that with him and others!

Finally, thanks for your continued readership and support. Even though we disagree on some things, I appreciate the fact that you continue to come back and comment; I also apprecite that you are willig to challenge me and to stand your ground. I don't just write this to see my words in print, I do it for the interaction and conversation that it foments.

I'll keep checking back on this thread. I think you're right about Brian, but I'll reserve comment until I see what he actually says. That's only fair.

I agree with you completely about the Great Society's programs being LBJ's babies passed under the cover of honoring John's legacy.

I have a new post up at the Heartland on victimhood. I'd love to hear your take on what I've said and I'm sure you have a thought or two of your own to contribute. Stop by when you get a minute.

Actually, in political discussions when JFK comes up, I always mention that with the policies he had at the time, today he'd probably be a Republican. He was also a Life Member of the NRA, FYI.

First, I'm not as big a fan as you seem to be, and I did write an essay on Kennedy, too. Here's the link:

http://viewfromtheisland.townhall.com/g/7f574461-61cc-4716-ba81-dc424c8691f5

I don't really want to re-open conversation at that essay, it's there simply for reference, and to make the point that I considered him a very mediocre President. I well remember his Admin, as well as LBJ's.

Without the Kennedy assassination, there would have been no GCA '68, and gun control wouldn't be the issue it is today without the fulcrum of the JFK, RFK and King hits.

The Great Society was, indeed, an LBJ invention, arising out of his Southern guilt for past racism I'm sure, as was also the perception at the time. He'd tried to push that stuff as a Senator, too, got nowehere, so used the Bully Pulpit of the Presidency once he inherited the office.

Also, at the time of the JFK admin, Reagan was more liberal that where he ended up as President; he evolved. JFK may have, too, who knows? Those guys of the WW2 era had a clearer understanding of world realpolitik than their successors, from Carter onward, which is why we've had such mediocre-to-awful Presidents from Carter onward. That's no coincidence. Reagan was the last of the WW2-era vets.

That having been said, I'll now say I never liked the guy, for many reasons. First, his Presidency was one of ineptitude. Bay of Pigs, where he pulled all air support at the last moment, deserting the Cuban Freedom Fighters to a massacre. He almost stumbled us into a nuclear war over the Cuban missiles because of obsolete missile bases we had in Turkey (outlined at the linked post), and only lucked out of that one, almost in spite of himself. That was a VERY scary time. He was politically cynical, using his brother Bobby as a Mafia-like political hitman. His very hypocritical exploitation of Sammy Davis Jr, outlined in my linked post. His moral turpitude, facilitated by the MSM's complicity and willful blindness, were also problematic. He authorized the assassination of Diem, head of state of an allied nation, and started our involvement in Vietnam.

Sooooooo, there you have it. He had some successes, but they're almost of the blind squirrel variety.

I think, "What if...." all the time, it's futile but fun.

I have no opinion on President Kennedy, but I do with concerns of party swings.

With Our education institutions indoctrinating "feel-goodism" instead of teaching critical thinking skills, We now have a significant portion of voters who can relate to the left rather than the Right.

In order to attract more voters the Republican leadership have abandoned some principles, meaning moving left, therefore alienating those furthest Right. The further left the Republican party moves the more of the Right they alienate.

You can say that some on the Right have left the party, but I think that since Republican no longer means what it once did some simply cannot/will not relate to it. The Republican Party has become the party of alien[ator]s. The Republican Party left them.

I read that essay, and enjoyed it. I knew that you had some strong opinions on the Kennedy Presidency and was waiting for you to weigh in; and frankly I agree with what you say about Kennedy. He was a profligate womanizer, addicted to pain killers for his back injury, and surrounded himself with a bunch of yes men and cronies. I also agree wholeheartedly that he almost bumbled us into war with the USSR over the Cuban situation, and the Bay of Pigs is one of the biggest stains on America's word...ever.

But I do wonder just what would have happened in his administration had he lived to mature in that job. And my broader point isn't to say that Kennedy was great...that is just popular mythology that has been pushed for my entire life by a media that was, and is, enthralled by Camelot. The truth of what actually happened gets lost in the rose colored memories of the press. My point is to wonder if Kennedy had served out his term if the Democratic Party would have been able to stave off the left wingers that have taken over the Party and turned it into a quasi-socialist political enterprise.

