JFK's Trail of Tears

Sorry for the poor substantive blogging today. After the McRaven/Allen hearings, I got caught up in a Bob Gates retrospective piece for Danger Room that'll go up in a few days, in time for his departure. Turned out to be trickier than I anticipated. 

But meanwhile: did you see David Brooks shitting all over JFK? I'm nothing close to a Brooks fan -- I keep reading people assuring me that he takes social science "seriously," but on the occasions I read his column, I see him treating it with total frivolity, like he skimmed something on GoogleScholar and convinced himself he put in his research. Still, this is a hobbyhorse of mine, so I'll take it:

In 1961, John F. Kennedy gave an Inaugural Address that did enormous damage to the country. It defined the modern president as an elevated, heroic leader who issues clarion calls in the manner of Henry V at Agincourt. Ever since that speech, presidents have felt compelled to live up to that grandiose image, and they have done enormous damage to themselves and the nation. That speech gave a generation an unrealistic, immature vision of the power of the presidency.

Mr. Brooks, I will buy you the potent tipple of your pleasure for that. People look at JFK and see a visionary leader. I see a guy who recklessly promised to pay any price and bear any burden for American power, a surefire way to squander and restrict it. Better historians than I can debate whether there's a line that runs from that speech to Vietnam, but suffice it to say JFK wrote a rhetorical check that the country will never be able to cash. We've labored under its debt ever since. (That said: Cuban Missile Crisis, etc., even if he didn't face down Magneto.) 

It's one thing for a liberal to put forth such a contention. But for a "national greatness" conservative to accept it? Good for Brooks.  

Comments

[Rob]

Yes Nixon doubled down on Vietnam because of his great respect for Kennedy...

Its bullshit like most of what Brooks writes.

[John Henninger]

David Brooks, is a typical conservative, in that he believes in a strong military and a weak government. Brooks wants a limit on grandiose talk when it comes to improving the lives of ordinary people, which is the reason why he lavished praise on Chris Christie and Rahm Emmanuel for their draconian budget cuts. But I really do not believe that Brooks has changed his stance about American greatness being based on military power.

[Beats Headphones]

thats really a nice and informative post ,you are doing an excellent job with your site let it keep coming.

[Ssupak]

Why would you want to cash a rhetorical check? Doesn't the fact that it was rhetorical mean there's a big VOID written across it to begin with? What we aspire to, by definition, is not something we reach, right? It's like Cleveland said on Family Guy when they were playing the Civil Rights board game: "You don't win. You just do a little better each time."

[Beats Headphones]

Brooks wants a limit on grandiose talk when it comes to improving the lives of ordinary people, which is the reason why he lavished praise on Chris Christie and Rahm Emmanuel for their draconian budget cuts

[Geoff Ziezulewicz]

If you could ever devote a blog to this sentence, I'd appreciate it as I don't understand it:

"I see a guy who recklessly promised to pay any price and bear any burden for American power, a surefire way to squander and restrict it."

I don't think there's anything wrong with a president calling on 'Mericans to reach higher and do better. That's part of the presidency.

You also ignore the historical facts around JFK's presidency and the Cuban missile crisis, the nadir of the Cold War. America had no choice but to work harder to project American military and cultural power across the globe at this time and throughout the Cold War, despite all the ugliness it did entail, because the alternative was a world controlled by the Soviets.

A Soviet-dominated world would have profoundly affected the security and quality of life we enjoyed growing up. All global exploitation/consumerist arguments aside, that's just a fact.

I always find it a bit strange when people get all pious and hand-wringing about American power when its sometimes-ugly existence is why we've lived such good lives in comparison to others.

All rants aside, I bet there's few Americans who would actually give up their way of life if it meant more global equality.

And really, what was JFK's alternative? "Uh, er,oh hey gang. Yeah, we're, er, just gonna, y'know, play it cool and hang back during this whole Cold War brouhaha. Kthxbye."

Point is the benefits of JFK's "recklessness" have far outweighed the disadvantages. You and I and Americans in general have enjoyed a quality of life and security that is the envy of the world. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it is at least partially due to many presidents acting like this during the Cold War.

Plus, if presidential rhetoric is so dangerous, what about FDR's "Fear itself" shpiel?

Love your blog, btw, sorry for running long.

[monster beats]

Yes Nixon doubled down on Vietnam because of his great respect for Kennedy...

Its bullshit like most of what Brooks writes.

[coach factory outlet]

he nadir of the Cold War. America had no choice but to work harder to project American military and cultural power across the globe at this time and throughout the Cold War, despite all the ugliness it did entail, because the alternative was a world controlled by the Soviets.

[cheap nike air max uk]

No person deserves your tears, and who deserves them won't make you cry.

[cheap nike air max uk]

No person deserves your tears, and who deserves them won't make you cry.

[self storage]

What is bad is accumulating them and letting them pile up which crowds up the living space of your house.

[Moncler Salg]

I'd be interested in hearing. The TOS seems rather clear that it is not unless expressly approved by Amazon. I guess if the library got it in writing then they would be ok.