COUP IN DALLAS

[Sandy Larsen]

Was JFK a liberal or a conservative? Why not let JFK speak for himself.

In 1960 JFK was nominated for president in two political parties, the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party. He described what his liberal beliefs are (and aren't) in his Liberal Party acceptance speech:

https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/liberal-party-nomination-nyc-19600914

I think that speech should answer anybody's questions where JFK stood on liberal-vs-conservative issues. That he won the Liberal Party nomination should also tell us something.

Here are some excerpts:

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"? If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But, if by a "Liberal," they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." [Applause.]

... Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 presidential campaign is whether our Government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility. [Applause.]

... And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. [Applause.]{Adlai Stevenson was more a dove than a hawk. }

 

[Michael Griffith]

Any discussion about JFK and Vietnam must include RFK's oral history interview with John Martin for the JFK Library on 4/30/1964.

Bobby said there were no plans to pull out of Vietnam. He also said there were no plans for the kind of all-out intervention that we did in the Korean War. He said the intention was to keep some advisers in South Vietnam and to provide South Vietnam with enough training, weapons, and supplies to enable them to win the war. Importantly, RFK indicated that JFK may have sent in combat troops if South Vietnam had been on the verge of collapse, and that JFK probably would have at least authorized air strikes. 

This rings true to me, and this is consistent with the picture that emerges when we consider all of JFK's statements and those of his aides on the subject. 

I certainly agree that if JFK had lived, our involvement in Vietnam would have been handled much more competently than LBJ handled it, and that our losses would have been vastly lower than they were under Johnson. If JFK had eventually decided to send in ground troops to prevent an imminent collapse of South Vietnam, he would have sent in far fewer troops than Johnson did, and I doubt that he would have appointed the incompetent blockhead William Westmoreland to lead the effort. Westmoreland had no combat command experience above the brigade level and had received very little formal training in military strategy and tactics. He had no business being placed in command of our ground forces in South Vietnam. 

[James DiEugenio]

Oh please Mike.

  To quote a PTSD Bobby Kennedy of 1964 who could  barely speak about his brother and walked around in JFK's overcoat is really something someone like Stoll would do.

When Taylor came back from Vietnam, he had tried to take out the withdrawal plan that JFK insisted be placed in the documents.  Kennedy had heard about this, apparently from McNamara.  Upon arrival, he  called them into the Oval Office and demanded the withdrawal plan be placed back in.

Then, over the next couple of days, it was JFK who essentially steamrolled the opposition to the withdrawal plan over Sullivan, the Bundys, and Cooper. To the point that, once it was snuffed out, he said, "We have a policy."

He then told McNamara to go out and talk to the press.  As Bob was walking out, Kennedy opened up a door and yelled, "And tell them that means the helicopter pilots too."  (Newman, JFK and Vietnam, p. 415, 2017 edition)

Now really Mike, how can you get more clear than that?

How about this:  In November, JFK told Morse he was right about Vietnam and he wanted him to come into his office later and talk to him about it. (ibid, p 432)

Edited August 22, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

And remember, John Newman, who I quoted above, was and is a conservative guy.

But he is also a practicing historian.

And he is not paid by the RIghtwing Noise Machine.

[James DiEugenio]

Now, let us quote RFK pre and post PTSD.

In November of 1961, during the debates in the White House, it was RFK who said, "We are not sending combat troops. Not committing ourselves to combat troops." (David Kaiser, p. 113, American Tragedy.) 

 

In 1967 while thinking over whether to enter the primaries, RFK said that his brother would not have ever done what LBJ had done. "Never.  The president would never have done it.  He was determined not to send troops. If the South Vietnamese could not do it, the United States could not win it for them." (Chris Mathews, p. 305, Bobby Kennedy,  A Raging Spirit.  

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Now, let us quote RFK pre and post PTSD.

In November of 1961, during the debates in the White House, it was RFK who said, "We are not sending combat troops. Not committing ourselves to combat troops." (David Kaiser, p. 113, American Tragedy.) 

 

In 1967 while thinking over whether to enter the primaries, RFK said that his brother would not have ever done what LBJ had done. "Never.  The president would never have done it.  He was determined not to send troops. If the South Vietnamese could not do it, the United States could not win it for them." (Chris Mathews, p. 305, Bobby Kennedy,  A Raging Spirit.  

In context, it is clear that JFK did not want the US to be in the role of sending troops to fight domestic populations around the world, even for good causes.  

It is just a losing proposition, and the optics and parts of the reality always against the US troops. No one likes occupying militaries.

S Korea worked out, but there were circumstances, such as SK being a peninsula, and a fairly cohesive SK population (also, a seriously oppressed population in the early years). The armistice also was something a stalemate, not a victory. 

After JFK came the perception that the US has to prevail in every corner of the planet. That would be nice, if it coincided with freedoms, and if it was practical. 

One can wonder if US foreign-military-trade policy reflects the interests of the US middle class, or the multinational corporate community. 

JFK had actually served in battle, and knew what war was, the last time the ruling class sent their owns sons to die. 

JFK leaned to the side of non-interventionism. 

 

 

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

In the 1961 debates, JFK took that argument on.

He said, this is not like Korea.  There you had an invasion.

Vietnam is much more complex than that.  He then added, you could not make an average congressman understand it, so how were you going to explain it to the public.

[James DiEugenio]

I should add, something Newman did not know was that some of the arguments JFK and RFK used in November of 1961 were actually penned by Galbraith.

He was in town to introduce Nehru to JFK since JGK was trying to put together a neutralization plan through India.

But when Galbraith found out about the Taylor/Rostow report he stole a copy off Rostow's desk and took it back to his hotel.  After he read it, he was horrified.  He called up Kennedy and said, "You aren't really going to do this are you?"  Kennedy replied: write me a memo to counter it.  So Kennedy postponed the showdown meeting, brought in his brother to go over the memo, and this is how they countered the hawks.

Afterwards, Kennedy sent JKG to Vietnam.  He wanted a report to counter Rostow/Taylor.  He knew Galbraith would deliver for him, and Galbraith knew what he wanted.  And he came through for him.

We got some of this into the film, especially the long version.

[James DiEugenio]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I should add, something Newman did not know was that some of the arguments JFK and RFK used in November of 1961 were actually penned by Galbraith.

He was in town to introduce Nehru to JFK since JGK was trying to put together a neutralization plan through India.

But when Galbraith found out about the Taylor/Rostow report he stole a copy off Rostow's desk and took it back to his hotel.  After he read it, he was horrified.  He called up Kennedy and said, "You aren't really going to do this are you?"  Kennedy replied: write me a memo to counter it.  So Kennedy postponed the showdown meeting, brought in his brother to go over the memo, and this is how they countered the hawks.

Afterwards, Kennedy sent JKG to Vietnam.  He wanted a report to counter Rostow/Taylor.  He knew Galbraith would deliver for him, and Galbraith knew what he wanted.  And he came through for him.

We got some of this into the film, especially the long version.

PS thanks for the cogent contributions above by Richard, Sandy and Ben.  I always thought JFK's speech about why he was a liberal was spot on.

[Michael Griffith]

Another unfortunate case of ultra-liberal politics in JFK: Destiny Betrayed also occurs in Episode 2, where the narrator laments that Truman broke away from FDR's policy of "cooperation" with the USSR, "creating a worldwide Cold War faceoff" (starts at about 19:35). 

Holy cow. Yes, Truman wisely broke away from FDR's destructive policy of "cooperation" with Stalin because that policy had already handed over entire populations, tens of millions of people, to Soviet tyranny. If FDR had not died, he probably would have allowed Stalin to grab substantial parts of China and Japan as well. 

The horrible results of FDR's policy of "cooperation" with Stalin have been documented in numerous books. Two of the better studies on this tragic disaster are Dr. Thomas Fleming's The New Dealers' War (2001) and Dr. Sean McMeekin's Stalin's War: A New History of World War II (2021). An important related book is John Haynes and Harvey Klehr's In Denial: Historians, Communism, and Espionage (2003), which documents that Roosevelt's administration was heavily penetrated by Soviet intelligence.

[Joe Bauer]

22 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Was JFK a liberal or a conservative? Why not let JFK speak for himself.

In 1960 JFK was nominated for president in two political parties, the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party. He described what his liberal beliefs are (and aren't) in his Liberal Party acceptance speech:

https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/liberal-party-nomination-nyc-19600914

I think that speech should answer anybody's questions where JFK stood on liberal-vs-conservative issues. That he won the Liberal Party nomination should also tell us something.

Here are some excerpts:

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"? If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But, if by a "Liberal," they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." [Applause.]

... Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 presidential campaign is whether our Government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility. [Applause.]

... And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. [Applause.]{Adlai Stevenson was more a dove than a hawk. }

 

Says it all.

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Joe.  I agree.

Mike, the deal over East Europe was set up by Churchill and Stalin.  In Moscow, in October of 1944. (Stone and Kuznick, p. 114). Even Theodore Draper, a liberal Cold Warrior, admitted it was unrealistic to ask the Russians to leave that area after Germany had invaded the country twice in a bit over 25 years, with utterly horrendous results for Russia. If you want to play Patton and advocate that we should have invaded East Europe, fine, say so.  But obviously not even Churchill agreed with that one. 

In fact, although FDR did not like the idea, he accepted it because he wanted Russia to invade Japan, thus making the Pacific War a two front action. Plus, his Russian ambassador Davies, realized what the Allies had done, in Greece, for example.

Further, as anyone knows who has studied the subject, it was the Russians who had defeated  the great German war machine.  Which is what Churchill wanted: Russia and Germany to chew each other up. One of the most pernicious myths to come out of Hollywood and WW 2 is that Normandy was the deciding factor in Europe.  Pure hogwash.  What defeated the Germans was Stalingrad (infantry) and Kursk (tanks). Because of  these factors, you were not getting Russia out of East Europe.

But once FDR passed, Truman was utterly lost.  And he asked Byrnes for advice on what to do. Byrnes told him the atomic bomb "might well put us in a position to dictate our own terms at the end of the war." (p. 120). Jimmy Byrnes not only was not a college graduate, he did not even graduate from high school!  This is the man Truman is consulting with at one of the great turning points in history.  Incredible.  Quite a step down from Cordell Hull I think, who had set up the plans for the UN.  George Marshall said that a break with the USSR would be a disaster.

As Truman's meeting with Molotov showed, it was. By Potsdam, Truman had learned about the successful atomic test and he decided that now, with this weapon, he did not need the Russians or any other nation. And by all observations he acted like that once he got the news. (ibid, p. 129) Even though the Soviets went along with the partition of Germany, and would keep their promise on the invasion of Japan. It was that invasion which made for the surrender.  But Truman still decided on the atomic alternative, not once but twice.  Thus incinerating about 200,000 people.  Truman said about it, "This is the greatest thing in history." (p. 171)

IMO, and in many others, that launched the Cold War. Anthony Eden later said that what happened after FDR's passing was an unspeakable debacle. (Roosevelt's Lost Alliances, by Frank Costigliola, pp. 1-2)

 

 

Edited August 23, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Griffith]

On 8/22/2022 at 7:09 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Oh please Mike.

  To quote a PTSD Bobby Kennedy of 1964 who could  barely speak about his brother and walked around in JFK's overcoat is really something someone like Stoll would do.

When Taylor came back from Vietnam, he had tried to take out the withdrawal plan that JFK insisted be placed in the documents.  Kennedy had heard about this, apparently from McNamara.  Upon arrival, he  called them into the Oval Office and demanded the withdrawal plan be placed back in.

Then, over the next couple of days, it was JFK who essentially steamrolled the opposition to the withdrawal plan over Sullivan, the Bundys, and Cooper. To the point that, once it was snuffed out, he said, "We have a policy."

He then told McNamara to go out and talk to the press.  As Bob was walking out, Kennedy opened up a door and yelled, "And tell them that means the helicopter pilots too."  (Newman, JFK and Vietnam, p. 415, 2017 edition)

Now really Mike, how can you get more clear than that?

How about this:  In November, JFK told Morse he was right about Vietnam and he wanted him to come into his office later and talk to him about it. (ibid, p 432)

PTSD? Have you listened to that oral interview? Bobby doesn't sound like he's in any kind of PTSD daze. He sounds entirely lucid and engaged.

I would take Bobby's April 1964 statements over statements made many years later by McNamara, O'Donnell, Powers, Morse, etc. Moreover, even in 1968 when Bobby turned against the war and advocated a complete withdrawal, he never claimed that JFK planned on a complete withdrawal or complete disengagement.

I also repeat the point that Schlesinger and Sorenson said nothing about any intent for a complete withdrawal, much less a complete disengagement, in their 1965 memoirs. 

It is a significant mistake to infer that because JFK was willing to withdraw 1,000 troops in late 1963, he therefore intended to withdraw all troops and was unwilling to take any major actions to prevent South Vietnam from falling to the communists.

I think the evidence is clear, and most scholars agree with this, that JFK was determined to do all he could to save South Vietnam but that he did not want to introduce combat troops, that he had every intention of providing South Vietnam with all the weapons and supplies they needed, and possibly air support, even if he eventually decided to withdraw all American troops. However, in his 1964 oral interview, Bobby allowed that JFK may have decided to introduce combat troops if South Vietnam had been on the verge of collapse.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Michael Griffith]

On 8/22/2022 at 7:58 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Was JFK a liberal or a conservative? Why not let JFK speak for himself.

