Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
I notice they still managed to turn out to try and get McGovern elected 4 years later...
Iran, America and conservatives
- Thread starter Bfgrn
- Start date
I notice they still managed to turn out to try and get McGovern elected 4 years later...
Bfgrn
New member
How'd THAT work out?
christiefan915
Catalyst
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
There were many influences tugging on JFK to engage the civil rights movement. Shriver was but one of them. Conservative Republican Senator Everett Dirksen was another.
More germaine to my point then who was first to pull JFK into the struggle, was my point that he was not a liberal, and at best, a reluctant participant in the civil rights movement.
Kennedy's Domestic Agenda
It is still possible to argue, as some leftists do, that while JFK might have been less than progressive prior to assuming the Presidency, once he was in office, he became the champion and hope for liberal-progressive. But this idea is likewise not borne out by what JFK said and did during his thousand days. Once again, it was the image of a "Vital Center" Democrat that prevailed, and more often than not leaning more center and right than left.
On Civil Rights, JFK conducted a policy that was virtually a carbon copy of the one Dwight Eisenhower carried out. Like Ike, JFK believed in the moral correctness of integration. Like Ike in the Little Rock High School crisis of 1956, JFK was prepared to use the power of the federal government to uphold the law, as he did when he sent troops to protect the admittance of James Meredith to the University of Mississippi, and later to more peacefully force integration at the University of Alabama.
But like Eisenhower, JFK also felt that the momentum for civil rights and integration had to be kept at a gradual pace, lest a situation of unrest and backlash erupt all over the south. Like Eisenhower, JFK had no great love for the overt activism of Martin Luther King and the SCLC or the Congress on Racial Equality, and frequently wished that the Civil Rights organizations would act with more restraint.
In the Spring of 1961, CORE began its infamous "Freedom Rides" on Greyhound buses from Washington to New Orleans in an effort to test whether bus facilities were being desegregated. Along the way, there was a great deal of violence, with many racists assaulting the riders and burning some of the buses. To protect the riders, JFK decided that some federal marshals would have to be sent along. But as Harris Wofford, JFK's civil rights advisor recalled, JFK was furious with CORE for inviting trouble, especially at a time when JFK was preoccupied with the upcoming Vienna summit with Khrushchev. "Can't you get your friends off those goddamned buses?" he angrily asked Wofford, "Stop them."
As the rides continued, both JFK and RFK were still upset by what they felt were the "giant-pain-in-the-asses" at CORE who had invited the trouble with the Rides. JFK felt that the more he had to openly side with civil rights, the more difficult it would be for him to get anything past the racist Southern Democrats in Congress who wielded considerable power. JFK wanted to be supportive of Civil Rights, but he wanted to see the movement act on his own terms.
JFK's less than wholehearted feelings of affection for the movement would surface again two years later when both he and RFK would agree with J. Edgar Hoover that King needed to be wiretapped because at least one of his advisors had suspected communist ties, and both JFK and RFK had met with King urging the civil rights leader to drop those men from his group. King refused.
Likewise, when it came time for King to hold his famous March on Washington in 1963, Kennedy's support was passive and tepid. JFK regarded any march as something that would only be counterproductive in efforts to get civil rights legislation through Congress, and tried to talk King out of it. Again, Kennedy was not willing to go out on a limb and give full 100% backing to the movement.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/progjfk4.htm
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
You people are mind-boggling ignorant.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
I'm old enough to know that when the left disappears, the Democratic Party has ZERO chance in national elections.
What the American left needs is a political party of its own .. one that respects it.
but what of the oft abused 10th amendment
oat, slavery, civil rights and abortion along with the fda are violations of the 10th amendment
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
How about "We Are Not The Dumb Assholes On The Right Nor The Cowards In the Center Party?"
I like that.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Well, it was a bad year to try it, just as 1964 had been a bad year to run a guy like Goldwater...
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
ANY year is a bad year for Goldwater .. who would be mocked today.
George W. Bush could beat him .. which says 'bout everything that need be said.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Yeah, cuz "in your head you know he's crazy" was not mocking him, and neither was the Daisy ad... It is true that Goldwater would be ostracized by the same neocons that shit on Ron Paul today, though...
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Ron Paul was mocked .. oftentimes, deservedly so.
He had a few good ideas swimming around in a toliet bowl of turds.
There is no such thing as a "free market."
It does not exist anywhere on the planet.
It only exists in the minds of those who do not know its history or truth.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Only people like Midcan, who admittedly want to exercize full government control over everyone's lives and crush individualism make that claim.
Bfgrn
New member
blackascoal... I know a lot about Jack Kennedy, and I'm not naive...there's some truth in your article and there's much I would call revisionism.
I suggest you view ANYTHING forwarded by John McAdams with extreme skepticism. I don't know what his agenda is, but TRUTH is not one of them; or logic. If you believe in magic bullets, that the laws of physics took a vacation at 12:30 CST on November 22, 1963 and that even though the death penalty is not a deterrent, by NOT executing human beings may embolden future murderers, then McAdams is your man. I've seen McAdams name on a list of neocons. I DO know there is a group of neocons trying to "neoconize" JFK...
JFK was a liberal, a pragmatist and a pol, not always in that order.
"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Irrespective of what McAdams is or is not, I don't have to rely on his opinion or anybody else's opinion of JFK, I was alive when he was in office. My father talked to me on an almost daily basis about politics and the struggle for black liberation during those days. There is little question that JFK was NOT a liberal by any stretch of the imagination.
In fact, he even said so himself in various comments and he seemed proud of the fact that he did not belong to the ADA (Americans got Democratic Action), the most prominent liberal group of the day.
AND, as a Senator, he was also invited by then DNC Chair Paul Butler to join the DAC (Democratic Advisory Committee), which was formed by the DNC to formulate more consistent liberal policies, including civil rights .. and JFK declined the offer.
AND, his contention with Eleanor Roosevelt, who did belong to both liberal organizations, came because he was NOT a liberal and Mrs. Roosevelt knew it.
JFK didn't join the DAC until November 1959, and he did so because he was warned that in order to secure the Democratic presidential nomination he would have to be percieved as a "1960's liberal." This is fact and is noted in his memoirs and in the memoirs of LBJ.
REAL liberals and the NAACP were furious that Kennedy was one of the few non-southern democrats to join southern democrats and conservative republicans in voting to refer the civil rights bill of 1957 to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was chaired by James Eastland of Mississippi, who was a fierce and unyeilding segregationist.
JFK also voted to adopt a jury trial amendment for this bill .. which all but guaranteed that all-white juries would sit in judgement of persons prosecuted for violating the statute.
Additionally, some of the earliest supporters of JFK's run for president were the segregationist governors of Mississippi and Alabama .. and when Eisenhower sent the US Army to enforce intergration at Little Rock High School, JFK harshly criticized him.
I could go on .. and on, because I know the REAL story of JFK, not the Camelot driven fairy-tale of JFK as a liberal and champion of civil rights.
The man was NOT a liberal by any stretch of the imagination.
Last edited:
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Simple semantics of the two words. Conservative in simplistic terms means wanting to keep the old ways. In the US that means supporting liberty, the Constitution, limited government and personal responsibility; in revolutionary times these folks were Patriots; we have always been a minority. Progressive or Liberal in simplistic terms means wanting to change things; in the US this means dismantling the Constitution in favor of socialism or worse; in revolutionary times these folks were Tories and accepted the rule of a King and taxes without representation; they were and will always be a majority because its easy.
In Iran US Conservatives favor changing the current regime because it quashes liberty, the Liberals want to stay out of a conflict because its easy.
Its not all that complex but I'm not surprised it escapes you. *shrug*
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
JFK sucked.
Bfgrn
New member
WOW...by ANY STRETCH of the imagination...
I'm beginning to believe I'm talking to a left wing version of a right winger! YOU not only decide WHO is a liberal, but WHAT single issue criteria one must meet to be one? Civil right in the 50's & 60's like gay rights today is rife with preconceived misconceptions, lifelong indoctrination and dogma...even for a LIBERAL. I can't speak for Jack Kennedy, but MY beliefs on civil rights and gay rights have evolved, there was no epiphany...
It's a damn good thing JFK didn't listen to you...Nixon would been the 35th president and Stevenson would have been thumped for a 3rd time!
Ironic; one of the founders of the ADA was John Kenneth Galbraith, a close friend and adviser of JFK who served as Kennedy's Ambassador to India ...
When Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote that he was relieved that the President had died quickly, fearing the destruction of his wit and intellect as the greater evil.
The REAL test "my brother"; did John F. Kennedy come through on civil rights in America?
The answer is YES...by ANY STRETCH of the imagination...
Radio and Television Report to the American People on Civil Rights
President John F. Kennedy
The White House
June 11, 1963
Good evening my fellow citizens:
This afternoon, following a series of threats and defiant statements, the presence of Alabama National Guardsmen was required on the University of Alabama to carry out the final and unequivocal order of the United States District Court of the Northern District of Alabama. That order called for the admission of two clearly qualified young Alabama residents who happened to have been born Negro.
That they were admitted peacefully on the campus is due in good measure to the conduct of the students of the University of Alabama, who met their responsibilities in a constructive way.
I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.
Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. And when Americans are sent to Viet-Nam or West Berlin, we do not ask for whites only. It ought to be possible, therefore, for American students of any color to attend any public institution they select without having to be backed up by troops.
It ought to be possible for American consumers of any color to receive equal service in places of public accommodation, such as hotels and restaurants and theaters and retail stores, without being forced to resort to demonstrations in the street, and it ought to be possible for American citizens of any color to register to vote in a free election without interference or fear of reprisal.
It ought to be possible, in short, for every American to enjoy the privileges of being American without regard to his race or his color. In short, every American ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated. But this is not the case.
The Negro baby born in America today, regardless of the section of the Nation in which he is born, has about one-half as much chance of completing a high school as a white baby born in the same place on the same day, one-third as much chance of completing college, one-third as much chance of becoming a professional man, twice as much chance of becoming unemployed, about one-seventh as much chance of earning $10,000 a year, a life expectancy which is 7 years shorter, and the prospects of earning only half as much.
This is not a sectional issue. Difficulties over segregation and discrimination exist in every city, in every State of the Union, producing in many cities a rising tide of discontent that threatens the public safety. Nor is this a partisan issue. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics. This is not even a legal or legislative issue alone. It is better to settle these matters in the courts than on the streets, and new laws are needed at every level, but law alone cannot make men see right.
We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.
The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who will represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place? Who among us would then be content with the counsels of patience and delay?
One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free.
We preach freedom around the world, and we mean it, and we cherish our freedom here at home, but are we to say to the world, and much more importantly, to each other that this is the land of the free except for the Negroes; that we have no second-class citizens except Negroes; that we have no class or caste system, no ghettoes, no master race except with respect to Negroes?
Now the time has come for this Nation to fulfill its promise. The events in Birmingham and elsewhere have so increased the cries for equality that no city or State or legislative body can prudently choose to ignore them.
The fires of frustration and discord are burning in every city, North and South, where legal remedies are not at hand. Redress is sought in the streets, in demonstrations, parades, and protests which create tensions and threaten violence and threaten lives.
We face, therefore, a moral crisis as a country and as a people. It cannot be met by repressive police action. It cannot be left to increased demonstrations in the streets. It cannot be quieted by token moves or talk. It is time to act in the Congress, in your State and local legislative body and, above all, in all of our daily lives.
