Sometimes, in order to view things in perspective, you need to go outside the box and rein in an independent source for analysis. You just do.
Yes, I know that John F Kennedy (along with Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Abraham Lincoln) are the Presidents by which the Professional Left and their inveterate followers measure the success or the failure of Barack Obama. It's safe to say they measure mostly the failure, as they reckon, mostly because they measure this man against mythological images of the others. Time and history put a distance between these all-too-human figures and the unattainable supermen they've become. Very few celebrity talking heads remember Johnson and Kennedy, except through the eyes of children and the stories they've heard (often inaccurate) as adults. The same people remember Roosevelt through the memories of parents and grandparents. Lincoln is only interpreted by his legacy.
Yes, I know that Chris Matthews has written a rose-coloured biography of Kennedy, a rehash of the myths of perfection and nothing of the sordid nature of sex play and the darker side of politics which also clung to Kennedy's coattails like bog mud.
So, it's helpful to get another opinion.
Yes, I know Andrew Sullivan is a conservative, but the old school and reasonable sort. Yes, I know he's British. Specifically, he is a Catholic Englishman of Irish descent, as his name implies - so it's also safe to say that he emanates from the same school of religious thought which spawned several of our own contemporary political pundits or fundits, Matthews included.
His assessment of Kennedy as a President is a definite C minus, with a nod and a wink to a recent Commander-in-Chief to whom Kennedy bears an uncanny resemblance and with a perspicacious observation that, not only was Kennedy to the Right of Eisenhower, he was the prototype of a neo-conservative.
Sometimes, it does take a Brit to make us see sense:-
Sorry, Professional Left and fans, Obama isn't just like Bush ... But Jack Kennedy was.
Yes, I know that John F Kennedy (along with Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Abraham Lincoln) are the Presidents by which the Professional Left and their inveterate followers measure the success or the failure of Barack Obama. It's safe to say they measure mostly the failure, as they reckon, mostly because they measure this man against mythological images of the others. Time and history put a distance between these all-too-human figures and the unattainable supermen they've become. Very few celebrity talking heads remember Johnson and Kennedy, except through the eyes of children and the stories they've heard (often inaccurate) as adults. The same people remember Roosevelt through the memories of parents and grandparents. Lincoln is only interpreted by his legacy.
Yes, I know that Chris Matthews has written a rose-coloured biography of Kennedy, a rehash of the myths of perfection and nothing of the sordid nature of sex play and the darker side of politics which also clung to Kennedy's coattails like bog mud.
So, it's helpful to get another opinion.
Yes, I know Andrew Sullivan is a conservative, but the old school and reasonable sort. Yes, I know he's British. Specifically, he is a Catholic Englishman of Irish descent, as his name implies - so it's also safe to say that he emanates from the same school of religious thought which spawned several of our own contemporary political pundits or fundits, Matthews included.
His assessment of Kennedy as a President is a definite C minus, with a nod and a wink to a recent Commander-in-Chief to whom Kennedy bears an uncanny resemblance and with a perspicacious observation that, not only was Kennedy to the Right of Eisenhower, he was the prototype of a neo-conservative.
Sometimes, it does take a Brit to make us see sense:-
Sorry, Professional Left and fans, Obama isn't just like Bush ... But Jack Kennedy was.
I had to copy and paste link elsewhere. Can't hear the video here.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with Sullivan on the issue of JFK and Vietnam. Even here (just as with Civil Rights), JFK was extremely reluctant to escalate the war, but was under immense pressure to do so. Yet, I don't see JFK in rose-tinted glasses either (although I am an admirer).
ReplyDeleteI'm under no illusions that if JFK had lived and was elected to another term - he may have not loomed as large in history has he has now.
So, the pro left needs to get over themselves when it comes to JFK. If you're going to admire somebody - you should still acknowledge that they will have faults. And a few of them may be quite serious.