Skip to content

JFK: Peacenik [A Neo-Con Before Neo-Conning Was Cool?]

11 July 2019 @ 18:15

In the past several decades, we’ve witnessed an effort by some on the Right to claim JFK as one of our own, as a deep-down conservative at heart.

Many have cited his tax cuts as ‘conservative’.  Well, actually, as Wikipedia gets right about a political figure for once:

In his 1963 State of the Union address, he proposed substantial tax reform and a reduction in income tax rates from the current range of 20–90% to a range of 14–65% as well as a reduction in the corporate tax rates from 52 to 47%. Kennedy added that the top rate should be set at 70% if certain deductions were not eliminated for high income earners. Congress did not act until 1964, a year after his death, when the top individual rate was lowered to 70%, and the top corporate rate was set at 48%.

Not much of a tax rate cut, but, at least, it was something.  And it probably inspired Arthur Laffer.

In foreign affairs, JFK is lauded as a tough Cold Warrior, but, if we judge by his actions and speeches, a different picture emerges.

In a speech before the United Nations on 20 September 1963, President Kennedy said a number of interesting things.

-Mixed-in with some moderate Cold War rhetoric, JFK had much praise for the United Nations and it’s efforts at ‘peacekeeping’:

The United States delegation will be prepared to suggest to the United Nations initiatives in the pursuit of all the goals. For this is an organization for peace—and peace cannot come without work and without progress.

The peacekeeping record of the United Nations has been a proud one, though its tasks are always formidable. We are fortunate to have the skills of our distinguished Secretary General and the brave efforts of those who have been serving the cause of peace in the Congo, in the Middle East, in Korea and Kashmir, in West New Guinea and Malaysia. But what the United Nations has done in the past is less important than the tasks for the future. We cannot take its peacekeeping machinery for granted. That machinery must be soundly financed—which it cannot be if some members are allowed to prevent it from meeting its obligations by failing to meet their own. The United Nations must be supported by all those who exercise their franchise here. And its operations must be backed to the end.

We now know, and JFK obviously knew, that the UN Peacekeepers were not the angels he made them out to be.  If fact, they often took sides in the conflicts they were engaged in and sometimes committed horrific crimes themselves.

The founding idea of the United Nations was always a Leftist one.  It sought to eventually wear down and more than likely eliminate the Nation-State.  It was a vision primarily of FDR and his One Worlders.  It has become, as all such Ideological Schemes have, a thoroughly Corrupt organization, Subverted and Suborned by the more Radical, varying forces of The Left in the World.  Back in JFK’s day, it was the European and Anglophone Left and their Useful Idiots who controlled the UN; now it is the Terrorists / Jihadists and their Western Sympathizers who do, along with the Fascist Russians and the Communist Chinese.

-All throughout the speech, our Camelotian leader, spoke like a Utopian — a Peacenik ahead of his time.  Some highlights:

…But if we can stretch this pause [in tensions with the Communists] into a period of cooperation–if both sides can now gain new confidence and experience in concrete collaborations for peace–if we can now be as bold and farsighted in the control of deadly weapons as we have been in their creation–then surely this first small step can be the start of a long and fruitful journey.

New efforts are needed if this Assembly’s Declaration of Human Rights, now 15 years old, is to have full meaning. And new means should be found for promoting the free expression and trade of ideas–through travel and communication, and through increased exchanges of people, and books, and broadcasts. For as the world renounces the competition of weapons, competition in ideas must flourish–and that competition must be as full and as fair as possible.

This is all pie-in-the-sky bullshit and it will end-up enfeebling us in The Cold War.  Detente was negotiated by us with the USSR and Red China from a position of Weakness.

There could never be a fruitful Peace with those whose very purpose was to Destroy us.  Khrushchev had famously told us ‘We will bury you’.  If by ‘we’ he meant the Soviet Union, he was wrong.  If, however, he meant Leftism would bury us then he was correct.  And part of the blame rests with JFK and his Brainiac Advisors — incompetents all.

-JFK spoke of how tensions between The West and the USSR had calmed down, especially in regards to the Berlin Situation [The Berlin Wall had been erected in 1961]:

Twenty-four months ago, when I last had the honor of addressing this body, the shadow of fear lay darkly across the world. The freedom of West Berlin was in immediate peril….

Today the clouds have lifted a little so that new rays of hope can break through. The pressures on West Berlin appear to be temporarily eased….

Tell that, John, to the millions who would be held against their Wills behind it for thirty-six years.  You failed to stop it being built because you were a weakling compared to Khrushchev — and he took advantage of that many times.  West Berlin was in peril for those thirty-six years and The United States bore the high costs of your Impotency, your Serial Indecisiveness.

-Finally, JFK went back on his pledge: ‘I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth’:

…in a field where the United States and the Soviet Union have a special capacity—in the field of space—there is room for new cooperation, for further joint efforts in the regulation and exploration of space. I include among these possibilities a joint expedition to the moon. Space offers no problems of sovereignty; by resolution of this Assembly, the members of the United Nations have foresworn any claim to territorial rights in outer space or on celestial bodies, and declared that international law and the United Nations Charter will apply. Why, therefore, should man’s first flight to the moon be a matter of national competition? Why should the United States and the Soviet Union, in preparing for such expeditions, become involved in immense duplications of research, construction, and expenditure? Surely we should explore whether the scientists and astronauts of our two countries—indeed of all the world—cannot work together in the conquest of space, sending someday in this decade to the moon not the representatives of a single nation, but the representatives of all of our countries.

So like the Red China of today, JFK was proposing to share our technological secrets with what at that time was our Greatest Enemy.  What a soft-headed idea, but what can you expect out of an Inept and Inexperienced Man.

-JFK was no conservative.  Reading his speeches one gets the feeling that, at best, this Morally Degenerate man was a Neo-Conservative.

  1. 11 July 2019 @ 20:21 20:21

    He was talking about the UN before the Class of ’61 came to dominate it. The various tinpot dictators in sub-Saharan Africa, once freely elected one time, started getting help from the USSR to be come Presidents for Life.

    The technical aspects of the UN; ie, communication of industrial standards make sense. The governmental, less so.

    • 12 July 2019 @ 16:06 16:06

      I believe the idea of the UN was Corrupt from it’s conception. It was the product of one of the Leftist Ideologies. You are quite correct that the 1960’s saw the rise in influence of the Third and Second Worlders, but the Fertile groundwork, the ease in which the UN’s Radical Corruptions took hold, was laid by FDR and his fellow Utopians in it’s very idea.

  2. bob sykes permalink
    16 July 2019 @ 07:35 07:35

    Since I am 76 and lived through much of that history, I am going to object. In the era of Big Tent parties, JFK was in the middle of the Democrat spectrum; he was neither a Stevenson socialist nor a Wallace segregationist. He was reluctant to engage with King. It is not clear whether he would have continued down the road in Viet Nam that Johnson took. I doubt it, but who’s to know. That he got out maneuvered by Khrushchev is pretty clear. He also got played by the CIA and Pentagon. However, the American people had just experienced two ghastly wars, and no one wanted another. JFK was clearly an anti-communist and a patriot, but he was not going to fight a war if he could avoid it. The Cuban Missile Crisis, which I distinctly remember, proved that he would go to war if really necessary.

    As to his moral character, he was a philanderer. RFK was not. However, JFK also was a legitimate war hero. He almost died in the Pacific when his PT boat got run over by a Japanese destroyer. He behaved admirably, even heroically, in WW II. So did his brother Joseph Jr, who died in WW II as a naval aviator in Europe. They both performed their duties with courage.

    RFK was too young to go to war in WW II, although he was in the Naval Reserve from 1944 to 1946 (age 19 through 21), which completed his military obligation. RFK eventually was to the left of his brother and was a classic 1960s liberal Democrat. He likely would have been a great President. JFK had the promise to be one, too, if he had lived. We will never know.

    Both JFK and RFK were inspirational to millions of Americans, especially young Americans. There is no one on the current scene who comes anywhere near to their abilities. We desperately need another JFK or RFK, and have done so since they died.

    You opinion of Jack is colored by Ted’s long, dismal, corrupt career. Ted was not merely a philanderer, he killed one woman and sexually molested many others. He was close to being anti-American, and he aligned himself with the very people who hated and opposed his brothers. He was utterly contemptible.

    In the current era of ideological parties, both JFK and RFK would be more compatible with Republicans, but neither would be a conservative, nor would they be neoconservatives. Lindsay Graham is probably the correct model.

    The Kennedy family Joe and Rose, gave three sons killed in the service of the US. That sacrifice deserves respect and honor, not snark.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: