Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

The Mary Jo Kopechne of the autumn of 1963

Kennedy myth-making, unraveled by Steyn: “‘What goes around comes around’ doesn’t have quite the same ring as ‘one brief shining moment’.” And while we’re un-revising the Left’s near-cartoonish version of history:

I happen to be a member of that minority—perhaps in America the minoritiest of all minorities—who doesn’t get it. I understand the sadness of a still youngish man killed in the presence of his wife before a vast television audience. What I don’t get is the glamor of, the intense emotion surrounding, the general significance of John F. Kennedy. Nor do I understand the eagerness of so many of my countrymen to make the Kennedy family America’s equivalent of the royals.

John F. Kennedy turned out to be a most mediocre president. He was at best hesitant in his support of the civil rights movement, the clearest moral event of the second half of the twentieth century. Nor did he pass any domestic legislation of major importance. In foreign policy, he made a great mess of the Bay of Pigs invasion, and with a less than pet bit of brinksmanship brought the Soviet Union and the United States as close to nuclear war as they ever got. He was the man who first put the American toe in the swamp of Vietnam, though his successor Lyndon Johnson would take the heat of liberal history for that misgotten war.

The specialty of the Kennedy administration was public relations, image-making—and an image, it is well to remember, is the thing that is not really there. The Kennedy years, or so we were endlessly told, were American Camelot, years in which culture had come to Washington, elegance to the White House, good looks and intellectual brilliance to the Oval Office. Intellectuals swooned, the higher media drooled. Think Charles Collingwood following Jacqueline Kennedy around the White House, enraptured as the first lady, in her best Miss Porter School whispering lisp, modestly explained how in her redecorations she had elevated the joint above the low standard of those pathetic philistines, the Eisenhowers.

Gee, THAT doesn’t sound at all familiar. Progressivists haven’t harbored a new idea in over a century, and this is just another example of it. They’re still plumping for another Great Man to come riding up on his white charger to save us all from ourselves.

Of course it was all baloney. None of it could withstand close scrutiny. When the scrutiny came it revealed that Jack Kennedy didn’t quite write the book, Profiles in Courage, for which he won a Pulitzer Prize. The reality behind those touching photographs of his picture-perfect children cavorting round the Oval Office was their father bonking movie stars, mafia molls, and adolescent interns in the upstairs bedrooms.

The rest of the Kennedy family was scarcely better. The father, the founding father as he was called in the title of a book about him by Richard Whalen, had a dodgy financial past, was a major-league philanderer, and on balance didn’t find Adolf Hitler all that bad a sort. His brother Bobby was a bully who had worked for Senator Joseph McCarthy and, once he had power on his side, was able to make even Jimmy Hoffa seem sympathetic. The youngest brother, Teddy, later to become a great liberal hero, failed badly at Chappaquiddick, letting a young woman drown before endangering his own political career. As for the widow Kennedy, after a decent interval, she did what the cynical Gore Vidal said she was always about anyway, and went for the money in marrying the monstrous Aristotle Onassis. Such was the reality behind Camelot.

None of this is exactly a secret. Yet so little of it seems to have penetrated Americans, who, against all evidence, continue to look upon the Kennedys as our uncrowned kings.

Actually, that isn’t quite so. It isn’t Americans who feel that way about it; it’s the American corporate media establishment. In all those breathless hagiographies they’ll be running all damned day (thank God I have the little one today, so the TV will be stuck like glue to PBSKids and NickJr, who will hopefully keep their adoring tributes to JFK to a minimum), when you hear statements involving the supposed worshipful obsession with the Kennedys, just replace “Americans’ fascination/love affair/reverence/etc” with “OUR fascination/etc.” You’ll be a damned sight nearer the mark.

And while they’re revising history to better suit their pathetic fantasies, remember this too:

Look, guys. Lee Harvey Oswald murdered JFK. Oswald was a Communist. Not a small c, “all we are saying is give peace a chance and let’s support Negro civil rights” kind of Communist, but someone so committed to the cause (and so blind to the nature of the USSR) that he actually went to live in the Soviet Union. And when that didn’t work out, Oswald became a great admirer of Castro. He apparently would have gone to live in Cuba before the assassination if the Cubans would have had him. Before assassinating Kennedy, Oswald tried to kill a retired right-wing general. As near as we can tell, he targeted Kennedy in revenge for Kennedy’s anti-Castro actions.

