By Jeff Jacoby
Sunday, October 20, 2013
As Democrats begin maneuvering for the 2016 presidential
race, there isn't one who would think of disparaging John F. Kennedy's stature
as a Democratic Party hero. Yet it's a pretty safe bet that none would dream of
running on Kennedy's approach to government or embrace his political beliefs.
Today's Democratic Party — the home of Barack Obama, John
Kerry, and Al Gore — wouldn't give the time of day to a candidate like JFK.
The 35th president was an ardent tax-cutter who
championed across-the-board, top-to-bottom reductions in personal and corporate
tax rates, slashed tariffs to promote free trade, and even spoke out against
the "confiscatory" property taxes being levied in too many cities.
He was anything but a big-spending, welfare-state
liberal. "I do not believe that Washington should do for the people what
they can do for themselves through local and private effort," Kennedy
bluntly asserted during the 1960 campaign. It was a message he memorably
restated in his inaugural address: "And so, my fellow Americans, ask not
what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country."
One of his first acts as president was to institute a pay cut for top White
House staffers, and that was only the start of his budgetary austerity.
"To the surprise of many of his appointees," longtime aide Ted
Sorensen would later write, he "personally scrutinized every agency
request with a cold eye and encouraged his budget director to say 'no.'"
On the other hand, he was a Cold War anticommunist who
aggressively increased military spending. He faulted his Republican predecessor
for tailoring the nation's military strategy to fit the budget, rather than the
other way around. "We must refuse to accept a cheap, second-best
defense," JFK said during his run for the White House. He made good on
that pledge, pushing defense spending to 50 percent of federal expenditures and
9 percent of GDP, both far higher than today's levels. Speaking in Texas just
hours before his death, he proudly took credit for building the US military
into "a defense system second to none."
Since that terrible day in Dallas 50 years ago, popular
mythology has turned Kennedy into a liberal hero. Some of that mythmaking, as
journalist and historian Ira Stoll argues in a new book, JFK, Conservative, was
driven by Kennedy aides, such as Sorensen and Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who had
always wanted their boss to be more left-leaning than he was. Some of it was
fueled by the Democratic Party's emotional connection to the memory of a
martyred president, and its understandable desire to link their priorities to
his legacy.
But Kennedy was no liberal. By any reasonable definition,
he was a conservative — and not just by the standards of our era, but by those
of his era as well.
Stoll draws on an embarrassment of riches to make his
case.
When the young JFK launched his first political campaign
for the US House in 1946, a profile in Look magazine homed in on his
conservatism:
"When young, wealthy, and conservative John
Fitzgerald Kennedy announced for Congress, many people wondered why," it
began. "Hardly a liberal even by his own standards, Kennedy is mainly
concerned by what appears to him as the coming struggle between collectivism
and capitalism. In speech after speech he charges his audience 'to battle for
the old ideas with the same enthusiasm that people have for new ideas.'"
He hadn't changed his political stripes by the time he
ran for the Senate in 1952, challenging incumbent Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. Stoll
notes that Massachusetts newspapers wanting to back a liberal in that race came
out for the Republican — the Berkshire Eagle, for example, endorsed Lodge as
"an invaluable voice for liberalism." When his re-election in 1958
made it clear that Kennedy would be running for the Democratic presidential nomination,
Eleanor Roosevelt was asked in a TV interview whom she would support if forced
to choose "between a conservative Democrat like Kennedy and a liberal
Republican [like] Rockefeller." FDR's widow, then as now a progressive
icon, answered that she would all she could to make sure Kennedy wouldn't be
the party's nominee.
Many on the left felt that way about JFK. When he decided
to resume nuclear testing in 1962, Bertrand Russell attacked him as "much
more wicked than Hitler," and Linus Pauling, who would receive that year's
Nobel Peace Prize, predicted that he would "go down in history as … one of
the greatest enemies of the human race." Left-wing intellectuals raged
against Kennedy's failed attempt to topple Fidel Castro (the renowned sociologist
C. Wright Mills said the administration had "returned us to
barbarism"). Liberals within the administration expressed dismay for
Kennedy's unwavering support for cutting taxes. A dismayed Schlesinger called
one of Kennedy's tax-cut exhortations "the worst speech the president had
ever given."
Nearly 30 years ago, an essay in Mother Jones magazine
asked: "Would JFK Be a Hero Now?" If the answer wasn't obvious then,
it certainly is now. In today's political environment, a candidate like JFK — a
conservative champion of economic growth, tax cuts, limited government, peace
through strength — plainly would be a hero. Whether he would be a Democrat is a
different matter altogether.
No comments:
Post a Comment