i'm no expert but what stuck out when i was watching a documentory on jfk during the missile crisis was what a russian general said... paraphrasing, "if jfk was nearly as hot headed as khrushchev, there would have been world war III". there were even people on our side pressuring him to push the button. a large part of his greatness in his diplomacy and caution.
i think that people focused more on his charismatic charm and his embodiment as the man of an american family than on his negatives. he did receive his share of scandals, but this was before vietnam where the media weren't as critical of the president as it they are now where they blow every little negative up.
I sort of share Sishir's view on JFK. I think he was a good man and a skilled/charismatic politician, but I do believe that he was and still is to this day the most overrated president in American history. I think America's view of JFK borders on the romantic, it's his image/story/tragedy that most Americans are attracted to, not his political legacy. Americans love drama, they love a good story, and the JFK tragedy provides that. I agree that his brother -- Bob -- was likely the better politician, but he wasn't quiet as charismatic as Jack was.
but he didnt - it took lbj to push thru the civil rights agenda. i would actually argue that jfk took a passive stance towards civil rights. he did not support the freedom riders in 61 and told MLK to "cool off". he would not meet them when they came to d.c. he did not support james meredith vs. the university of mississippi. and many of his judicial appointments were hardcore racists. jfk was like clinton (or vice versa) in that he simply did not want to rock the political boat. now for his greatness - he was a war hero for his actions in WWII. he also initiated the space program in the u.s. in the end, we really will never see the full picture b/c his life was cut short. perhaps after the next election (if he won), we would have seen more.
jfk wouldn't push the civil rights legislation because he was afraid of southern democrats. and from all accounts jfk looked like a lil kid in the cuban missle crisis. it was kruschev who was a man.
While JFK's administration successfully avoided a nuclear showdown with the USSR, the Cuban Missile Crisis still ended up in a Soviet strategic victory, the US got nothing out of it. Yet, most Americans viewed it as a diplomatic 'victory', which is a classic example of perception trumping reality.
I think most people forget that we traded missles in Turkey for the missles in Cuba. Of course that beats any nuclear showdown, but still it wasn't exactly a eye to eye blink kind of thing...
The point I was trying to make was that his ability to mesmerize you with his public speaking is irrelevant to his abilities as a leader, and actually detracts from your ability to make an objective evaluation of his abilities and qualities.
Well, Kennedy set the table in many ways, but... it is doubtful the Civil Rights Act would have passed as it did without the confluence of events that put LBJ in the White House at that time... he definitely played the assassination up and twisted arms in Congress by claiming the Act would be tribute to JFK. So, one could argue that both LBJ and JFK were instrumental in the passage.
I would argue it's highly relevant... You just can't be sure that such a talent will be used for good.
To me the question of the thread, "greatness" has more to do with how good and wise he was than how effective at generating public support he was.
Yes, that was my main intent. To me it's clear he had public support and a main part of that was his persona - his looks, his charisma, and his public speaking ability. However, if we were to look beyond that exciting exterior and the mysterious legacy he left, what was really there? I was watching D.L. Hughley do standup last night and he was talking about great Americans. He listed JFK in there with MLK and Malcom X. Is it because JFK is generally regarded/credited with helping with the civil rights movement? Or did he throw him in there as a token white person who is generally accepted by the public as a great American. Curiously enough he said Ronald Reagan is not a great American because he lived to his 90's and no great person lives to old age. They get killed. I wonder what he thinks of Nelson Mandela.
