The Camelot Myth and JFK Research

[John Simkin]

Wrong of course? Can you be so positive? I noticed you didn't cite sources as to the CIA's connection to the 1960 election. Seems to me that the CIA would have wanted, indeed expected, Richard Nixon to be President.

I will be including all my sources in my planned online seminar: "JFK, the CIA and Organized Crime".

There is no shortage of evidence to show that JFK bought votes in the primaries and in the election against Nixon. Not that JFK was any different from any other politician of that period. That is of course my point. JFK was just as corrupt as all the others. As I have said several times before, I believe JFK began to change during 1962 and therefore had the potential to be a great president (maybe in the same league as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt). However, this is pure speculation because he was killed because he could become a great president. If we look at his actual record, I would only classify him as mediocre (in the same category as Bill Clinton).

[Tim Gratz]

Both JFK and Clinton had more important things on their--er, minds, than affairs of state.

Their sexual affairs left them open to blackmail, either by the person sponsoring the woman or by anyone who was aware of the situation.

Take JFK and Judith Campbell. IMO, Rosselli planted Campbell on JFK. By bedding Campbell, JFK left himself open to blackmail from either the Mafia or from J. Edgar Hoover (when he found out about it).

We don't know whether the mafia blackmailed JFK, but we are pretty sure Hoover did.

Unless we think JFK kept Hoover on because Hoover got along so well with Bobby.

Unlikely someone planted Lewinsky on Clinton, but then, how would we know? So Clinton tries to conduct congressional business on the phone while Monica performs sex acts on him. This is called "multitasking".

But now let me rise to JFK's defense. He was a young, inspiring leader--and back then we didn't know about the "dark side of Camelot" ("wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then"). People all over the world loved him and he was winning new friends for our country. His speech in Berlin was masterful. His inaugural speech was one of the greatest ever delivered.

So my attitude toward JFK remains deeply conflicted.

Edited January 27, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Greg Wagner]

Both JFK and Clinton had more important things on their--er, minds, than affairs of state.

Their sexual affairs left them open to blackmail, either by the person sponsoring the woman or by anyone who was aware of the situation.

Take JFK and Judith Campbell.  IMO, Rosselli planted Campbell on JFK.  By bedding Campbell, JFK left himself open to blackmail from either the Mafia or from J. Edgar Hoover (when he found out about it). 

We don't know whether the mafia blackmailed JFK, but we are pretty sure Hoover did.

Unless we think JFK kept Hoover on because Hoover got along so well with Bobby.

Unlikely someone planted Lewinsky on Clinton, but then, how would we know?  So Clinton tries to conduct congressional business on the phone while Monica performs sex acts on him.  This is called "multitasking".

But now let me rise to JFK's defense.  He was a young, inspiring leader--and back then we didn't know about the "dark side of Camelot" ("wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then").  People all over the world loved him and he was winning new friends for our country.  His speech in Berlin was masterful.  His inaugural speech was one of the greatest ever delivered. 

So my attitude toward JFK remains deeply conflicted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I understand how the legend can often outshine his actual accomplishments, and JFK was a flawed individual as we all are. However, looking back over that first sentence, it depends on how you define "accomplishments." He kept his cool during what had to be one of the most stressful times and important conflicts we've ever endured- The Cuban Missile Crisis. The revelation that the Soviet "advisors" in Cuba possessed tactical nuclear weapons suggests that had we invaded Cuba during that time, it would have very likely and very rapidly spiraled into a nuclear exchange with the USSR. I understand how the legend often outshines the actual man, but let's not sell him short. He stood up to the CIA, he stood up to the Penatgon, he stood up to the other hawks in his own administration. That seems like a pretty difficult thing to do. And it almost certainly got him killed. Perhaps that explains why no president has done so since.

He exercised his own set of values, his own morality, and his own judgment in making these decisons to not risk the lives of 40 million people, to not invade a sovereign nation who has not attacked us, to not waste American lives and tax dollars in SE Asia. This is the same man who can (rightfully) be taken to task for his constant "indulgences" that exposed our president to extortion by the mob and Hoover, and anyone else who knew. John Kennedy was in many ways a great man and, in my opinion, would have been judged very favorably by history had he lived to serve two full terms. And he was also a tragically flawed man. Talk about "deeply conflicted."

