From John F. Kennedy to Barack Obama: 50 years of overrated democrats

On the 50th anniversary of his death, John F. Kennedy remains overrated. Talk that he would have been great is speculation.  Photo: Historical Meme / Photo

HOUSTON, November 22, 2013 — On the 50th anniversary of an American tragedy, Democrats continue to exploit the death of a president to perpetuate the history of a mythical Camelot that never existed.

President John Fitzgerald “Jack” Kennedy was a husband and father, and his assassination by Lee Harvey Oswald was a tragedy that shocked the world.

SEE RELATED: Remembering Kennedy: I saw JFK the day he died

Yet his untimely death gave him a political halo that he never earned. Like President Obama’s Nobel Prize, it was backed up only by glamor and oratory, not by accomplishment. He was a Democrat and a celebrity who died way too young. His canonization was made inevitable by his tragic death.

The element of celebrity is apolitical. James Dean, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison were all deified because they died too young. They all had talent, but were they that special? Did they accomplish anything great? Young people were fed the same line about Kurt Cobain. His death was sad, but his significance to the world has been vastly overstated.

Politically, the similarities between JFK and Obama are remarkable. They both had adoring supporters enthralled with their youth and glamor. They were followed with all the intensity of Beatlemania. They were worshiped not for what they did, but for who they were and what they represented. Long before Millennials foolishly chanted meaningless phrases such as “Yes, we can,” JFK’s supporters campaigned for him in a manner bordering on lust. Long before “Obama Girl,” JFK had his groupies.

Their supporters acted as if they won decisive mandates, despite Obama’s 52 percent vote total in his first election, and less the second time. Kennedy won a disputed election against Richard Nixon in 1960 that was even closer than the 2000 Bush vs. Gore finish. Unlike Gore, Nixon put country above winning and refused to contest the results. Kennedy won partly on the basis of his telegenic efforts in the first televised presidential debates, though people who heard the debates on the radio overwhelmingly thought Nixon won.

SEE RELATED: JFK’s assassination on November 22, 1963 – and why we wept

Long before Obama, JFK was the first television media darling. Obama was the first black president, and JFK was the first Catholic president. They were new, exciting and cool, and therefore given much less media scrutiny than they would have been if they were more boring.

Unlike Obama, JFK had some successes in office and some sensible policy proposals. JFK was anti-Communist, and his successful handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis mattered. “Ich bin ein Berliner” mattered. Yet early foreign policy stumbles had the Russians and other world leaders thinking what they still think about every Democrat in the White House since. JFK was initially seen as naive and not tough enough for the job.

Domestically, JFK supported supply-side tax cuts that became the basis of sound policy by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The policy worked when both parties enacted it, and reverse tax policies failed when both parties tried them. JFK would not recognize the Democratic Party of today, whose policies increasingly resemble those of tax-and-spend European Social Democrats. Modern Democrats are quick to surrender American foreign policy, and they continue to loathe the military.

JFK did something that Obama has never done: He took personal responsibility for an epic failure. After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, he wryly noted, “Victory has a thousand fathers. Defeat is an orphan.” He took the blame, and in that behaved like a leader.

Yet like Obama, JFK to this day is more myth than fact. He could have been a great president or a terrible one. He will always be the president who might-have-been. Yet he should not be judged on what might have been, but on what was. His overall record was mediocre; he never had the chance to show what he could do. He is often given credit for things he never did in the same way Obama was given a Nobel Peace Prize for smiling and waving.

JFK is treated like a demigod among blacks despite never seriously pursuing Civil Rights legislation. He made a deal with Southern Democrats to sacrifice Civil Rights for more bipartisanship on foreign affairs. JFK wanted to be a foreign policy president. His brother Robert F. Kennedy was passionate about Civil Rights, but JFK did not have that as a priority. If liberal blacks want to worship President Lyndon Baines Johnson, at least LBJ passed the policies. JFK never even advanced them.

In his personal life, JFK’s image was much more flattering than the man himself. Like most of the Kennedy men, JFK was a serial philanderer. One of the once-popular theories about his assassination was that it happened because he was sleeping with the girlfriend of a mafia kingpin.

JFK was also not an original. Most of his ideas were rehashed from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. President Bill Clinton credits JFK’s “New Frontier” with inspiring Clinton’s “New Covenant,” but they were both recycled versions of FDR’s “New Deal.”

Unlike Presidents Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Obama, it would be unfair to label JFK’s presidency a complete failure. He got some things right. Yet he certainly does not deserve to be mentioned along with Presidents George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or Ronald Reagan, who were not just popular or successful, but transformational.

It would be unfair to compare JFK to Clinton. Clinton had a full eight years and was peripheral. Times were good, and he mostly stayed out of the way. Nothing significant happened. JFK is mostly like President Gerald Ford in the sense that both men deserve a grade of “incomplete.” Unless a presidency is a spectacular success or failure, 2.5 years is just not an adequate time frame to render judgment.

JFK should not be an object of derision like Obama or Carter, but the deification of him is disrespectful to the legacies of the men who do deserve to be considered great presidents based on their successful deeds rather than unfulfilled promise and potential. 

It would also behoove the Democratic Party to for once judge people based on actual accomplishments and not shallow externalities such as winning smiles and flowery slogans.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

More from The Tygrrrr Express
blog comments powered by Disqus
Eric Golub

Eric Golub is a politically conservative Jewish blogger, author, public speaker, and comedian. His book trilogy is “Ideological Bigotry,” “Ideological Violence,” and  “Ideological Idiocy.” 

He is Brooklyn born, Long Island raised, and has lived in Los Angeles since 1990. He received his Bachelors degree from the University of Judaism, and his MBA from USC. A stockbrokerage professional since 1994, he began blogging on March 11th, 2007, the three year anniversary of the Madrid bombings and the midpoint of 9/11. He has been inflicting his world view on his unfortunate readers since then. He blogs about politics Monday through Friday, and about football and other human interest items on weekends.



Contact Eric Golub


Please enable pop-ups to use this feature, don't worry you can always turn them off later.

Question of the Day
Photo Galleries
Popular Threads
Powered by Disqus