Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
Between the pill and age of the internet, there was the death of John F. Kennedy.
Before JFK was killed, the left believed in progress. Technology gave rise to wealth, penicillin and indoor plumbing. Humanity was moving from poor rural farms to glittering cities with cars and skyscrapers.
Things were looking up for black Americans as well. Blacks were making substantial progress in American society after decades of stifling Wilsonian Jim Crow. Just as importantly, black Americans were advancing economically as well as politically in the 1950s and 1960s, as Thomas Sowell has noted.
Internationally, Communism forged a unity among Americans. As much as conservatives (rightly) complain about FDR being soft on Communism, and Communists infiltrating Hollywood and the State Department, your average Democratic voter loved Jesus and hated Communists. Republicans and Democrats may not have liked the other party but usually didn’t hate them. Eisenhower Democrats were a thing, after all.
When JFK died, NYT editorialists responded by writing that America killed Kennedy because it was racist. That Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist was forcibly ignored. This is a great interview about the subject here. Peter Robinson interviewed the author an eternity ago, but I can’t find that interview.
The death of JFK gave rise to punitive liberalism. It used to be that some liberals believed in affirmative action in order to make America more fair and equitable to previously oppressed populations. After JFK, affirmative action was necessary to punish white America. This is particularly odd considering JFK was a moderate with regard to Civil Rights. But when have convenient myths ever needed to be constrained by facts?
Meanwhile, racial equality degenerated into black power and the war on poverty became about transferring wealth to poor people who stayed poor. We forget how optimistic FDR’s and JFK’s left-liberalism was. They thought that they could end poverty through technocratic allocations of wealth. Why did LBJ declare a war on poverty? Because he thought he could win it. Lefties today talk about how the poor will always be poor so they should receive various forms of financial aid.
Though not as materially important, American academic life became more and more corrupted and this has enervated the nation’s spirit. A source of serious thought about American advantages and weaknesses became worse than useless. Listen to Yeonmi Park's take on college if you don't believe me.
Perhaps most importantly, family life fell apart. This was mostly due to the pill and abortion, but I also think cultural factors were a big deal as well. I disagree with the materialist view of the world that scientific advancements and physical resources are the only things that determine history. The loss of confidence in Western Civilization that Dr. Bastiat laments has to do with the West telling itself the wrong stories.
I think the death of JFK was more of a symbolic event than one that shifted world history. Still, I think that single event is the best marker of the shift between an optimistic left-liberalism and a bitter and punitive left-liberalism.
Discussion (67)
CONTRIBUTOR • CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
OK, five stars! A very fine post, Henry, and a moving one for anyone (like me) old enough to remember what a national rupture it was when the Democrats split into the old liberals and the modern left.
Let's face it, there's a reasonable temptation to ignore useful-to-explore distinctions in the political opposition. But I think it would be a mistake. And you know who else would call it a mistake?
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Just so.
CONTRIBUTOR • CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Signing off on the west coast, for now, but I'll be curious to see how this thread evolves. Smart conservatives ought to be able to examine what's good in a liberal program or a liberal idea. Or a liberal icon. There was a time when the mainstream regarded him, not unreasonably, not as a big liberal but as a fairly centrist Democrat with a streak of nationalism.
Well, okay, in my generation and a little bit older, he's regarded that way, but I'm in my seventies. To be brutally frank, there aren't all that many people older. And to people under fifty, let alone under forty, JFK registers as only the vaguest kind of liberal touchstone, someone who was president for a couple of years back at the beginning of the space program.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
There’s so much grief is this essay. Yes - the loss is tremendous. I’ll submit that the worst of it, with fundamental implications, was the (intentional?) destruction of the black family by LBJ and his Great Society welfare state. I don’t think he thought he could eliminate poverty, nor did FDR. But the Marxist opportunists were plenty ready to keep moving in to reject Western Civilization in all corners. @GaryMcVey I’m also old enough to remember the optimism and excitement of the space race and the belief in the capability of Man to keep achieving. There were plenty of rising democrats who thought JFK was much too patriotic and centrist. There were also plenty of 1930’s and ‘40s radicals ready to use JFK’s assassination for their work to promote Marxism. The NYT had long been sympathetic to the communists. And it hated Jews.
Losing a belief in the future and excitement for one’s place in it is something to grieve.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Outstanding essay. Lots of great ideas here.
I don't tend to put much significance in JFK, and you seem to view him more symbolically than materially, which is probably appropriate.
But again, great essay. Your emphasis of the left's loss of hope as an explanation for societal collapse is very interesting. Let me ponder a bit...
You're seeing five of 67 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.