The attempt to at best distract us from who the killer was and why he killed JFK, and at worst to pin the blame on entirely innocent people for inciting Dallas opinion against JFK (or perhaps to imply that the right-wingers plotted the assassination), even though those innocents were exactly the type of people Oswald hated, is just pathetic, and the Times and Post should be embarrassed for publishing these pieces. The Post piece is especially embarrassing because it explicitly links Dallas “right-wing extremism” circa 1963 to the modern “Tea Party,” as if to say, “if the Tea Party had been around in 1963, one of its members would have killed Kennedy.”

“As if to say”? It’s EXACTLY what they’re saying, and exactly what they believe–in direct contravention of reality, of course and as usual. But it’s not really their fault that they can’t cope with their idol having been murdered by one of their own, not entirely, the poor dears: “The King of Camelot was killed by a commie loser. The impossibility of processing that drove the left crazy, and they still can’t face it.” It really is a sickness; “liberalism” really is a mental disorder, and there’s not much out there that highlights it as clearly as all this.

Update! Nearly forgot to mention this: the object of modern Progressivists’ damp-crotched adulation would no way no how be welcome in today’s Democrat Socialist Party.

The New York Times’ executive editor calls Kennedy “the elusive president”; The Post calls him “the most enigmatic” president. Most libidinous, certainly; most charming, perhaps. But enigmatic and elusive? Many who call him difficult to understand seem eager to not understand him. They present as puzzling or uncharacteristic aspects of his politics about which he was consistent and unambiguous. For them, his conservative dimension is an inconvenient truth. Ira Stoll, in “JFK, Conservative,” tries to prove too much but assembles sufficient evidence that his book’s title is not merely provocative.

A Look magazine headline in June 1946 read: “A Kennedy Runs for Congress: The Boston-bred scion of a former ambassador is a fighting-Irish conservative.” Neither his Cold War anti-communism, which was congruent with President Harry Truman’s, nor his fiscal conservatism changed dramatically during his remaining 17 years.

As president, JFK chose as Treasury secretary a Republican Wall Street banker, C. Douglas Dillon, who 30 years after the assassination remembered Kennedy as “financially conservative.” Kennedy’s fiscal policy provided an example and ample rhetoric for Ronald Reagan’s supply-side tax cuts. Kennedy endorsed “a creative tax cut creating more jobs and income and eventually more revenue.” In December 1962, he said:

“The federal government’s most useful role is…to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures…[I]t is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”

John Kenneth Galbraith — Harvard economist, liberal polemicist and Kennedy’s ambassador to India — called this “the most Republican speech since McKinley.” It was one of many. On the day he was killed, Kennedy was being driven to the Dallas Trade Mart to propose “cutting personal and corporate income taxes.” Kennedy changed less during his life than liberalism did after his death.

Boy, you said a mouthful there. JFK wouldn’t recognize his own party now, so far Left has it lurched…and they wouldn’t recognize him from behind their rose-colored goggles. Nor would either want to have anything to do with the other.

Share

9 thoughts on “The Mary Jo Kopechne of the autumn of 1963

  1. The thing that amazes me about JFK is how he was even semi-functional with all the pills he was taking.

  2. Most of the article I agree with with the major exception of Lee Harvey Oswald being the lone killer. Too many good books around to buy into the Warren Commission report.

  3. Oswald acted alone, period most of the good books out there don’t get the basic facts strait. When hit by bullets human bodies react differently then they do in the movies. And all the “right wing hate” that existed back then came from the Democratic party itself. Both the dems and the repubs back then were pretty much the same thing, I remember people who quit voting because of it. That is what made Reagan stand out and get elected in 1980. Lastly Nixon was a progressive.

  4. ” Acted alone, period.” You can keep your insurance, period. You can keep your doctor, period.

  5. Never saw the frames where Kennedy’s brain explodes from the front of his head, I take it kid. Only one way that happens, the bullet enters from the back of the head. Only two possible locations for the shot and timing two people to fire at the exact same time is impossible even when they are right next to each other let alone at two different locations at two different heights. So in conclusion one shooter one location case closed. Oh and I’m on Medicare still have it still have my Doctor. 90% of the conspiracy nonsense comes from Kodak screwing up the development of the missing Zapruder frames. Also remember when they talk about right wing hate at that time they are talking about the Democratic party the Dem and Repubs back then where pretty much indistinguishable,The right wing of the Democratic party didn’t transfer to the Republican party they died in place as Democrats. There was no Republican right wing like there is now. One could argue that the bullets the killed Kennedy were the first shots in the Oswald wing of the Democratic parties’ war to oust the JFK wing of the party. The Oswald wing won. And in closing just remember JFK was an unapologetic Mccarthyite.

  6. Misdiagnosis, it was later determined to have been the exit point for a piece of skull fragment, later found under the front passengers seat, I believe. And no my name is not Spector, in fact I have never doubted Oswald killed Kennedy and never bothered to research the subject, everything I tell you comes from witnessing first hand the same old arguments umpteen zillion times and seeing the same conspiracy addicts fail every time. And think what you are trying to purpose in a second shooter? Firing from a different direction with a different calibre weapon? Why was someone trying to go to war with the US. Government? That eliminates the Russians, Cubans and Mafia right off the bat you get left with the Democrats trying to restart “The War between the States” against themselves. I had to live with my older relatives telling me how the Telephone system was cut off for a time after the shooting, I know first hand about the discrimination against Catholics back then. We got out of school early that day because of it. You literally have no frigging idea what you are talking about or even Why you’re talking about it. You are in the end a latter day conspiracy addict about something that has absolutely no meaning to you, are you mentally unwell?

  7. Regarding the EMO around the assassination: I was fairly young back then, but all I knew – and it’s still pretty much all I know (I don’t pay much attention to conspiracy theories) is that SOMEONE assassinated a President of the United States of America. It was very much like Sept. 11, 2001 for those who remember it. It wasn’t that it was a particular president – it was that it happened. (Same as with Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley – but even I’M not old enough to remember those.)

  8. @Catseyes- you are basically full of shit. Nothing else to do all day at the Villages? You know exactly jackshit about me.

Comments are closed.

CF Comments Policy Statement

Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site and may be deleted, ridiculed, maliciously edited for purposes of mockery, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. The CF comments section is pretty free-form and rough and tumble; tolerance level for rowdiness and misbehavior is fairly high here, but is NOT without limit. Management is under no obligation whatever to allow the comments section to be taken over and ruined by trolls, Leftists, and/or other oxygen thieves, and will take any measures deemed necessary to prevent such. Conduct yourself with the merest modicum of decorum, courtesy, and respect and you'll be fine. Pick pointless squabbles with other commenters, fling provocative personal insults, issue threats, or annoy the host (me) and...you won't.

Should you find yourself sanctioned after running afoul of the CF comments policy as stated and feel you have been wronged, please download and complete the Butthurt Report form below in quadruplicate; retain one copy for your personal records and send the others to the email address posted in the right sidebar. Please refrain from whining, sniveling, and/or bursting into tears and waving your chubby fists around in frustrated rage, lest you suffer an aneurysm or stroke unnecessarily. Your completed form will be reviewed and your complaint addressed whenever management feels like getting around to it. Thank you.

Categories

Archives

Notable Quotes

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

"To put it simply, the Left is the stupid and the insane, led by the evil. You can’t persuade the stupid or the insane and you had damn well better fight the evil." - Skeptic

"Give me the media and I will make of any nation a herd of swine." - Joseph Goebbels

"Ain't no misunderstanding this war. They want to rule us and aim to do it. We aim not to allow it. All there is to it." - NC Reed, from Parno's Peril

"I just want a government that fits in the box it originally came in." -Bill Whittle

Subscribe to CF!

Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix