Kerry vs. JFK vs. FDR

[Joz]

I crave the day of an energetic liberal president once again. More moderate democratic presidents (although they can be very good - Clinton), just don't get me that excited. I'm fairly new to the political scene/political history scene, and it seems to me that FDR & JFK were fairly hard-core liberals, and got everybody excited about America. I know Kerry is pretty liberal, but do you think he could be up there in the ranks comparable to an FDR/JFK if he were the president? Could he enthuse and energize the country, and push liberal agendas similar to FDR/JFK? How would you compare the three?

[bryant69]

1. Well all three were politicians first and liberals second

All three, I think, have their really strong points; all three have their flaws as well. I guess without knowing what you are interested in it's hard to know how to respond. I would say that both FDR and JFK had a way of articulating Liberal Values in a very American way. Clinton had the same gift (although policy wise he was very moderate, as you note).

FDR certainly had some traits that don't sit well with some liberals - he was very patrician. He thought that as a member of the upper class it was his job to take care of the poor and working class (since they couldn't take care of themselves). One could argue that by passing work safety laws and social security and so on, he denied the labor unions the opportunity to fight for these changes themselves and in so doing neutered them.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Hidden Stillness]

18. Labor Unions Could Not Exist if Not for Roosevelt Admin.

"FDR certainly had some traits that don't sit well with some liberals - he was very patrician. He thought that as a member of the upper class it was his job to take care of the poor and working class (since they couldn't take care of themselves). One could argue that by passing work safety laws and social security and so on, he denied the labor unions the opportunity to fight for these changes themselves and in so doing neutered them."

This is a very strange paragraph and I will refrain from expressing my real opinion except that I agree that only "one"--you--would argue that by passing laws to protect the (still, by the way) powerless middle class and poor employees, it "denied labor unions the opportunity to fight for these changes"--what?? What does that mean? Have you ever heard a union "complain"? That sounds like something from a "framing" book, really bad. How much progress would have been made if the Roosevelt Administration, and Eleanor Roosevelt's advice to FDR, had not passed the laws they did: it would've been just like the minimum wage, eternally stalled. Powerless people need the help of greats like Roosevelt, or it would never have happened. I will not refer to your creepy "neutered."

Roosevelt signed into law the Act creating the National Labor Relations Board, 1935, which created collective bargaining, the right to strike, the right to form a union, the right to be fired only for just cause, and union membership shot up during the '30s, one of the eras of greatest progress--and this was during a time when corporations like U.S. Steel and Ford Motors hired goons to beat and even shoot strikers, with no legal consequences until Roosevelt.

It is distressing to read a Democratic website, and find ignorance about the greats as deep as among the TV watchers you attack. The comment about Robert Kennedy, who would have been a great President, though, (dajoki, #15), was great and true.

[TayTay]

2. JFK was not that big a liberal

He was more like a Bayh than a Boxer. (Advocated tax cuts, went to the right of Nixon in the debates on pushing defense issues and was pushed into making the civil rights stances he did.) Sen. Ted Kennedy is MUCH more liberal than his brothers ever were. (Well, until Bobby's conversion after JFK's death anyway.) A lot of what we remember as the Kennedy liberal legacy was cemented in programs that were passed after his death.

FDR was a master politician. And his liberal record was good, but it also had a lot of failures in it as well. FDR's greatest asset was that he kept on plugging and came up with some amazing hits, Social SEcurity regulatory agencies for the stock market (SEC) and so forth. His greatest legacy to America was getting the US through the truly dangerous period of the Depression and sheparding the US through WWII.

John Kerry is much more liberal than JFK ever was. I can't compare him with FDR as FDR was too long ago. (Kerry does have basic faith in the ability of government to affect positive change in people's lives. In 2005, that seems flamingly liberal to some people, sigh!)

[Joz]

4. are you sure?

I know JFK was for building up the arms during the cold war, and I can't really say that this was a bad thing, it was a very awkward/peculiar situation that the nation/world was in at that time. However, as far as JFK being pushed into civil rights stances, and the kennedy liberal legacy being cemented in programs passed after his death - from my reading I understand it that kennedy himself was the one pushing civil rights, and that a lot of the policies HE wanted to pass did not get passed until after his death during Johnson, but they were mainly his ideas/themes.

[aaronnyc]

7. I think Kennedy was way too cautious about civil rights

He knew the political ramifications he would face if he pushed the civil rights agenda too hard. Kennedy drafted the civil rights bill, but never really pressured Congress to act on it. It should be noted, that as JFK got further along in his presidency he got bolder and bolder on civil rights.