Having said all that, John Kennedy and his greatness, or lack thereof, is not what drives me in pursuing this case. Harold Weisberg summed up my feelings best when he talked about how the assassination and cover-up subverted our democratic system of self-government. It defeated our system. All of the relevant institutions of our government and our society failed, and failed on all levels. The subversion of our democratic system is most disturbing. In fact, it p*sses me right off! And for those who are not too squeamish to open their eyes and admit the obvious truth and its (thanks Tim) implications, it has completely destroyed the faith in our nation's leadership, even today. Or should it be, especially today? It was a coup d' etat and those folks have been in control ever since. Incidentally, I believe that's where Shanet's theory comes in. Any president who is not on board with the agenda can be leveraged using the 25th Amendment.

So, for me personally, this has nothing to do with Kennedy mythology. I liked John Kennedy's vision. I think Bobby was even more of an idealist. I would like to have seen where they would have taken this nation (I guarantee it would not have been Iraq). But that does not drive my interest. What drives my interest is the fact that our democratic system had it's back broken on 11/22/1963. And it (and we) have not recovered since.

Sorry about the long post. Didn't intend to get on my soap box, but I think I've had too much coffee today.

Edited January 27, 2005 by Greg Wagner

[Greg Wagner]

I believe that there is a danger that JFK researchers might be too influenced by the JFK Camelot myth.  That the assassination robbed them of a great president. This is a view often held by the left of the Democratic Party. Some might argue that it does not matter if researchers want to believe the JFK Camelot myth. However, I think it does. The reason being that if we can accurately reconstruct JFK’s actions and beliefs, we can get some idea why he was assassinated.

This of course relates to the issue about whether he knew of the plot to assassinate Castro. Therefore, this is my analysis of JFK’s political career.

If we look at JFK’s career it reflects a fairly conservative view of the world. There is nothing in his career to suggest he was anything but a traditional Cold War warrior. He believed in the Domino Theory and was willing to support right-wing military dictators in order in order to prevent the spread of left-wing ideas or policies.

Domestically he was also very conservative. He showed no interest in the civil rights issue. Nor did he advocate any policies that would redistribute wealth in America.

This is not surprising. McCarthyism had taken its toll on American public opinion. People were scared to express left of centre political opinions in case they were denounced as communists or socialists. Adlai Stevenson had lost two presidential elections because he was seen as being too “left-wing”. It made sense for all Democratic candidates for the nomination to project an image that was to the right of Stevenson. Robert Kennedy was despatched into the Deep South to reassure leaders of the Democratic Party that JFK would not attempt to push through any civil rights legislation. He also was willing to make assurances that he would not advocate policies that favoured trade unions.

JFK was also willing to “buy” votes in the primaries. The most obvious example of this was in West Virginia but it also took place in other states. JFK also raised money by selling posts in his administration. He also bought votes in the presidential election, most notably in Illinois but it again took place in several states.

JFK’s supporters will no doubt argue that he had no choice in this as this was the way the American system worked. I have some sympathy with this argument, but it is important to acknowledge that such deals were done as it helps to explain his later behaviour.

In the first couple of years he acted the way you would expect any right-wing president would behave. The only surprise was that he did not give the necessary support for the invasion of Cuba. This raised issues about whether he could take the “tough” decisions. It did seem that he was unduly concerned with his “world image”. However, the Cuban Missile Crisis showed that he was capable of standing up to the Soviets and he was able to recapture his image of the staunch Cold War warrior.

The issue of civil rights also gave JFK problems. For those wishing to fully understand this problem I would fully recommend reading the Robert Kennedy interviews that he gave as part of the John F. Kennedy Library Oral History Project (Robert Kennedy in his Own Words – 1988) and the autobiography of JFK’s Special Assistant for Civil Rights, Harris Wofford (Of Kennedy and Kings – 1980). JFK made some fine issues on this issue but was unable or unwilling to deliver the goods.

I don’t believe JFK was a great president. But I believe he had the potential to be the greatest president in American history. Unfortunately he did not get the opportunity to prove this.

The reason I saw he had the potential to be a great president was because he was very much like the other great president of the 20th century. Franklin D. Roosevelt. They were both intellectuals. They were both genuinely interested in new ideas. This enabled both men to surround themselves with bright people who were willing to challenge their views (only bright people have the confidence to do this).

JFK, like FDR, was also very wealthy. This meant he was not easily corrupted for financial reasons. I believe that by 1963 JFK was a changed man. By this stage in his career he genuinely believed in civil rights. He also realised that the American political system was corrupt to the core. His period in power had shown him how people like Johnson used the power of the Senate Committees to prevent progressive legislation from being passed. He knew how this power was used to protect things like the Oil Depreciation Allowance. JFK had also discovered the Cold War had the potential to destroy the planet.

I believe JFK had developed a strategy for dealing with all these problems. But first he had to be elected in 1964. As a result of his public success in dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis, his standing in the polls were high. Victory seemed certain. Only one thing could stop him. And it did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess maybe my point got lost in all of my carrying-on above, but let me get right to the point. I think the Camelot myth predominantly has two effects:

1) It gets people fascinated with the Kennedys and JFK in particular, which spurs their interest in the case (positive).

2) It can skew perspective, encourage bias, and generally serve to "take one's eye off of the ball" in terms of this case and what it's really all about (negative).

I have to admit that I was, at least in some ways, drawn to start reading about this case years ago by that myth. However, when you start to realize the magnitude of this thing and its implications, you must begin to take a more serious and critical approach. Check the starry-eyed hero worship at the door. That's why I think Hersh's The Dark Side of Camelot and other books like it, despite not always fully grasping or dealing with the larger issues surrounding JFK's presidency, should have a place on one's bookshelf.

Just my two cents.

Edited January 28, 2005 by Greg Wagner

[John Simkin]

I believe that there is a danger that JFK researchers might be too influenced by the JFK Camelot myth.  That the assassination robbed them of a great president. This is a view often held by the left of the Democratic Party. Some might argue that it does not matter if researchers want to believe the JFK Camelot myth. However, I think it does. The reason being that if we can accurately reconstruct JFK’s actions and beliefs, we can get some idea why he was assassinated.

This of course relates to the issue about whether he knew of the plot to assassinate Castro. Therefore, this is my analysis of JFK’s political career.

If we look at JFK’s career it reflects a fairly conservative view of the world. There is nothing in his career to suggest he was anything but a traditional Cold War warrior. He believed in the Domino Theory and was willing to support right-wing military dictators in order in order to prevent the spread of left-wing ideas or policies.

Domestically he was also very conservative. He showed no interest in the civil rights issue. Nor did he advocate any policies that would redistribute wealth in America.

This is not surprising. McCarthyism had taken its toll on American public opinion. People were scared to express left of centre political opinions in case they were denounced as communists or socialists. Adlai Stevenson had lost two presidential elections because he was seen as being too “left-wing”. It made sense for all Democratic candidates for the nomination to project an image that was to the right of Stevenson. Robert Kennedy was despatched into the Deep South to reassure leaders of the Democratic Party that JFK would not attempt to push through any civil rights legislation. He also was willing to make assurances that he would not advocate policies that favoured trade unions.

JFK was also willing to “buy” votes in the primaries. The most obvious example of this was in West Virginia but it also took place in other states. JFK also raised money by selling posts in his administration. He also bought votes in the presidential election, most notably in Illinois but it again took place in several states.

JFK’s supporters will no doubt argue that he had no choice in this as this was the way the American system worked. I have some sympathy with this argument, but it is important to acknowledge that such deals were done as it helps to explain his later behaviour.

In the first couple of years he acted the way you would expect any right-wing president would behave. The only surprise was that he did not give the necessary support for the invasion of Cuba. This raised issues about whether he could take the “tough” decisions. It did seem that he was unduly concerned with his “world image”. However, the Cuban Missile Crisis showed that he was capable of standing up to the Soviets and he was able to recapture his image of the staunch Cold War warrior.

The issue of civil rights also gave JFK problems. For those wishing to fully understand this problem I would fully recommend reading the Robert Kennedy interviews that he gave as part of the John F. Kennedy Library Oral History Project (Robert Kennedy in his Own Words – 1988) and the autobiography of JFK’s Special Assistant for Civil Rights, Harris Wofford (Of Kennedy and Kings – 1980). JFK made some fine issues on this issue but was unable or unwilling to deliver the goods.

I don’t believe JFK was a great president. But I believe he had the potential to be the greatest president in American history. Unfortunately he did not get the opportunity to prove this.

The reason I saw he had the potential to be a great president was because he was very much like the other great president of the 20th century. Franklin D. Roosevelt. They were both intellectuals. They were both genuinely interested in new ideas. This enabled both men to surround themselves with bright people who were willing to challenge their views (only bright people have the confidence to do this).

JFK, like FDR, was also very wealthy. This meant he was not easily corrupted for financial reasons. I believe that by 1963 JFK was a changed man. By this stage in his career he genuinely believed in civil rights. He also realised that the American political system was corrupt to the core. His period in power had shown him how people like Johnson used the power of the Senate Committees to prevent progressive legislation from being passed. He knew how this power was used to protect things like the Oil Depreciation Allowance. JFK had also discovered the Cold War had the potential to destroy the planet.

I believe JFK had developed a strategy for dealing with all these problems. But first he had to be elected in 1964. As a result of his public success in dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis, his standing in the polls were high. Victory seemed certain. Only one thing could stop him. And it did.

I guess maybe my point got lost in all of my carrying-on above, but let me get right to the point. I think the Camelot myth predominantly has two effects:

1) It gets people fascinated with the Kennedys and JFK in particular, which spurs their interest in the case (positive).

2) It can skew perspective, encourage bias, and generally serve to "take one's eye off of the ball" in terms of this case and what it's really all about (negative).

I have to admit that I was, at least in some ways, drawn to start reading about this case years ago by that myth. However, when you start to realize the magnitude of this thing and its implications, you must begin to take a more serious and critical approach. Check the starry-eyed hero worship at the door. That's why I think books like Hersh's The Dark Side of Camelotand others like it, despite not always fully grasping or dealing with the larger issues surrounding JFK's presidency, should have a place on one's bookshelf.

That's just my two cents.

Great posting Greg. I have a very large collection of books on the JFK assassination. Many of them have told me very little that I did not know before. In many cases, they are just rewrites of some of the early books on the subject.

Some of the best books for providing information on the assassination and its cover up are not about these subjects They are often written by people who do not appear to have any interest in the assassination. For example, I have just read Katharine Graham’s Personal History and Evan Thomas’s The Very Best Men. Both books only briefly touch on the assassination. However, if you know what you are looking for, they tell you so much about the assassination and its cover up.

Seymour Hersh’s book, The Dark Side of Camelot, also falls into this category. It has been dismissed out of hand by most researchers because of its critical view of JFK. Yet those same people agree with his analysis when he writes about Republicans such as George Bush. And so they should. Hersh’s is one of the most honest (and fearless) journalists currently writing in America. Why this different reaction when he wrote about JFK? Although he is a journalist, he writes like a historian. He gives his sources (mainly interviews with people who were very close to JFK). I find his account of JFK totally believable. I think that the vast majority of people he interviewed were telling the truth (these views are often supported by released government documents).

Hersh does not appear to believe that JFK was assassinated as a result of some conspiracy. I think he is wrong on this matter, but it is not a good reason to reject all the information he has gathered. The truth matters, whatever form it takes. JFK was a corrupt politician. In this sense he was no different from most other American politicians. It is important to accept this because it helps us understand the cover-up. This is especially true of the role the Kennedy family played in this. It also helps to explain why the Democrat Party also took part in this cover-up.

Greg makes the point that the JFK Camelot Myth encouraged him into investigating the case. However, he was bright enough not to let this myth affect the way he read Seymour Hersh book. It is a shame that not more researchers can approach the book in such an open-minded way.

[Shanet Clark]

Hersh wrote a warts and all book, and it sheds light on the times.

Kennedy's orgies, infidelities and reckless personal behavior is

a fact, and they probably played a role in his sanction.

Historians are warned to stay away from nostalgia. The type

of patriotic blinders that cause someone to Mythologize JFK

is the same kind of bias that prevents critical thinking.

A balanced look at JFK is the key. He wasn't a "liberal" since

he put CD Dillon (a GOP Wall Street figure) in the position

of Secretary of Treasury. While he was a humanitariian and

a large intellect, he was politically a centrist. His dragging of

his feet on Civil Rights, his willingness to use force in Asia

and the caribean show a man considerably to the right of the

image. His personal life shows someone considerably below

the standard for moral character most Americans expect.

While I am still a huge fan of Kennedy, I often appear to "slag"him,

because I believe the infidelities, orgies and drug use caused

a violent reaction on the part of the other elite power brokers

he was surrounded with.

Only when we see the complete picture can we decide what happened

and properly understand the times. Hyper-masculinity was the

rule of the day and there were people even more aggressive,

violent and hyper-masculine than him in power at that time...