Voting for McCain in 2008 is Like Voting for Nixon in 1960
If like me you are not old enough to have voted in 1960, or if you are old enough and voted for John F. Kennedy as you should have, try and imagine how it would feel if you had voted for Richard Nixon instead.
Imagine watching Kennedy's rise, in life and in death, to take his place among America's greatest presidents, knowing that you could have voted for him but didn't; and imagine then watching Nixon's descent to take his place among the worst, knowing that you voted for him perhaps not just once but two or even three times.
Imagine watching the secret bombing of Cambodia revealed, watching the sad tale of Watergate unfold, and watching Nixon's resignation in disgrace. Imagine looking back from the vantage point of 1974 and thinking of how you might have voted differently in 1960, of how at that pivotal point in time you made an unwise decision and ended up on the wrong side of history.
Now imagine how things might have been if lots more people had made the same mistake as you in 1960 and John F. Kennedy, one of America's greatest presidents, had never been elected. Imagine a world without President Kennedy.
Then, if you can bear repeating such a tragic error in judgment, go ahead and vote for John McCain.
Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com
The author's comparison of Obama to Kennedy is surely not rooted in experience or policy. By 1960, Kennedy had served three terms in the House and had begun his second term in the Senate. He was also a hero of World War II, showing gallantry in saving a member of his platoon after his boat was attacked by Japanese forces.
In his short 2 years and 10 months in the White House prior to his assasination, Kennedy bungled the invasion of a foreign country at Bay of Pigs, stood down the advance of communism in Latin America, and escalated America's commitment in Vietnam from 800 troops to over 16,000.
Other than the fact that 1960 featured a young and good looking minority (Kennedy was of course Catholic) victor, the comparison is plan false.
November 3, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, though I agree the comparison is maybe not very useful (had Nixon won in 1960, Kennedy would likely have not been assassinated [nor Bobby 5 years later], there would never have been anything like Watergate and, who knows?, we may never had ended up embroiled in Vietnam...) there is one clear point of valid comparison:
Electing Kennedy brought with it a clear relief at having broken the total Republican control over the executive and congressional branches of government. It marked the clear end to the era of McCarthyist witch hunts, of congressional committees dedicated to finding out who was pro-America or anti-America.
I would say that an Obama win, plus the subsequent down-ticket wins represent almost exactly the same sense of relief.
November 4, 2008 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your interpretation of history is, to say the least, fascinating fiction.
McCarthyism was long dead by 1960. And, in fact, Lyndon Johnson was Senate Majority leader from 1955 to when he became VP. Therefore, the 1960 election didn't bring an end to GOP control.
November 4, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except for the Ted Sorenson's of the world, no historian would agree with your hyperbole.
In fact, Nixon showed amazing restraint in the 1960 campaign when he knew that JFK was making up the "missile gap". Nixon didn't counter for fear of compromising national security.
And regardless of the endless "what ifs", much of what JFK did was set us up for Vietnam (it was his handpicked cabinet that kept Johnson expanding the war).
As for the rest of your analogy: JFK was easily a hawk by today's standards and Nixon set up the EPA.
The real issue is that the country has slipped so far to the right that being a centrist makes you look left.
We need more citizens aware of real history, not the shiny myths.
November 3, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
One thing I do give credit to JFK for was challenging America, "before this decade is out, [to land] a man on the Moon and [return] him safely to the Earth."
As to his hawkishness, in my opinion he was quite reckless in challenging Kruschev during the Cuban Missile Crisis, risking starting a nuclear war over the threat, when America had its own missiles deployed in Turkey, as close to Moscow as the Cuban ones were to Washington D.C.
The major gains in civil rights during the 1960s came in the Johnson administration, not the Kennedy one (as Sen. Clinton noted during the primaries).
President Kennedy was much better in image than in actuality, and lauding him as one of America's greatest presidents is indeed hyperbole.
November 3, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"President Kennedy was much better in image than in actuality".
Man if that statement was any more true it would be in the dictionary. However, he did leave a lasting image and no matter how we may interpret it, he will be regarded as great.
November 3, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read this book if you want to see the truth about that myth.
During his administration, Eisenhower worked very hard not to have "space" become a "stunt". Again, Ike was prescient.
JFK worked hard to figure out something so crazy that the Russians couldn't do but we might be able to do. That's how far the Russians were ahead of us at that point -- we were certain they could reasonably "win" a space race if we merely set the goal to orbit the moon and return. We actually had to land to ensure we had a fighting chance. JFK, by May 1963, was ready to dump NASA once we got to the moon. His conversation with Jack Webb about it, is well documented in that book. No clearer proof that JFK regarded the space race as a political stunt. This is the reason why NASA started running rudderless almost immediately following Apollo 11 -- and why it has been rudderless ever since.
November 3, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
On Civil Rights: it's well documented that JFK hoped he could ignore the issue -- until events (like Wallace) got in the way. Interestingly, it was LBJ who had for more empathy to the plights of the very poor -- and civil rights was very much part of his agenda. And one of the prime reasons why he wanted to get into the White House.
Ironically, JFK's assassination actually sped up Civil Rights legislation as it gave LBJ the power of the White House.
November 3, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fosberry: Just a nit-picking difference of opinion on a couple of points here.
I remember seeing TV footage on the 15 minute evening news of Kruschev ranting "we will bury you!" Even though pretty young, I was left with a fairly clear sense that that particular Soviet leader wasn't too fond of our existence.
And yes, it just wasn't very fair to the Soviets that we had our missiles in Turkey and, if you are an adherent of the idea of the time, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), then I guess we should have let them put their tactical strike weapons 50 miles from Florida?
Maybe it was reckless to face down the Soviet attempt to put those nukes in Cuba; I know it scared hell out of me at the time.
But it worked.
And about the civil rights issues that came to fruition under the Johnson administration? Johnson is to be completely lauded for following through and putting that historic series of legislation into law. Thank our various gods he did.
But most of the connections to the black community were forged under the too-short Kennedy term. Perhaps the best example was AG Robert Kennedy calling out the National Guard to force Ole Miss University to accept James Meredith as its first black student in 1962, considered by very many as a signal event, a turning point for integration in the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s. Whether or not it was done with relish or reluctance on the part of the Kennedy's it was certainly a "small" payback to the black community for mobilizing and helping to make him president.
November 4, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howdy CT. A few points:
You say: "Nixon showed amazing restraint in the 1960 campaign when he knew that JFK was making up the 'missile gap'."
I don't know about Nixon's sense of "restraint," and agree that Kennedy may well have used this "gap" as a political tool. That is certainly what the ginned-up stats declaring the presence of a gap were created for, as a political tool.
However, those false stats were created in a 1957 report to President Eisenhower by a group of civilian analysts called the Gaither Committee. Historical analyst David L. Snead found that "the Gaither Report 'significantly influenced Eisenhower’s national security policies for the remainder of his presidency' and helped shape the tone and content of U.S. strategic policy for years to come."
Meaning? Kennedy didn't "make it up." It's not far different from the Ahmed Chalibi false intelligence that gave Bush the Lesser "convincing" excuses to destroy Iraq.
I agree with your other assertions about Kennedy ramping-up our involvement in Vietnam, though, to be completely historically accurate, it was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution -- under Johnson -- that truly kicked that war into hyperdrive.
November 4, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Ike was the one claiming no gap:
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1230060/Who-ever-believed-in-the.html#abstract
JFK and LBJ were both briefed on this topic as declassified memos show:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/523/1
So JFK could have gone with Ike (e.g. not raise public panic).
November 4, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reaction of those against social change in the 1960’s combined with Right and Left disillusion with Viet Nam led to Johnson demurring and the rise of Nixon. Even considering LBJ’s failings as a war strategist, it is interesting to now see the evolution of LBJ’s progressive dream in the person of Obama running against Nixonian throw-back, McCain.
November 3, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not buying it. Historical analogies are dicey, to say the least.
While I see the analogies that you are making and share your hope and optimism over a potential Obama presidency vs. a McCain one, in my opinion, it smacks of desperation and appeals to fear, in its own way.
November 4, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink