Reply #74: Thanks for the treatise

[Texas_Kat]

I'm quite surprised that you are using (as an example) one of those "upper class ( read "non-middle and working class' --not one of 'us') politicians that you've indicated in earlier posts cannot effectively represent 'us' because they don't "who know how people actually live life".

Be that as it may, your evidence draws many erroneous conclusions.

"Twice during Kennedy's presidency he resolved political problems by going directly to the people and making an argument, and twice that single act made a huge difference in the political and economic and cultural landscape of America."

If you believe that JFK went directly 'to the people' in the steel issue, you've misunderstood the context. Just FYI, Kennedy used all the resources at his disposal to bring steel back in line with his economic policies, including this excerpt from an April 11 1962 New conference

http://www.jfklibrary.org/jfk_press_conference_620411.html

The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are examining the significance of this action in a free, competitive economy. The Department of Defense and other agencies are reviewing its impact on their policies of procurement. And I am informed that steps are under way by those members of the Congress who plan appropriate inquiries into how these price decisions are so quickly made and reached and what legislative safeguards may be needed to protect the public interest.

Looks to me like he intended to get results by 'browbeating" steel using the power of the federal government. 'Going to the people' apparently wasn't sufficient to win over those nasty steel moguls, but 'in your face' negotiating with steel was. Effective negotiating tactics? Yes... they got results, but didn't depend on speechifying (your word, I believe)

In the summer of 1962, James Meredith wanted to enroll in the University of Mississippi at Oxford MS. I believe that here's a copy of the "speech" you mentioned:

http://www.jfklibrary.org/meredith/days_b_04fr.html

More riots broke out an hour and a half later that eventually climaxed in a fourteen-hour battle and the lightning invasion of the state by 30,000 combat troops ordered in by President John F. Kennedy. The riots injured over 300 and killed two.

So far as I can tell, the riots didn't stop and the south wasn't integrated the next day. So much for "appealing to the people'.

Let's assume for the moment that all candidates have best intentions. Their words are heartfelt and sincere. Their hearts are pure. Their motives are unimpeachable. (Okay, we're imagining here, right?)

Words can be powerful, particularly in the hands of the President of the United States. BUT, words can be just noise (Bush is a prime example). I'd rather know that the individual speaking those words actually has the background and knowledge to speak them with some personal authority. ... some personal experience and qualification rather than just reading a well-written script (no matter how well delivered).