|
that if one thing was different, everything would be different. To start with, the Chicago convention would not have occured in the violent manner it did -- it is hard to accurately determine how much damage that did to the party, and to America. One can only speculate who he would have selected as his VP, and the consequences of that choice in 1976, (assuming RFK was re-elected in '72). He would have negotiated a settlement in Vietnam by 1970.
RFK had a strained relationship with LBJ, yet there is no question that the great Society would have benefitted from the end of the war, and the change of investment of national resources. His personal relationship with MKL had some past strains, yet he shared the same dream and goals. RFK also had had his eyes opened by some of the traditional Native American leaders.
Our relationship with Central America would have been another important focus. If you take his growing awareness of Indian "issues" in our country, and look at Central America, you can see what direction he would have taken us there.
Many people say that the 11-22-63 killing of JFK was a coup. It really wasn't. The "system" merely got back on track, having rid itself of the problem that threatened it. JFK being elected had actually been the "coup." Malcolm going to the UN represented a similar threat; he was removed. No one in real power gave a shit if MKL sat next to a white man in a coffee shop or public toilet; when he threatened the economic system, he was removed. RFK was, in my opinion, the face that represented the combined threat of these three. If he hadn't been killed in CA, it would have happened the next week, or a few days later.
|