If JFK had not been assassinated, I wonder how we would remember him.

[raccoon]

An untimely and/or tragic death for a politician, rock star, movie star, whatever, often tends to lead people to idolize that person more than they would have had the famous person lived.

Any thoughts about this?



edited for spelling

[Still a Democrat]

1. My take is he's not nearly as liberal as liberals believe

Your comment about tragic deaths is spot on. Conservatives probably consider him more conservative than he was as well.

[badtoworse]

3. I agree with you. If he were alive today, he'd likely be a blue dog...

...or possibly even a liberal Republican a la Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe.

[WinkyDink]

6. WHAT A CROCK. Yeah, he'd have been VASTLY different from Bobby or TED.

[badtoworse]

14. JFK pushed tax cuts that benefited the wealthy.

Last time I checked, that was not a very popular concept around here.

[WinkyDink]

16. Last time I checked, 1960's aren't "today."

[badtoworse]

18. Theproblem was the same back then: Get the country out of a recession

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[badtoworse]

28. What Kennedy did and said is a matter of historical record

That's really all there is to go on and saying he'd have been just like Teddy is speculation. By current standards, he did not take very liberal positions and if he had finished two terms, I believe he would have governed to the right of Johnson.

BTW, I was a teenager when Kennedy was president and remember his presidency. Were you even alive then?

[Octafish]

32. I was alive then. The nation hasn't been the same since. Oh yeah -- proof...NSAM 263.

National security Action Memorandum 263

LBJ countermanded those orders, committing the US to helping Vietnam with NSAM 273.

National Security Action Memorandum 273

Of course, this information was left out of "The Pentagon Papers." Perhaps Daniel Ellsberg, and hence The New York Times, never saw them. Or not.

The record is clear and it shows what JFK's intentions regarding Vietnam were: Kennedy ordered the United States out of Vietnam and LBJ committed us -- all the way.

[badtoworse]

34. Interesting. I was thinking more in terms of domestic policy

In my mind, whether Kennedy would have gone down the same road in Viet Nam was open question, but I'd never seen the NSAM 263 document. If we were out by 1965, the rest of that decade would have been very different. The whole 60's counterculture thing might never have happened and Nixon probably would not have been elected (at least not in 1968). I question whether Kennedy would have pushed legislation like the Voting Rights Act and the Great Society as hard as Johnson did.

The NSAM 273 document looks very interesting, but I'll have to read it later.

[zappaman]

40. Not really

On September 2, 1963, JFK gave an interview to Walter Cronkite where he said...

". . . in the final analysis it is the people and the Government itself who have to win or lose this struggle. All we can do is help, and we are making it very clear. But I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. I know people don't like Americans to be engaged in this kind of an effort. Forty-seven Americans have been killed in combat with the enemy, but this is a very important struggle even though it is far away."

On September 9th, JFK was interviewed by Chet Huntley and David Brinkley of NBC.

HUNTLEY. Are we likely to reduce our aid to South Viet-Nam now?

JFK. I don't think we think that would be helpful at this time. If you reduce your aid, it is possible you could have some effect upon the government structure there. On the other hand, you might have a situation which could bring about a collapse. Strongly in our mind is what happened in the case of China at the end of World War II, where China was lost, a weak government became increasingly unable to control events. We don't want that.

BRINKLEY. Mr. President, have you had any reason to doubt this so-called "domino theory," that if South Viet-Nam falls, the rest of Southeast Asia will go behind it?

JFK. No, I believe it. I believe it. I think that the struggle is close enough. China is so large, looms so high just beyond the frontiers, that if South Viet-Nam went, it would not only give them an improved geographic position for a guerrilla assault on Malaya but would also give the impression that the wave of the future in Southeast Asia was China and the Communists. So I believe it.

Also JFK said...

"What I am concerned about is that Americans will get impatient and say, because they don't like events in Southeast Asia or they don't like the Government in Saigon, that we should withdraw. That only makes it easy for the Communists. I think we should stay.

We should use our influence in as effective a way as we can, but we should not withdraw."