In 1960 JFK was nominated for president in two political parties, the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party. He described what his liberal beliefs are (and aren't) in his Liberal Party acceptance speech:

https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/liberal-party-nomination-nyc-19600914

I think that speech should answer anybody's questions where JFK stood on liberal-vs-conservative issues. That he won the Liberal Party nomination should also tell us something.

Here are some excerpts:

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"? If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But, if by a "Liberal," they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." [Applause.]

... Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 presidential campaign is whether our Government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility. [Applause.]

... And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. [Applause.]{Adlai Stevenson was more a dove than a hawk. }

 

You need to read Stoll's book. JFK pushed for slashing the tax rate for wealthy Americans in the top tax bracket. He gave us one of the biggest increases in defense spending in our history. He was no rubber stamp for labor unions--in fact, he recognized that some labor unions were Mafia-dominated, and his brother RFK investigated and prosecuted many labor leaders with Mafia ties. He was for free trade but not if it meant putting American businesses at an unfair disadvantage, and he did not shy away from retaliating against unfair trade practices. He nominated several center-right judges for the federal judiciary--one of the dissenters in Roe v. Wade was a Kennedy nominee. He opposed proposals for a four-day work week. He supported allowing certain tax credits/taxpayer funding for private religious schools. He kept federal spending in check and worked hard toward achieving a balanced budget. He allowed farmers to vote on whether to continue with federal price supports and controls or to have those controls lifted, and he respected their decision when they chose the latter, even though he thought it was a bad idea. 

And notice what JFK said:

If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." 

Such views are not popular in today's Democratic Party. Some Democrats would label JFK's statement as "reactionary," "extreme," etc., if a Republican or Joe Manchin were to make it. 

If JFK were alive today, he would definitely not qualify as a liberal Democrat. He would be viewed as a centrist who was much closer to Joe Machin than to Bernie Sanders or Kamala Harris. 

Finally, JFK's nomination by the New-York-state-level Liberal Party proves little. The Liberal Party was a fusion party, very similar to the  New-York-state-level Conservative Party. If you were the Democratic Party's choice in New York, you were virtually guaranteed of also getting the Liberal Party's nomination. 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

JFK pushed for slashing the tax rate for wealthy Americans in the top tax bracket.

 

I'm a lifelong liberal Democrat and I would have done the same given that the top marginal tax rate was a suffocating 91%. He only lowered it to 70%.

Even liberal Democrats are largely capitalists who understand the importance of the profit incentive.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

He gave us one of the biggest increases in defense spending in our history.

 

I may have done the same given the perceived international dangers at the time.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

He was no rubber stamp for labor unions--in fact, he recognized that some labor unions were Mafia-dominated, and his brother RFK investigated and prosecuted many labor leaders with Mafia ties.

 

Who wouldn't be against Mafia-dominated labor unions?

I personally would prefer the replacement of labor unions with a set of federal laws protecting individual workers. And the transfer of wealth from the wealthy to low wage earners. (For example, via the earned income tax credit.)

 

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

He was for free trade but not if it meant putting American businesses at an unfair disadvantage, and he did not shy away from retaliating against unfair trade practices.

 

I don't know if those are even conservative-vs-liberal issues.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

He nominated several center-right judges for the federal judiciary--one of the dissenters in Roe v. Wade was a Kennedy nominee. He opposed proposals for a four-day work week. He supported allowing certain tax credits/taxpayer funding for private religious schools. He kept federal spending in check and worked hard toward achieving a balanced budget. He allowed farmers to vote on whether to continue with federal price supports and controls or to have those controls lifted, and he respected their decision when they chose the latter, even though he thought it was a bad idea. 

 

Those issues are largely too nuanced for me to comment. On some, I just don't want to spend any more of my time on.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

And notice what JFK said:

If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." 

Such views are not popular in today's Democratic Party. Some Democrats would label JFK's statement as "reactionary," "extreme," etc., if a Republican or Joe Manchin were to make it. 

 

As I said, I'm a life-long liberal. And I agree with what JFK said, as quote above.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

If JFK were alive today, he would definitely not qualify as a liberal Democrat. He would be viewed as a centrist who was much closer to Joe Machin than to Bernie Sanders or Kamala Harris. 

 

But aren't we are talking about whether JFK was a  liberal or a conservative by the standards of 1960s?

By today's standards, I would say he's a centrist among Democrats. Between Joe Machin and Bernie Sanders.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Finally, JFK's nomination by the New-York-state-level Liberal Party proves little. The Liberal Party was a fusion party, very similar to the  New-York-state-level Conservative Party. If you were the Democratic Party's choice in New York, you were virtually guaranteed of also getting the Liberal Party's nomination.