The Last Authentic President - John F. Kennedy

I was not born until a few years after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated and was raised by parents who mourned his death for many years after. In their eyes, he could do no wrong and if all I had to go by growing up was their fond memories and the glamorized historical accounts of the era of Chamelot, it would have taken many years for me to understand that he was also a man who struggled with his own demons like many of us have done over our lifetime.

Fortunately, I had older siblings in their rebellious teenage years who were able to see beyond the glamorization of the man and also recognize his vices - he was a womanizer, most probably involved in many covert CIA undertakings and was a medically necessary drug addict who probably was not always capable of thinking objectively or clearly through his more painful days (thank goodness for Bobby).

With that said, although he wasn't a perfect human being (as if any of us are) he was, at his very essence, what we would want in our President. He was a devoted and authentic politician who believed in the American dream, who fought the various government factions who were constantly against him (and who, I believe, ultimately won) and he truly wanted what was best for the American people. As far as I know he was the first president to go on record and warn the public about unseen self-serving interest groups (if I am wrong and someone knows of any President(s) before him who so blatantly spoke out, please let me know). This is representative of the type of man I have tried to understand and have come to admire,in spite of his vices (for we all have our vices, don't we?):



He was certainly the last who put the American people first as the entire political system/climate, and the legitimacy of such, was forever changed after his death.

I often wish I could have been alive and old enough to feel some of the excitement and optimism inspired by President Kennedy. Even during such a trying and scary time as the cold war, I'm told that people felt better because of the man himself. I've never known such a feeling of safety and security in my life. If you would like, please share your own views of this time in our history.

reply to post by timidgal

One should be careful about inviting views on US Presidents, even if they are about Mr. Kennedy.

I really do hate to say it, but I feel that you are in love with an illusion. Not just of President Kennedy, but especially of the time period. You may not realize it, but that was a very short, very chaotic period of only two years and ten months.

At that time, we were worried about ICBMs coming our way. The Cuban Missile Crisis really added to the thrill. We were well involved in Vietnam, and then there was also the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

Mr. Kennedy did not have the love of the population that many now purport. There was much doubt as to him being reelected as President at that time. His adoration and idolization didn't start until after his assassination, and says more about the people of the United States than the man.

I consider Mr. Kennedy to have been more of a hero, than an exceptional President.

Concerning:

I've never known such a feeling of safety and security in my life.

Be glad. It was not a time of "safety and security". It was actually a pretty damn scary time.

I enjoyed your post, and sincerely hope that you do not feel I am intentionally trying to burst your bubble.

Keep the happy thoughts.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by timidgal

As far as I know he was the first president to go on record and warn the public about unseen self-serving interest groups (if I am wrong and someone knows of any President(s) before him who so blatantly spoke out, please let me know).

Reading that above you come across as someone who at least wants to learn, so I thought I'd post this:



You see, the "secret society speech" wasn't about secret societies at all. The video you've posted was a heavily edited one, edited in a way to make it look like he's talking about something he's not - sad that someone would make such a video in the first place really. The above video is the full speech. He's addressing the press on Cold War issues, asking them to be a bit more secretive so incidents like the Bay of Pigs don't happen again for example, not secret societies.

A full transcript can be found here.

Anyway, just alerting you to that is all..

reply to post by BenReclused

Milt - thank you for your response and no worries about bursting my bubble as it was not my bubble to burst. As I said, I had siblings who had an entirely different perspective than my parents did and I always knew that the whole era and the idealization of Chamelot posthumously was just an illusion but it was never mine to shatter because I didn't live it.

I realize that the world was in a perilous state at the time and it's been said we were a hair's breath away from destruction, but don't you think that the world is far more perilous now, subconsciously known by the masses yet largely kept under wraps by the government? And assuming that this is the case, do you think that our current leadership would be able to pull us through like Kennedy did (although I'm not naive enough to think he was solely responsible for the outcome, he did play a principal role)? My commentary was more about the man himself and not his presidency; hence the title "authentic President" and not "greatest President". At least the public was aware of what was going on and you had the opportunity to prepare to protect yourselves and your families (although hiding under a desk wouldn't have done much to protect you from an ICBM aimed at your door, a bomb shelter would have provided some protection). Having lived through both periods, do you think it's better to exist unaware of the perils? I've never had to grapple with such a question so I honestly don't know the answer or how I would feel. As long as I've been old enough to understand the dangers of the world, I have never felt that I would know what, if anything, was coming around the corner and that's what I meant about living with a feeling of safety and security. I'm honestly curious how you feel about this question - would you rather know?

