Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Bobby In China Effect?


Recommended Posts

Right?

I continue to wonder at the lack of writing on the RFK Assassination even among those who research Cold War History and the assassinations.

Recently while reading parts of Thurston Moores new book on RFK The Last Campaign, I was struck by RFKs response to ""left'" (I put quotes around it, because I think its highly debateable about which WAS really more left, and also because of the history of the controlled nature of "'left"' dissent in the form of psy-ops within US media during the Cold War) critics who blasted RFK for making some Law and Order sounds during the Indiana Primary. RFK's response was "If Gene McCarthy had ever done anything for Civil Rights he wouldn't need to show he cared about white people " NOT A DIRECT QUOTE. Now that by itself, sounds like pandering, but the author points out that RFK spoke to the same audiences about what was going on in the "inner cities" and said pretty much the same things that he said to black audiences.

Now which do you think would be more frightening to the Military Industrial Complex: a candidate with almost no major African American support, McCarthy, who also had no chance of winning the nomination, or a candidate that actually showed signs of TAKING THE OFFENSIVE AGAINST THE SOUTHERN STRATEGY EVEN IN THE VERY YEAR OF ITS BIRTH; Perhaps RFK's background at the center of power-- during tensest moments of the Cold War-- was seen as a much more dangerous threat.

He might take more of the center of the party in a new direction, without descendng into the identity politics that Democrats have been paid so well to never emerge from. Perhaps RFK was so dangerous because he would not roll over and conceed that Watts and rural Indiana WERE really opposites. He might have found a way to make class trump race as FDR to some extent did. Of course the New Deal Coalition was on much shakier ground in 1968, as

compared to the 1930's, but what comes accross in Moore's book is that RFK was not yet ready to let it crumble. Above all he was improvising; dangerously for those who wanted to continue the US movement rightward from a CFR multilatteral (1945-63) to American Security Council unilateral (1963-present) US foreign policy coalition.

Why does Amy Goodman and Companies insist on emphasizing the contrast of RFK '68 with RFK '61--while quoting disproportionatly from the latter-- and never bring up the contrast between RFK '1968 and the Corporate Democrats of today?

Was Bobby killed because he touched the REAL third Rail of American politics: the rule that says Race OR Class: NEVER BOTH!!!?

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right?

I continue to wonder at the lack of writing on the RFK Assassination even among those who research Cold War History and the assassinations.

Recently while reading parts of Thurston Moores new book on RFK The Last Campaign, I was struck by RFKs response to ""left'" (I put quotes around it, because I think its highly debateable about which WAS really more left, and also because of the history of the controlled nature of "'left"' dissent in the form of psy-ops within US media during the Cold War) critics who blasted RFK for making some Law and Order sounds during the Indiana Primary. RFK's response was "If Gene McCarthy had ever done anything for Civil Rights he wouldn't need to show he cared about white people " NOT A DIRECT QUOTE. Now that by itself, sounds like pandering, but the author points out that RFK spoke to the same audiences about what was going on in the "inner cities" and said pretty much the same things that he said to black audiences.

Now which do you think would be more frightening to the Military Industrial Complex: a candidate with almost no major African American support, McCarthy, who also had no chance of winning the nomination, or a candidate that actually showed signs of TAKING THE OFFENSIVE AGAINST THE SOUTHERN STRATEGY EVEN IN THE VERY YEAR OF ITS BIRTH; Perhaps RFK's background at the center of power-- during tensest moments of the Cold War-- was seen as a much more dangerous threat.

He might take more of the center of the party in a new direction, without descendng into the identity politics that Democrats have been paid so well to never emerge from. Perhaps RFK was so dangerous because he would not roll over and conceed that Watts and rural Indiana WERE really opposites. He might have found a way to make class trump race as FDR to some extent did. Of course the New Deal Coalition was on much shakier ground in 1968, as

compared to the 1930's, but what comes accross in Moore's book is that RFK was not yet ready to let it crumble. Above all he was improvising; dangerously for those who wanted to continue the US movement rightward from a CFR multilatteral (1945-63) to American Security Council unilateral (1963-present) US foreign policy coalition.

Why does Amy Goodman and Companies insist on emphasizing the contrast of RFK '68 with RFK '61--while quoting disproportionatly from the latter-- and never bring up the contrast between RFK '1968 and the Corporate Democrats of today?

Was Bobby killed because he touched the REAL third Rail of American politics: the rule that says Race OR Class: NEVER BOTH!!!?

Nat,

An American discussing CLASS? The orange jump-suit awaits. I have contacted Clive Stafford Smith in anticipation of the inevitable. We had better start discussing reading matter for your incarceration. The complete works of Gnome C of any interest?

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul- please excuse my unseemly exemption from exceptionalism. Maybe its because Im half of an Australian. They can get churlish about the prevailing

Catholicisms.

Im sure there will be plenty of Hart and Hoffstater available. Perhaps that curiously timed (January 1964) work The Paranoid Style of American Politics?

Comforting reading for the gallows!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul- please excuse my unseemly exemption from exceptionalism. Maybe its because Im half of an Australian. They can get churlish about the prevailing

Catholicisms.

Im sure there will be plenty of Hart and Hoffstater available. Perhaps that curiously timed (January 1964) work The Paranoid Style of American Politics?

Comforting reading for the gallows!

I feel an attack of De Maistre coming on - The Executioner, "the horror and the bond" of human society!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...