It will never be known what Kennedy would have done on civil rights had he lived. However, I have always felt that Kennedy was way too willing to play politics with what was the most important moral question of the 20th century. Had it not been for his tragic death, I think that history would have been more critical of JFK for his cautious attitude towards civil rights.

[TayTay]

11. And I like JFK.

(Hell, I might be thrown out of MA if I didn't. I still meet people who 'knew him back when.' Sigh. Just met an 86 year old former Navy guy who served with Kennedy in the Pacific theater.)

He was a good man. But he had flaws. I cannot think of him as a really liberal guy. He had some good ideas, but he was also elected in a very, very close election and he was cautious on some things. I think he learned as he went along. He learned to be cautious with the military after the Bay of Pigs fiasco and he applied some of those lessons during the missile crisis.

I think Kerry is more baseline liberal than Kennedy was. (Though not as liberal as Ted Kennedy is.)

[bunkerbuster1]

17. I saw JFK speak in person...

unfortunately, I was only two at the time.

My parents had thought about leaving me with a sitter, but they decided to bring me along for a campaign appearance in the summer of 1960.

God bless 'em.

[dajoki]

15. jfk never got the chance

to show as much of his liberal side as i believe he would have in his 2nd term. that said i personally think RFK would have been one of the greatest liberals of all time if he wasn't also taken away from us.

[aaronnyc]

20. Everybody says that ... but why?

Kennedy had almost three years as president, what was preventing him from showing his liberal side that whole time? I understand that JFK was succesful in appealing to the center, but he abandoned many liberal principles in the process.

I think people just want to believe the best about Kennedy because he was so charismatic and he died so young and tragically. All we can judge him on is what he did while he was president, and his record as president was very mixed IMO.

[dajoki]

21. many great society programs,

including "the war on poverty" had their origins in the kennedy administration. because of his untimely death, they didn't come to fruition until LBJ was in office. and let us not forget the "peace corps". if not for his assination the civil rights programs, medicare and medicaid could have been enacted during JFK's 2nd term.

[liberalmike27]

10. Well

I don't think you can call a drop in the marginal tax rate from 91% to 74% a terribly liberal thing, and I'll tell you, I'm the biggest "soak the rich" guy you'll ever meet. If I've been called (incorrectly) a Socialist one time, I've been called one a million times.

He was pretty liberal, and Johnson signed that tax cut into law, and rewarded his folks in Texas with higher oil depletion payments after seizing the job. Bear in mind, I've read a lot of Johnson books, and not just conspiracy ones, I've read two of the first three of Caro, and am reading Master of the Senate now. Johnson was totally psychologically capable of arranging this. The mentioned book, however, tells that Johnson had no specific knowledge, but knew it was to transpire at some point, and was schooled on how to act afterward. Still, he was seen in a photo smiling just-after being sworn in, asked Jackie to be there for his swearing in (tactless), and even called Bobby Kennedy just after (attny gen) to ask advice about swearing in (once again, tactless).

Of course, Warren of the commission was a long-time friend of Johnson, who'd been scuttling around in the Congress since the earlyl thirties, and knew tons of folks.

[ginnyinWI]

14. my impressions

It seems to me that Clinton was more similar to JFK in a lot of ways: outgoing, charismatic, having a weakness for women, and a more moderate-liberal political position. I think both were good at foreign relations--listened to their experts and made smart choices. Ted Kennedy, coming of age a little later was influenced by the 60s, as was Kerry, and that's not a bad thing. One thing they never lost was their ideals about what a great American can be. That's rare in today's cynical world.

FDR was a good Democrat, but it was Eleanor who was the progressive one when it came to human rights. She fought for civil rights in the south when he didn't want to touch it. She pushed him on those issues, and kept on working at it in the U.N. after his death.

[kerrygoddess]

16. I hate to disagree with you...

But, ending racial discrimination was one of JFK's goals as president and it was included in his inaugural address.

JFK is noted as a leader in the civil rights movement of the 60's. Neither JFK or RFK got a chance to show just how liberal they might have been, Ted Kennedy's 40 years in Senate can not be compared with his brother's careers cut short by assains, nor can they, for that matter be compared with Kerry's 20 year career in the Senate.

http://library.thinkquest.org/J0112391/jfk.htm
http://www.usconstitution.com/JohnKennedy'sCivilRightsMessage.htm

Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/35_kennedy/psources/ps_nyliberal.html

[liberalmike27]

3. History

All written history is told through the lens of the writer. If you want a good general history book told through the eyes of the oppressed peoples, get Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. I hated history way back in High School, and after reading this book, I understood why. The perspective. It effects the way you look at things today also, since we are attacking Iraq for instance, and think it is relatively unique in U.S. history. But the truth is, we've been doing this since our inception, with many, many countries. It is a matter of course for militarism to be used for business purposes, as it is now being used in Iraq.

FDR was a great man, and someone wrote a book called FDR's Follies, which is exactly what I'm talking about, they are making an argument that his policies were terrible for our nation, which just goes to show that you can make an argument for anything. Certainly, it is a politically motivated book, used to trash one of our greatest presidents, who dealt with our countries greatest challenges. I almost made me want to puke to see Reagan get the greatest American, instead of FDR. At least he did "something", which Hoover seemed uninterested in doing, while he had his servant seven course meals served up in the White House during the depression. You can whine about FDR, but at least he executed, and was pluralistic, trying anything that worked.

JFK was great, and it is sad that Johnson's crew had him axed. JFK should have never trusted Johnson, he'd pr oven all of his life that he would do anything to gain, and cling to power. Johnson was in several ethical quagmires that would have destroyed any chance of him ever achieving his lifetime goal of becoming president. There were tons of policy assassinations during that period, that sadly affected our country in a terrible way, slowing progress, and retaining some very negative things for far too long. Evil forces have pretty much been in power since then.

[Joz]

5. yes

I have read the same regarding JFK/Johnson. A particularly interesting point that I was reading about and researching lately has been with regards to vietnam. This was that as the situation in vietnam got worse, Johnson raised the level of U.S. involvement, and then it really started to get ridiculous. I've read the opinion/debate that Kennedy would not have raised the level of involvement and might have pulled out of the situation had it deteriorated to the level that it did.

[liberalmike27]

8. Actually

I've read that Kennedy had already given the order to start withdrawing soldiers from Vietnam. Of course so many similarities exist between Johnson and Bush, believe it or not, down to the fact that Johnson's family profited immensely off of the Vietnam war, as they owned part of Bell helicopter. Johnson reversed the orders, and the rest is history. Vietnam, just another case of American Imperialism, gone bad.

[fujiyama]

6. Well one thing to keep in mind

is that people are the product of their times. All have great qualities, though I would say with Kerry, his problem was a matter of getting straight to the point and articulating clearly what he means. Granted, those are more superficial than anything else.

Kennedy and FDR were certainly master politicians, but neither was perfect. When it comes to civil rights, their records of commplishment are debatable. FDR, for example did not push very hard for anti lynching legislation, in fear of alienating southern democrats. Similar circumstances with Kennedy, though he did make some strides. However, both managed to inspire the nation, and with FDR - managed to get the country of a depression (and created a social safety net which would ultimately lead the way for gains made by all races), and lead the nation into war.

Either way, Kerry's senate record has certainly been more liberal than both of theirs and were he president I believe he would have had the opportunity to be a great president.

[liberalmike27]

9. Also

I wanted to add, if you are interested, I picked up a book recently called Blood, Money, & Power, written by Barr McClellan who was a junior partner at Ed Clark's law firm. Clark was Johnson's main lawyer in Texas, he handled all of his affairs, and was rewarded immensely for it. Anyway, the book is another theory of how Johnson was involved, excluding the CIA, which I always thought was a bit hard to cover up, or maybe difficult to believe. This book is based on the theory that Clark set up the Kennedy assassination, using several folks he'd used to kill other Johnson enemies.

It wasn't highly publicized at that point, but Kennedy was thinking of dropping Johnson from the VP slot in 1964 and running with someone else, as Johnson had acquired several ethical quagmires, and was dragging down the ticket. It is another theory, and is perhaps more believable than the CIA, or Mob theories.

Interesting to note that his son is Scott McClellan (White House mouthpiece) and his mother is running for Texas governor as a democrat. Weird, huh?

[Zomby Woof]

12. JFK is the most overrated Democrat of all time

A true charlatan. Unlike FDR, he didn't dare take on his social class. Like FDR, he was gutless on civil rights.

Kennedy had many flaws, and one of them was not being the liberal his admirers like to promote him as being. Vietnam should be a stain on his record at least as much as LBJ's. But LBJ was a true liberal, domestically.

Kerry is more liberal than any of the above. But I won't speculate on what kind of president he would be, since that is unknowable.

[TayTay]

13. Well, it's not like that either

Kennedy had problems but he was not a poser 24/7. (He was a politician and had the sins of a politician, but not more than that.)

[ArkDem]

19. He also had a little less time as president than FDR.

[sandnsea]

22. Kerry the most liberal of the 3

I've been reading FDR's biography. To be frank, he's dropped in my eyes a notch or two. He really was quite a hawk and very political. He dropped the ball on several occasions for political gain. And there isn't a word from him about the Triangle Fire, he was a state senator at the time. The people who hate today's Democrats would have hated FDR too.