Your comment about Kennedy's uncertainty in getting reelected is one I've never heard before and I'm most curious about this comment. Why was this so and if it was solely due to the state of the world, do you feel that it was such a volatile time because of poor leadership or was it due to the extreme polarization that existed between the East and the West? And do you think that if such conditions existed today, our current President would be able to diplomatically get us through it? I'm not so certain.

The problem with one not living through something one's self is that you need to rely on memories and stories from others who were there and although my parents might have been in love with an illusion, I understand that like most things in the past, there is either an idealization or demonization attached to the memory of events. I have no idea what the era was like and therefore have no emotional attachment to it. That's why I was looking for feedback from those, like yourself, who were there. With that said, I still think that he was more authentic in his honesty with the public about the perils of the times than what has come after him and authenticity is a quality I can greatly respect. Perhaps he wasn't such a great President but were the circumstances his fault (without applying the philosophy that "the buck stops here") and do you feel that another could diverted the incidents you've cited or handled the situations in a better way? He may not have been a great president, in your opinion, but it seems that having a hero sitting behind the big desk making the important decisions is a far cry from anything I've known in my lifetime. I'm genuinely curious to hear your response.

Until then, I thank you for sharing your memories and emotions about the era but remember, you're still here almost 50 years later, able to share those memories. That's no small statement. Take care.

reply to post by Rising Against

By far one of the most eye opening things I've learned from my discussions with many intelligent individuals here at ATS and I thank you for your generosity of knowledge. It should always be our greatest goal to preserve the truth about our history for future generations and I, like many others of my generation who were not alive or very young
during that era, have been poorly educated about that particular speech.

Thank you for making me aware and it's obvious that I have more discussion and learning to do!

EDIT: Reading this transcript gave me goosebumps and makes me curious to learn about his speech writer who was a virtuoso with words.

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

This speech only serves to reaffirm my belief in Kennedy's "authenticity". On one hand, he's challenging the press to voluntarily decide what's in the nation's best interest to disclose, while at the same time asking them to "inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion". I can't imagine these words being uttered from the mouths of any modern day politicians. We were in the midst of unprecedented perilous times and instead of just putting a lid on the right of the American public to know the dangers, he asked that they keep everyone informed while using voluntary discretion in protecting national security. I realize that the constitution barred him from forbidding them to print whatever they wanted but just compare that to the covert diversions that take place today.

reply to post by timidgal

Milt - thank you for your response and no worries about bursting my bubble as it was not my bubble to burst. As I said, I had siblings who had an entirely different perspective than my parents did and I always knew that the whole era and the idealization of Chamelot posthumously was just an illusion but it was never mine to shatter because I didn't live it.

Thank you for that. I was definitely concerned about how you might take my response... and almost didn't respond. The only reason I did so, was because of your obvious sincerety.

You put quite a bit on my plate, and it will take a while to form the type of honest, well thought out response you deserve.

I'll be back... sooner or later...

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by timidgal


I agree with the above poster, you do post with sincerity. That's really nice to see around here to be honest.

Anyway, yeah, It really is a shame to see someone make a video like that to be honest, it pushes us that little bit further away from the truth in my opinion. Especially as it's very obvious to see what JFK was really talking about - Which we can only really see when we look at the bigger picture, when we listen to the full speech, read the transcript, look at what was going on around the time to cause him to say what he said and so on. Too many people look at the speech from a modern day mindset - Nothing wrong with that though of course, many weren't even around then. I know I wasn't. I grew up in the 90's in fact and was fooled before.

But, if we do look back throughout history and we look really closely at the 60's in particular then this speech and It's true context really does shine through. He certainly was not talking about some secret, elusive, Illuminati society or anything like that.. he was talking about what was going on at the time. The cold war, and in particular asking the press for more secrecy in the wake of the Bay of Pigs incident for which they were partly to blame. Speaking of which I might make a thread on this speech one day, I'm not sure.

In regards to the last thing you said.. well, I imagine most politicians today, not all of them of course because we really must remember that they're not all horrible, evil people looking to "screw the little man" etc. (not a popular idea I know), really would love to just control every aspect of our lives, particularly the media to feed us whatever drivel they felt like. Few people in positions of great power, in my opinion, have ever really been able to resist crossing that line of control if you get what I mean? I think most, if not all, genuinely do start out looking to help people but unfortunately power corrupts.. most.

reply to post by timidgal

I realize that the world was in a perilous state at the time and it's been said we were a hair's breath away from destruction, but don't you think that the world is far more perilous now, subconsciously known by the masses yet largely kept under wraps by the government?

No, not really. I was an Air Force "brat" through most of the 50s, and all of the 60s, and spent that time living on Air Force bases located in Japan, the United States, Canada, Spain, and Germany. As you might guess, I grew up living on primary targets of the USSR.

Considering the capabilities of the USSR at the time, all of the combined terrorists of today, could only be a small niusance in comparison. Be it known that my use of "terrorists" includes, but is not limited to:

The IRA
The KKK
The Black Muslims
Individuals
Muslim Extremists
and on, and on...
...And yeah... I reckon "The Crusaders" were too.

The term "subconsciously known" is interesting, and I'm not sure what was meant by it. For me, it seems to indicate that the "known" is based on speculation. If so, I feel that is a driving force behind many of our current problems. This includes terrorism.

And assuming that this is the case, do you think that our current leadership would be able to pull us through like Kennedy did (although I'm not naive enough to think he was solely responsible for the outcome, he did play a principal role)?

Well, I didn't assume so, but I still feel that is a valid question:
Considering that time, absolutely not. Their performance regarding today's World is rather "piss poor" in my opinion. And, as you mentioned, it's not just the President.

Mr. Kennedy did play a principle role in that he was the spokesman for our country, but he really didn't have much choice. If it hadn't been for our military capabilities at the time, his words would have been nothing more than a bluff.

Having lived through both periods, do you think it's better to exist unaware of the perils?

Not at all. The trick is distinquising between the real "perils" and the imagined ones. Admittedly, that can be difficult, but many of the "perils" of today are based in speculation and on poor evidence. This is a huge problem.

As long as I've been old enough to understand the dangers of the world, I have never felt that I would know what, if anything, was coming around the corner and that's what I meant about living with a feeling of safety and security. I'm honestly curious how you feel about this question - would you rather know?

If it's something I can prepare for... of course I would. If not... I hope it's a surprise.

Experience has taught me that one will never know what is truly "around the corner". You had better get used to it.

Your comment about Kennedy's uncertainty in getting reelected is one I've never heard before and I'm most curious about this comment. Why was this so and if it was solely due to the state of the world, do you feel that it was such a volatile time because of poor leadership or was it due to the extreme polarization that existed between the East and the West?

My comment wasn't so much "about Kennedy's uncertainty in getting reelected", as it was about his actions as President. He had many critics at the time, and he would, in no way, have been a "shoe in". He had a battle on his hands, and his reelection bid had barely started when he was shot.

You may not realize it, but the situation with Cuba started when Mr. Kennedy refused to acknowlege Mr. Castro as the leader of Cuba. If there had been no refusal, there would also have been no "Bay of Pigs Invasion", and no "Cuban Missile Crisis". That was a failure of diplomacy on Mr. Kennedy's part.

As is true today, there was much more happening than "meets the eye".

The polarization was most definitely caused by "poor leadership" on both sides, but there were too many people, and too many years, involved to be more specific.

And do you think that if such conditions existed today, our current President would be able to diplomatically get us through it?

Absolutely not! But to be quite honest, it wasn't just diplomacy that got us through those days either.

I was glad to see Rising Against's post regarding the "Secret Society Speech". Too many people today choose to ignore the true context of that speech. It was indeed addressing aspects of the "Cold War", and had absolutely nothing to do with the Illuminati, or the NWO as many now claim.

I certainly appreciate your sincere interest in my responses.

I forgot to give you a star and a flag yesterday... you have them now.

Cheers,
Milt

reply to post by Rising Against

Thank you for the nice compliment and the dialogue I've enjoyed with you and other earnest posters has opened my eyes to a whole new perspective on not just this subject matter, but the larger picture as well.

With respect to today's political climate and my last comment, I realize that I should have elaborated because I agree with you and am not as cynical as that statement makes me appear. I too believe that a fair portion of individuals who choose to enter politics initially do so with altruistic intent but that most - particularly those who make it to the national arena - become corrupt along the way for a variety of reasons, the euphoria of power being just one of many corruptible influences.

reply to post by BenReclused

...and I return a star right back to you for this thought-provoking conversation.

Thank you for taking the time to respond so succinctly and as I said earlier, you've provided me with some much needed clarity and food for thought on a whole slew of topics, only one of which is the original subject matter.