Not to mention RFK confirming in an interview with John Bartlow Martin in April 1964, that JFK never considered pulling out of Vietnam.
You also forgot to mention that NSAM 273 was drafted during JFK's administration.

No one knows what would have happened if JFK wasn't killed, but it doesn't seem likely he would have pulled out of Vietnam and may very well have done the exact same thing as LBJ.

[Octafish]

47. Newman and Galbraith have researched the subject. Your TV interview quotes are what? 48 years old?

BTW: Newman addressed what he called JFK's duplicity -- the variance between his public and private statements regarding Vietnam -- in his book. You should read it.

[zappaman]

49. Unfortunately, the quotes are old cuz JFK is dead

However, they are his words.
Which trumps your speculation any day when it comes to JFKs mindset.

[Octafish]

56. Did you read Newman's book, zappaman?

If so, you'd know that in it, Newman follows the Pentagon, State Department and other governmental paper trails to make clear how NSAM 273 was re-drafted to its current form AFTER the assassination of President Kennedy.

Does everything have to be a smear with you?

[WinkyDink]

51. Born in 1949. Quit Girl Scouts as the only JFK fan. So, yeah, I was alive,

Reading "The Making of the Presidency 1960" when it was first published cemented my life-long interest in modern American Presidential history, as my library would show.

[WinkyDink]

4. Context is your friend. 1960 was only 15 yrs post-WWII; we were all "Cold Warriors."

[WinkyDink]

2. As a great two-term President who ended a war and promoted Civil Rights.

[raccoon]

7. Lots of people seem to think he'd have ended the Vietnam War/Conflict/whatever.

I don't know whether he would've or not.

[Octafish]

25. Read "JFK and Vietnam" by John M. Newman.

The record is clear, JFK ordered all U.S. advisers out by the end of 1965. Kennedy refused to send draftee combat troops to fight another nation's civil war.

If you don't have time to read the book, here's an excellent article on the subject:

Exit Strategy

And if you want my take:

'Arrogant' CIA Disobeys Orders in Viet Nam

[Little Star]

9. If he'd had more time.....

I believe he would have been one of our best presidents. They wanted him dead for a reason and Bobby too!

[happyslug]

41. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never have passed

Johnson made a commitment to the Civil Rights Act, he would do everything needed to get it passed, even if it tied up the Government for months (it did, the Senate did NOTHING but the Civil Rights act for the three months it was being filibustered). Kennedy and his family and friends hated Johnson, the big City bosses had pushed for Johnson on the ticket, Johnson had never been Kennedy's first (or even last) choice. An example of this is a cable to the Swedish Government during LBJ's visit to Sweden while he was Vice President. The Cable basically said Johnson did NOT represent the Administration (Completely cutting Johnson out of any power).

Johnson had been given the Job, as VP, to head a council on Civil Rights. JFK hated the way LBJ was running that council, permitting all the bad parts of segregation in an concentrated arena for the press to pick up.

I go into the above to show how much JFK and LBJ did NOT work together (another gem was JFK's approval of the removal of Diem as leader of South Vietnam, the only man to oppose that removal was LBJ, on the grounds you never stab a friend in the back).

Getting the Civil Rights Act though the house of Representatives would be easy, JFK could have done that on his own, the problem was getting it through the Senate. Would JFK been willing to shut down the government for the three months needed? Remember nothing else was being done during that three months, no one could be confirmed in an executive position or a Judgeship till the Filibuster was ended, could JFK wait three months for his appointments to make it through the Senate AND also wait three months for the budget and other bills to make it through the Senate, all were stopped by the Filibuster rules of that time period? Would the Military tolerate promotions being delayed three months while the Senate is under a Filibuster? Under LBJ the military had to wait, as did every one else, but would JFK run that risk? I do NOT think so, the best example of this is during various Civil Rights Marches in the South, JFK did call the National Guard into Service for those Marches, but more to prevent the State from using them against the Marchers NOT to protect the Marchers (The National Guardsmen, were called into Federal Service and then ordered to stay in their barracks). JFK took that attitude for it prevented the State Governors from using the Troops against the Marchers, but by NOT sending them to protect the Marchers, the State Police and Klan and a free hand as to those same Marchers.

Thus, in my opinion, once the South Agreed to Filibuster I do NOT see JFK waiting three months and making all types of deals to get 67 Senates to vote to end the Filibuster. LBJ could have done it for JFK, but JFK was NOT about to give LBJ any credit and that is want LBJ would have wanted.

As to the Withdraw of US advisers, that had been done for years, and then returned after the Tet Holiday every year. The key was the removal of Diem. Diem had been the leader of South Vietnam for almost eight years in 1963. Ho Chi Minh viewed him as the most dangerous enemy he had in South Vietnam (And Ho Chi Minh could NOT believe that the US would have Diem Killed, but that was the result of the Coup that over three Diem). More recent released documents indicate that JFK NEVER thought Diem would be killed, but JFK also did not make it clear to the Coup leaders that the US would NOT tolerate Diem's death.

Now South Vietnam under Diem was in a constant decline compared to the Viet Cong. Diem concentration on his fellow Catholics over the Buddhists was both Diem's strength and weakness (The Catholics were the most anti-communists in South Vietnam, but the Buddhist made up 70-80% of the Country). Technically Diem's overthrow was tied in with Buddhist protests of 1963 against Diem's pro-Catholic policies, but he tended to be overthrown by a group of generals who tended to be Catholic more then Buddhist. Thieu, who ended up on top after a few years was involved the coup AND was Catholic, As Ho Chi Minh observed, none of the Generals that killed Diem had the following among the people to oppose the Viet Cong on a Political level (Diem could and thus Ho viewed Diem as his greatest rival).

Anyway, with the assassination of Diem, the situation in South Vietnam deteriorated throughout 1963 and 1964. Vietnam was a big issue in the 1964 election. The Majority of Americans supported the sending advisers and American Troops to South Vietnam till the middle of 1968. Would JFK run the risk of doing something the vast majority of American opposed (With draw from Vietnam before 1968)? No, and for the same reason LBJ had to send in troops. US troops were needed by 1965 to stabilize the situation in South Vietnam. The South Vietnamese Government would have fallen in 1965 or 1966 if US troops had NOT been introduced to tip the balance in favor of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN, the South Vietnamese Army). LBJ had to send in troops, and JFK would have had to send in troops. Both had been in Government during the 1940s, when Truman had refused to send in US Troops to bail out the Nationalist Chinese and all you heard in the late 1940s and till the 1960s was "Who Lost China?" and the answer was the Democrats (That was untrue, but even today the GOP careless about facts and reality).

In 1954, the French asked the US for air Support to protect and supply their garrison in Dien Bien Phu. but that was refused by President Eisenhower. The US army did a study in 1954 that recommended that the US stay out of Vietnam (tied up to many US troops and not worth the effort). Eisenhower accepted that recommendation as to US Troops, but did everything short to support South Vietnam staying non-communist (Thus the US Support for Dien starting in 1955). In this action JFK, as a Senator, supported Eisenhower and continued that policy as President. JFK, in many ways wanted to end the war in Vietnam quickly, and saw Diem as someone who was NOT doing want was needed to end the war and as such had to go. The problem was any guerrilla war is always Political, Diem new this but JFK seems NOT to have known this. Thus JFK saw the removal of Diem as a way end the war, while LBJ and the US Army saw it as it was, a death ride to defeat (But no one listened to the experts, when the experts said what they did not want to hear).

I point out the above to show that JFK, like LBJ, hands would have been forced to continue the war in Vietnam. As long as the American People supported the war, no matter who was President, with the assassination of Diem, the Political Situation in South Vietnam had turned pro-communist. The only way to end that political Situation was to stabilize the South Vietnamese Government with US troops. JFK would have had to face that same situation, the fall of Vietnam to the Communist in 1965/1966 era, There is no way JFK would have permitted that, for that would set up a GOP victory in 1968. Thus JFK would have been in the same boat LBJ found himself in, until the American People turned against the War (and that was NOT till the Summer of 1968) there was no way for any President to end the war in Vietnam until the majority of Americans no longer supported the war.

Thus by 1968, had JFK lived, Vietnam would still be going on, US be waist deep in Vietnam (JFK was more of a hard liner then LBJ, may even have risked fighting Red China and moved into North Vietnam, expanding the war). No Civil Rights act would have passed and the Great Society would never even have been attempted (Medicare would still be needed, for LBJ would not have been in place to push it through). Nixon probably would have won, for LBJ would have been denied the Democratic Nomination do to the power of a Sitting President in most conventions prior to the reforms of the 1970s. Without LBJ Great Society Program, the problems of the 1970s would have been worse, but that is another story.

[Deep13]

5. As the guy who failed to pass civil rights legislation.

Also, as the guy who got us to the moon.

[WinkyDink]

8. Are you kidding?! Everyone knows LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed as a posthumous JFK Bill.

Have you not heard of JFK's AG Nicholas Katzenbach vs. George Wallace at the school-house door?
http://www.npr.org/2003/06/11/1294680/wallace-in-the-schoolhouse-door
"It was also a watershed event for President Kennedy, who in staring down the South's most defiant segregationist aligned himself solidly with the civil rights movement."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MLK, Jr's leters and praise, and JFK's actions:
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Education/Students/Leaders-in-the-Struggle-for-Civil-Rights/MLK-Jr.aspx

Telegram (6/11/63) from Martin Luther King, Jr. to President Kennedy after listening to the his civil rights address: "IT WAS ONE OF THE MOST ELOQUENT PROFOUND AND UNEQUIVOCAL PLEAS FOR JUSTICE AND FREEDOM OF ALL MEN EVER MADE BY ANY PRESIDENT."

[Deep13]

11. The key word there is posthumous.

LBJ rammed it through by waving the bloody flag and taking advantage of the national sympathy for JFK as a result of his murder. JFK supported that legislation, of course, but it is not clear he could have gotten it through the Senate.

[WinkyDink]

12. Try reading the body of my post. Oh, and NO KIDDING the unknowable "isn't clear."

"Failed to pass"....?? Yes, maybe a little 1962 October Surprise was also on his agenda. Or another illegal CIA deal, from the Eisenhower Admin, called the Bay of Pigs. Or a U.S. Steel that was trying to bleed us dry, economically.

But as I posted, I'll let the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., be JFK's judge.

[Deep13]

19. Not doubting Kennedy's commitment.

He made it a political issue in the election. It probably cost him some states, but ensured Black turnout in others. The question is, would he have been able to get it through the Senate without the national shock of a presidential murder? Remember in those days the Southern Senators were mostly Democrats and they were opposed to civil rights as were their white constituents (the only ones who voted).

Elections have consequences. Unfortunately, so do assassinations.

[Octafish]

21. The guy who nationalized the National Guard in order to integrate the University of Alabama.

The guy who PERSONALLY integrated the White House Secret Service detail.

[Deep13]

22. Yup, JFK was all for civil rights. Was the Senate? nt

[Octafish]

27. No. Once Nixon got done with them, they all became Republicans. (nt)

[Deep13]

29. Bastard. Racism was a central part of his campaign strategy.

He used the term "law and order" as code for oppressing Blacks. Every time some Republican official mouths sentiments about civil rights, I remember that their party is truly grounded on racism.

[Octafish]

31. Kevin Phillips designed the ''Southern Strategy.''

He must not have seen it would devolve into the neo-Confederacy of today, overseen by the Bush family, which he justifiably loathes.

[WinkyDink]

52. AG Katzenbach at the school-house door.

[Odin2005]

10. The guy who got us stuck in Vietnam.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

[WinkyDink]

15. The thread isn't about LBJ.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11202009/profile.html

"But it was under President Johnson that the U.S. escalated the conflict to a full scale war."

[Octafish]

26. Gulf of Tonkin = WMDs in Iraq

JFK Would NEVER Have Fallen for Phony INTEL!

[WinkyDink]

54. Absolutely. JFK got BURNED on Cuba; no WAY would he have GOT'ed America.

[H2O Man]

13. One can only speculate.

I tend to look at his speech at American University as the most accurate outline of what goals he had for accomplishing by the end of a second term. Obviously, even with a second term, he could have only done part of that, but put the nation -- and world -- on a different path.

The results he achieved in the Cuban Missile crisis is enough to justify people's remembering him as far better than the two presidents who served both before and after JFK. Had any of those four been in office, our nation would have been involved in a level of violence that is hard to imagine.

[Deep13]

23. Ultimately, that is true.

It's fun to imagine "what if" situations, but they will always be merely speculative. I tend to think that if the FL election in 2000 hadn't been so corrupt that we would not be in two wars and a recession right now.

[Skink]

17. Another democrat might have followed and then maybe no Nixon.

although Nixon's looking pretty good after 8 years of Bush.

[Deep13]

24. If only. Nixon was the protobush.

Agree that he seems downright reasonable compared to Bush Jr. or Reagan.

[leveymg]

30. If we believe ABC and other sources, he was accused of sharing "pillow talk" w/ an East German spy

named Ellen Rometsch, who had been hastily spirited out of the country a few weeks before Dallas.

I recall a decade ago ABC News aired a revisionistic treatment of the Kennedy legacy and Assassination, "Dangerous World" (or something like that) that included a long interview with the head of Kennedy's Secret Service detachment who recited the affairs JFK had while in the White House. His account included details I had not heard before. What stood out for me was the head agent's comment that key members of the SS body unit that had protected the President asked to be reassigned, and left the detail in the weeks before Dallas. He mentioned this in connection with talk about how Kennedy aides had Rometsch flown to a safe house in West Germany and paid her off after someone bugged a bedroom conversation of JFK discussing classified matters with her. The Secret Service agent said if the assassination had not occurred, Kennedy's political opponents planned to release the tape.

If this is true (and there are a number of sources on the Rometsch affair, including Seymour Hersh's book "The Dark Side of Camelot")(1997), JFK might well have been remembered differently. My take on this is that it's an inner cover story handed to the Secret Service that may have some factual elements - JFK had many affairs and several backchannel communications with the Soviets -- but, that the assassination was carried out for a variety of other "reasons of state".

[Moral_Imagination]

33. Hard to tell

but he certainly would have been eviscerated daily on DU if it existed then.

[RedCloud]

35. As the first of three straight two term Kennedy brothers as President

[pampango]

36. "free trader" - wanted to reduce tariffs by 50% bilateraly and eliminate them with the EU.

"To reduce tariffs by 50 per cent in reciprocal negotiations. It would be our intention to employ a variety of techniques in exe

...a special authority, to be used in negotiating with the EEC, to reduce or eliminate all tariffs in those groups of products where the United States and the EEC together account for 80 per cent or more of world trade in a representative period."

http://www.ena.lu/

[Hello_Kitty]

42. The key is "reciprocal negotiations"

Not shipping well paying blue collar and white collar jobs to slave wage countries with no environmental protections.

[apocalypsehow]

37. Mixed legacy. He would have accelerated the Vietnam war, a war he essentially started, but had the

strategy he pursued been successful, it would not be the controversy it is today. As he himself put it: "Victory has a thousand fathers but defeat is an orphan".

In his last delivered remarks he openly boasted of having increased the number of combat troops in Vietnam: "by 600 percent!!" he exulted that morning in Fort Worth. There is not the slightest shred of substantive evidence that JFK planned anything other than continued involvement in the Vietnamese conflict.

His administration was slow - painfully slow - on Civil Rights. I would like to think that by his second term he would have been more aggressive in this area; ditto for environmental legislation.

But we come back to the essential fact that we will simply never know, because one deluded former defector to the Soviet Union and self-proclaimed Marxist named Lee Harvey Oswald - acting alone and with malice aforethought - assassinated President Kennedy on November 22, 1963. :shrug:

[badtoworse]

38. Interesting, did you see Post # 32?

[apocalypsehow]

39. I saw it, alright. I don't waste my time or put much effort into studying pseudo-history. n/t.

[zappaman]

43. +1 n/t

[H2O Man]

44. "Psuedo-history."