It is not enough to pin the blame on others, to say this is a problem of one section of the country or another, or deplore the fact that we face. A great change is at hand, and our task, our obligation, is to make that revolution, that change, peaceful and constructive for all.
Those who do nothing are inviting shame as well as violence. Those who act boldly are recognizing right as well as reality.
Next week I shall ask the Congress of the United States to act, to make a commitment it has not fully made in this century to the proposition that race has no place in American life or law. The Federal judiciary has upheld that proposition in the conduct of its affairs, including the employment of Federal personnel, the use of Federal facilities, and the sale of federally financed housing.
But there are other necessary measures which only the Congress can provide, and they must be provided at this session. The old code of equity law under which we live commands for every wrong a remedy, but in too many communities, in too many parts of the country, wrongs are inflicted on Negro citizens and there are no remedies at law. Unless the Congress acts, their only remedy is in the street.
I am, therefore, asking the Congress to enact legislation giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public--hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments.
This seems to me to be an elementary right. Its denial is an arbitrary indignity that no American in 1963 should have to endure, but many do.
I have recently met with scores of business leaders urging them to take voluntary action to end this discrimination and I have been encouraged by their response, and in the last 2 weeks over 75 cities have seen progress made in desegregating these kinds of facilities. But many are unwilling to act alone, and for this reason, nationwide legislation is needed if we are to move this problem from the streets to the courts.
I am also asking the Congress to authorize the Federal Government to participate more fully in lawsuits designed to end segregation in public education. We have succeeded in persuading many districts to desegregate voluntarily. Dozens have admitted Negroes without violence. Today a Negro is attending a State-supported institution in every one of our 50 States, but the pace is very slow.
Too many Negro children entering segregated grade schools at the time of the Supreme Court's decision 9 years ago will enter segregated high schools this fall, having suffered a loss which can never be restored. The lack of an adequate education denies the Negro a chance to get a decent job.
The orderly implementation of the Supreme Court decision, therefore, cannot be left solely to those who may not have the economic resources to carry the legal action or who may be subject to harassment.
Other features will also be requested, including greater protection for the right to vote. But legislation, I repeat, cannot solve this problem alone. It must be solved in the homes of every American in every community across our country.
In this respect I want to pay tribute to those citizens North and South who have been working in their communities to make life better for all. They are acting not out of a sense of legal duty but out of a sense of human decency.
Like our soldiers and sailors in all parts of the world they are meeting freedom's challenge on the firing line, and I salute them for their honor and their courage.
My fellow Americans, this is a problem which faces us all--in every city of the North as well as the South. Today there are Negroes unemployed, two or three times as many compared to whites, inadequate in education, moving into the large cities, unable to find work, young people particularly out of work without hope, denied equal rights, denied the opportunity to eat at a restaurant or lunch counter or go to a movie theater, denied the right to a decent education, denied almost today the right to attend a State university even though qualified. It seems to me that these are matters which concern us all, not merely Presidents or Congressmen or Governors, but every citizen of the United States.
This is one country. It has become one country because all of us and all the people who came here had an equal chance to develop their talents.
We cannot say to 10 percent of the population that you can't have that right; that your children cannot have the chance to develop whatever talents they have; that the only way that they are going to get their rights is to go into the streets and demonstrate. I think we owe them and we owe ourselves a better country than that.
Therefore, I am asking for your help in making it easier for us to move ahead and to provide the kind of equality of treatment which we would want ourselves; to give a chance for every child to be educated to the limit of his talents.
As I have said before, not every child has an equal talent or an equal ability or an equal motivation, but they should have an equal right to develop their talent and their ability and their motivation, to make something of themselves.
We have a right to expect that the Negro community will be responsible, will uphold the law, but they have a right to expect that the law will be fair, that the Constitution will be color blind, as Justice Harlan said at the turn of the century.
This is what we are talking about and this is a matter which concerns this country and what it stands for, and in meeting it I ask the support of all our citizens.
Thank you very much.