But you have to admit, it does spice up the weekend conversation!

I agree that the GOP has left many on the right, as the Party has lurched to the left on many issues, trying to capture the "moderate" vote. As long as the GOP continues to try to capture the middle, it will continually abandon the very base of conservatives that has underpinned the successes that it has enjoyed over the years.

The GOP needs to realize that they need us conservatives more than we need them; with us they are a political force to be reckoned with, without us they are a perpetual minority.

Yep, I think there's a lot of merit in what you wrote in your reply. Let's spitball for a bit:

Given: Kennedy lived to serve out two full terms, and RFK and MLK aren't killed:

No GCA 1968, so gun control as we know it never happens.

Kennedy continues to build up American engagement in Vietnam, but doesn't try to instill a Great Society program (that was never his thing; he was very conservative fiscally).

Being a combat veteran himself, he doesn't try to micromanage the war from the WH, so doesn't bungle it as terribly as LBJ and MacNamara (a walking disaster).

The war doesn't, therefore, become as unpopular and divisive to the American body politic, so the radical Left never manages to hijack the Dem party.

MLK remains alive and keeps the civil rights movement proceeding in a controlled and orderly fashion, gaining popular support and never yielding to the radical element in that movement. We never develop a dependancy "class" of Black underpriviledged with a destroyed family ethic. The Black middle class continues its advancement into the socio-economic mainstream. The Black family unit remains intact.

In his second term, Kennedy demands that RVN assume more responsibility for their own war. If they don't, he withdraws support and the North ultimately assumes control. If they do and fail, same result. If they do and are more successful, American combat participation falls off. I think under any circumstances, due to the corruption of the RVN government, ultimately Ho Chi Minh wins that one, but American prestige doesn't take as bad a hit. At best, it ends up a stalemate like Korea.

Kennedy was smart enough to heed the dictum against getting mired in an Asian land war.

We don't see the massive tax hikes of LBJ, needed to support both a war and a massive entitlement program.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

I think your take on Kennedy and his management of the Vietnam conflict are spot on...at least that is what I've always thought. Kennedy cold have sold that conflict to the press and to the public because the press and the public loved the guy. And he would have been able to convince people that fighting the spread of communism at that point was the right thing to do.

As for the civil rights movement, I'm not so sure. MLK was a lot more left leaning than most people realize and he may very well have led the movement to the left anyway. MLK had some ideas for the future that could only be realized through a growing governmental presence, and new programs...the same ideas to a certain extent, that Sharpton and the gang espouse to this day. What would have benefitted the civil rights movement was a transition from MLK to someone like Ralph Abernathy, who was more conservative in his views than the "leaders" that rose after King's death.

And the wildcard in all of this is RFK, who seemd to be more Teddy than Jack in his views. It was RFK who was a big opponent of the Vietnam conflict, and who seemed to be preaching "social justice" throughout his political career. JFK may have been the leavening agent to RFL's left leaning views on race and national defense.

I truly despised RFK, a little frikkin weasel. Note my appraisal of him in my first post. Always bear in mind he Was Jack's surrogate and consigliere, in the worst connotation of the words. He was like that evil character in the cartoons perched on another character's shoulder, tempting him to do bad things. Little frikkin jagoff!

Ralph Abernathy. Interesting. I have to give that some thought.

Nope, he would not have made much of a difference. He was down in the Bush level of disapproval. His party was going anti-war. He likely would not have been re-nominated and if nominated, not elected. However, he got killed and became the sainted leader who could do no wrong.

I'm not sure about Kennedy's poll numbers, but I do understand that he had the support of the mega important Black vote, and at that time the Democrats were not about to cede that vote back to the GOP which would likely have been the result in turning on Jack. And while there were some anti-war Democrats, I don't think they had the political power to take on the Kennedy's over the war in Vietnam or to affect his decision making. Jack may have not been universally popular with the Democrats, but he was very popular with the public and that matters. He also had the unequivocal support of the American media which had the power to shape public opinion at the time. With the media in lockstep support of Jack Kennedy, there was not going to be anyone in the Democrat party that could unseat him...and how many times have you seen a popular sitting President lose the nomination for a second term, if he wanted it? Besides, who was going to realistically challenge him in the Democratic Party at the time?