That document exists. It had meaning. It is real. And it fits with his actions regarding Laos.

You are speculating, without any real foundation.

One is real, and one is speculative "psuedo-history."

[zappaman]

45. Real foundation

On September 2, 1963, JFK gave an interview to Walter Cronkite where he said...

". . . in the final analysis it is the people and the Government itself who have to win or lose this struggle. All we can do is help, and we are making it very clear. But I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. I know people don't like Americans to be engaged in this kind of an effort. Forty-seven Americans have been killed in combat with the enemy, but this is a very important struggle even though it is far away."

On September 9th, JFK was interviewed by Chet Huntley and David Brinkley of NBC.

HUNTLEY. Are we likely to reduce our aid to South Viet-Nam now?

JFK. I don't think we think that would be helpful at this time. If you reduce your aid, it is possible you could have some effect upon the government structure there. On the other hand, you might have a situation which could bring about a collapse. Strongly in our mind is what happened in the case of China at the end of World War II, where China was lost, a weak government became increasingly unable to control events. We don't want that.

BRINKLEY. Mr. President, have you had any reason to doubt this so-called "domino theory," that if South Viet-Nam falls, the rest of Southeast Asia will go behind it?

JFK. No, I believe it. I believe it. I think that the struggle is close enough. China is so large, looms so high just beyond the frontiers, that if South Viet-Nam went, it would not only give them an improved geographic position for a guerrilla assault on Malaya but would also give the impression that the wave of the future in Southeast Asia was China and the Communists. So I believe it.

Also JFK said...

"What I am concerned about is that Americans will get impatient and say, because they don't like events in Southeast Asia or they don't like the Government in Saigon, that we should withdraw. That only makes it easy for the Communists. I think we should stay.

We should use our influence in as effective a way as we can, but we should not withdraw."

Not to mention RFK confirming in an interview with John Bartlow Martin in April 1964, that JFK never considered pulling out of Vietnam.
You also forgot to mention that NSAM 273 was drafted during JFK's administration.

No one knows what would have happened if JFK wasn't killed, but it doesn't seem likely he would have pulled out of Vietnam and may very well have done the exact same thing as LBJ.

[H2O Man]

46. Again, the most

obvious example is Loas. If people understand what JFK did there, and is familiar with not only the very real document that Octafish noted above, but what those closest to the President knew, then it is impossible to think that he planned to keep the US in Vietnam. Those who advised against staying included a number of generals who, like MacArthur, knew the US could not win a war there.

That last thought alone -- or, add history if one needs to -- makes the fellow's statement (in the post I responded to above), that if JFK "won" the war, it wouldn't have been controversial, a giggle. The US could not, unless one considered an atomic/nuclear war an option, possibly have "won" in Vietnam .... unless we had continued with what FDR had in mind, before Truman took office, and determined that "yellow people are not ready for democracy."

The US would have, without any serious debate, have been out of Vietnam in JFK's second term.

[WinkyDink]

50. Just positing your own version of imaginary history.

[LanternWaste]

53. Self delete

[LanternWaste]

48. The cultural trend towards cynicism in all things

The cultural trend towards cynicism in all things, the disdain for the traditional for no other reason than it is, well... traditional, and the open contempt for any figure of authority compels me to believe he would be mocked, ridiculed and held to absurdly high standards by posters who themsevles fail to meet those very same standards they set. The additional revisions of history from the Usual Suspects and the Brain Trust, the cherry-picking of one action without context, lack of knowledge of both cabinet and congressional stances of the era would be... grim.

In short, I think he would be placed on the same level of admiration as is Ford. And that's merely on DU... what Fox News would do is beyond imagination. :shrug:

ed: sp

[WinkyDink]

55. People who think JFK would have been Right-ward or a Repub: HE WAS KILLED because he wanted to break

up the CIA.

Unless you believe the Official Story.