General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Fate of the Union: Kennedy and After
Issue
The Fate of the Union: Kennedy and After
Hannah Arendt
Was this the loudest shot since Sarajevoas a BBC commentator, stunned by impact of the news, said? Does this shot mean that the brief moment of comparative calm and rising hope, of which the dead President spoke only two months ago in an address to the United Nations, will soon be over? Will the day come when we are forced to see in this tragedy a historical turning-point? To think in terms of comparisons, to apply historical categories to contemporary events is tempting, for to anticipate the future historian is to escape the terrible reality and naked horror of a tragedy that is only too present. And it is misleading; for the future, which depends upon ourselves and our contemporaries, is unpredictable, and history begins only when the story it has to tell us has come to its end.
*****
It was the style of everything he said and did which made this administration so strikingly differentdifferent not in its formulation or pursuit of American policies, but rather in its estimation of politics as such. No doubt, John F. Kennedy thought of politics in what looks at first glance as some what old-fashioned terms, the terms of honor and glory, and the inescapable, highly welcome challenge his generation and his country had been destined to meet. But he was not old-fashioned, and never even tried to rise above politics, to evade the fierce competitive power struggle which is the essence of party politics. He did not encourage the image of a great man, waiting to be drafted into a position he did not seek. He went after the job, knowing its dangers and its awe-inspiring, solitary responsibility, because it was to him the most desirable thing on earth. He was impatient with convention and protocol because they tended to raise him so high above the common rank of men that he could no longer remain what he intended to beprimus inter pares.
The spirit which informed and controlled him has been called the spirit of youth (surely not a matter of years, for this never would have been said of Mr. Nixon who is barely three years older). It was the spirit of a very modern man, a completely contemporary man. as Mr. Stevenson so justly called him. Twice in this century, after the First World War and after the Second, the new generation failed to make its voice heard in the public affairs of its respective countries. Kennedy was perhaps the first modern man in high position to do so. But if his was the voice of youth and of the 1960s, it was all the more remarkable that all his words and actions displayed the highest virtues of the statesmanmoderation and insight. Most conspicuous in his handling of the Cuba crisis and the civil rights conflict were the extremes to which he did not go. He never lost sight of the thinking of his opponents, and so long as their position itself was not extreme, and hence dangerous to what he felt were the interests of this country, he did not attempt to rule it out, even though he might have to overrule it. It was in this spirit, which derived from his ability to grasp his opponents thinking, that he greeted the student demonstration which picketed the White House after he had decided to resume nuclear testing.
There is a curious and infinitely sad resemblance between the death of the two greatest men we have lost during this yearthe one very old, the other in the prime of life. Both the late Pope and the late President died much too soon in view of the work they initiated and left unfinished. The whole world changed and darkened when their voices fell silent. And yet the world will never be as it was before they spoke and acted in it.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1963/dec/26/the-fate-of-the-union-kennedy-and-after-11/
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,338 posts)The assassination of JFK, while shocking and widely mourned, did not plunge the world into an entire century of World Wars.
Image-wise, it was big, a horse with stirrups backwards, a little kid saluting the procession, it went on. And the good-looking, well-spoken couple was replaced by a big Texan who loved to bully people and fart in public and cuss a lot.
Policy-wise, it was barely a blip. Vietnam continued to grow, under LBJ as it had under JFK. Civil Rights legislation was pushed through, perhaps even more effectively under LBJ. Medicare happened.
No comparison to the repercussions of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand by Gavrilo Princip.
villager
(26,001 posts)... a comparison is apt.
And that gunshot may be the exact reason that Vietnam continued to grow, etc.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,338 posts)... in Sarajevo than to the one in Dallas.
Vietnam, who knows? It was growing under Kennedy, and continued to grow under Johnson. Johnson continued much of what JFK started, perhaps with even more "vigor" (or "bluster" - war, NASA, civil rights, etc.