I agree, if only for the fact that you gotta love a guy who manages to both placate and piss off every political faction (hippies, blacks, social and fiscal conservatives) at some point in his presidency. And refusing to sign the Southern Manifesto in the '50s shows that he was at least open to the idea of Civil Rights, at a time when smart politics and the law (save for "activist judges") said otherwise. But I think JFK, like MLK, used his public comments to help "mainstream" Civil Rights as an acceptable concept in a way that I don't think anyone with as high a political profile would have at the time. LBJ, in his White House tapes (which Nightline broadcast a few years back), was complaining to someone on a phone call about loyalty, maybe some RFK/Vietnam thing or something. (They also played a phone call where LBJ told RFK he wouldn't be the '64 running mate, seriously, if there was a cable channel that played nothing but Presidential phone converstations, I would watch it 24-7.) LBJ, in his phone conversation, mentioned the fact that right when JFK selected him as the running mate, Kennedy gave him a lecture about having to publicly support his policies/platform, even though LBJ might not have agreed with them. LBJ, in quoting JFK lecturing him, listed a number of issues Kennedy felt he wouldn't agree with him on, and Civil Rights was one of them. So it's very difficult for me to give LBJ full credit for Civil Rights without thinking that JFK, at least in his public comments, didn't at least pave the way for LBJ, Hubert Humphrey and Everett Dirksen. Thank God for "liberal Senators from Massachuessetts."
I'm about 5 years older than you, giddy. I was in junior high. My wife is making me clean house, today, so I don't have much time for the BBS. This is pretty accurate, IMO. LBJ is underrated today by many. That wasn't as true in the period around the brief Kennedy Presidency. I think a lot of the problem regarding Kennedy and LBJ is simply the passage of time. People tend to forget how powerful LBJ was in the Senate, and that he was pretty popular as President, as well, until Vietnam chewed away his support. His influence in the Senate was still there as Vice President and President, to a great extent. Rims is dead-on (no pun intended) about LBJ being a master of, "using the moment," to get things passed. Kennedy's assassination was used to pass his Civil Rights bill, and a lot more. In a way, LBJ rode the coattails of Kennedy's popularity and charisma, which lingered after his death, certainly obscuring a lot of LBJ's own role, much to Johnson's chagrin. And I think Kennedy is getting much less credit than he deserves. Gotta vacuum! Keep D&D Civil.
I have to disagree. The reason Khrushchev deployed missiles to Cuba was because of the missiles in Turkey. And they had only been there for ONE year prior to the U.S. finding out about the missile deployment to Cuba. The Soviets and Americans both knew since the Eisenhower days that the U.S. always had the advantage concerning nuclear weapons in quantity and in quality. It was dumb on the americans part to put missiles in Turkey since it was a very hostile act (think about waking up one day to find that your enemy has nuclear weapons right on your front door) and wasn't necessary since U.S. submarines had the capacity to strike western Soviet cities just as well without being as easily detected as land based ICBM facilities. The Bay of Pigs was a convenient excuse for the Soviets to use when it came to justifying such a blatant hostile act against the U.S. Cuba had no importance to the Soviets before the missiles in Turkey went up. In fact Castro and Che were much more friendly with Mao than Khrushchev. Che had even done his best to sour relations with the Soviets. You claim that the blockade was the bigger provocation when in fact the missile deployment in Turkey the year before was the actual impetus for the whole affair. Turkey mind you bordered Soviet Georgia, Armenia and was seperated from the Ukraine by only the Black Sea. Tell me how putting ICBM missiles in Turkey can not be seen as either aggressive or hostile or a direct provocation? The only parallel I can make is if the Soviets put ICBM's in lets say......Cuba for instance. I guess we can say that could be a provocation couldn't we? I think Kennedy deserves credit for doing the right thing in getting rid of the missiles in Turkey and diffusing a situation that should have never been. And history proves it was the right thing to do. Khrushcev paid politically for looking weak when backing out of the deployment to Cuba, but he too did the right thing. Your reason that the missiles were being sent to Cuba because of fears of an american invasion don't make sense because why would the Soviets risk a nuclear war when they were clearly outnumbered and for a country over 3,000 miles away???? Cuba??? They had nothing to offer the Soviets. It only became important once missiles were deployed in Turkey. p.s. I think JFK was an average president but had a much more personable, open attitude than the average president. I think LBJ and Nixon to an extent were better presidents, but neither had the style or personality that JFK had.
