I am a JFK Liberal

[DemocratSinceBirth]

"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.”

[Man from Pickens]

1. Same

somehow when things moved from 'liberal' to 'progressive', some essential things (antiwar, civil liberties) got left out

I'm sticking with 'liberal'.

[merrily]

8. Coincidentally, just before I came to this thread, I wrote a post on that very point, meaning,

not using the term "progressive."

I had written a longer much more analytical post on the topic a while back. However, inasmuch as I've been afraid to look at my journal since the software glitch, this post of mine from earlier today will have to suffice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025767160#post197

[ReRe]

37. Thanks, merrily...

... I clicked your link and read your other post. Here's my take with the whole "progressive' label: It's what real Democrats started calling themselves when we found ourselves surrounded by these Corporate Democrats. It worked so good, that the innovative (or devious, which is what I believe) DLCers decided to call itself Progressive as in the PPI (Progressive Policy Institute.) I have felt the same as you, that I don't like giving up the title of Democrat, because that is exactly what I am.

Yesterday, when replying to Manny, I shared something I looked into for myself, and that was the PPI. I found an article from Politico that Will Marshall, PPI's current Pres, had published on 10-10-2014. With my limited computer skills, this is the way to go straight to that article. Word for word, google these words:

How To Save the Democratic Party from Itself Will Marshall

It takes you directly to the article. I will warn you, it is quite long, but wade through it. For once, I knew what is causing all the recent angst in the Democratic Party. This "PPI" to me seems VERY unprogressive, and really is a disguise for the DLCer party thieves.

And finally, I will link you to a post I just made while ago about what the real Democratic Party should do about this horrible split in our Party:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5791294

[merrily]

38. Thanks. Will Marshall signed the neoconservative PNAC letter, urging Bush to invade Iraq.

And he is the founder and current President of the Progressive Policy Institute. PPI was also the source of the term "pragmatic progressive," mocked in a cartoon as "sensible liberal."

[ReRe]

42. Until yesterday,

I had no idea who he was. I had been in a conversation here with someone calling themself a "Middle Progressive." WTF was a "Middle Progressive?" so I went googling and found the PPI and that article. I think it is quite long by design, to discourage people from reading the entire thing. You know how people are now days, no extra time to be able to sit still and read a long boring political article. But somewhere at the middle or past the middle, it gets down to business and I couldn't believe my eyes. It made me sick.

[merrily]

43. Middle Progressive, Third Way, DLC, Center for American Progess, Progressive Policy Institute,

No Labels. All selling the same "let's be a LOT like Republicans on economic issues and foreign policy." And, while we're at it, maybe let's not be as extreme as we once were on social issues, either. Enough to keep the base voting lesser of two evils," but not 'extreme.'"

[ReRe]

45. THEY are the ones who are EXTREME! n/t

[merrily]

47. Agree!

Remember all that flap about Akin and his being so anti-choice as to push withholding a woman's right of reproductive choice, even in the case of rape? Well, his Democratic opponent was about the same, except that he conceded that the right of choice should be available in the case of incest or rape--and ONLY those cases. Yet, Democrats rode the Akin stupidity all the way to a female voters' wave election in 2012.

[ReRe]

50. Oh yes... I DO remember.

That really was an example of tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee.

[merrily]

51. There was a difference! Was there as much difference as most pretended? No.

Did most Democrats want to hear how similar Akins Democratic opponent was to Akins? Hell, no!

Akins' words helped a lot of Democrats win that election, anyway, though. And, since then?

[ReRe]

52. Since then?

[roguevalley]

62. same though you can add FDR into it

[Octafish]

2. I, too, am a JFK Liberal

The guy worked every day in public office to keep the peace and to make life better for ALL Americans.

[Rex]

46. And what did he get for it?

He should have kept his plans to hold the CIA and military accountable for their actions a better secret. IMO, the Bay of Pigs should have clued him in to their plans for betrayal.

All I can say is there will never be another Robert or John Kennedy. Two national treasures that we lost to the Establishment.

[Octafish]

56. He has our eternal thanks.

BFEE lawyer and Bay of Pigs planner (and CIA director) Dulles also was the guy recommending an all-out nuclear sneak attack on the USSR, even if millions of Americans were to fry in thermonuclear retaliation.

http://prospect.org/article/did-us-military-plan-nuclear-first-strike-1963

Plus, JFK got us to the moon. The technologies may be what yet saves humanity.

[ladyVet]

59. I still cry when I think about what kind of country this would be if RFK had lived.

I was only ten years old, but I remember my mother crying when the news reports came about his murder. I don't remember the moon landing, or Dr. King's death (and I was only five when JFK died), but I remember that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. I like that he defines it as a set of goals...

I like that he defines it as a set of goals and is not close minded on the means.

[freshwest]

64. That I agree with. But then, I'd memorized this years ago. 50th rec.

[CountAllVotes]

4. Yes I am!

Proud JFK DEMOCRAT that is both progressive and beyond being "liberal".

& recommend.

[kairos12]

5. We are JFK Liberals in an era of Salem Witchcraft trial zealots ready to burn any book

or person who doesn't genuflect in their direction.

[merrily]

6. I don't know if JFK was an economic liberal, but here's his full speech.

He's accepting the nomination of the Liberal Party for the Presidency, which is important context.


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."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.

Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education for their children and for the children's development. They went to night schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb.

Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war hangs over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in the minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so doesn't make it so. More will be needed than goodwill missions or talking back to Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will be needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads.

In Winston Churchill's words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist."

And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not only our defense but our image abroad as a friend.

This is an important election -- in many ways as important as any this century -- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party here in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States, should be associated with us in this great effort. The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.

I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time. Our national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the history of the great Republic.

Some pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all over again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time to move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond the new frontiers of the 1960s.

Once again, pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again, given Republicans won as big as they did in 1928. Just remember, though, what happened in 1929. And, after 1929, we got liberal economic New Deal and Fair Deal programs, which conservadems and Republicans have been trying to dismantle ever since. They've done a pretty good job, too. Social Security is their latest target. Then, it will probably be on to LBJ's Medicare after that.

[oberliner]

7. Who is today's equivalent?

Is there a major political figure who you would consider to be a JFK liberal?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Obama but he's not nearly as effective or popular

However it's impossible to judge JFK's and RFK's political careers separate from their martyrdom.

[oberliner]

11. How about Bill Clinton?

Would he fit the bill?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. There's always a problem of taking somebody from his or her era and transferring them to another.

That being said I think you can look at how a person confronted the issues of his or her day and how he or she would confront the issues of our day. I'm pretty confident if you put the two of em in a room there isn't much they would disagree about...

[wyldwolf]

16. He'll fit the bill in 20 - 30 years

Progressives have a way of lionizing our leaders years after the fact.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. JFK and RFK are my political idols.

That being said I have read several books about them and while they were extraordinary leaders and compassionate men they weren't cardboard saints who never trimmed their convictions to get votes.

[cantbeserious]

28. Nope - Bill Clinton Was A Centrist - Truly A Liberal Republican By Standards Of The Day

eom

[oberliner]

30. A liberal Republican is still a liberal, no?

Some could argue that JFK fits that description in some ways as well.

[cantbeserious]

33. Hardly - Defending The Policies Of Corporations - Makes One The Enemy Of The People - Corporations

Are Not People.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. Art Laffer said JFK was the true father of supply side economics.

Of course that's dumb but JFK did cut marginal tax rates and capital gains rates.

JFK would say that he did that to spur economic growth that would result in more revenue to fund the ambitious social programs like Medicare and Medicaid he planned.

[cantbeserious]

36. Many - So Called Liberals - Have Been Co-opted By "Voodoo Economics" - As Bush Senior Proclaimed

eom

[whathehell]

66. He cut tax rates, but closed loopholes at the same time.

My understanding is that the allover result was that it stayed at the same level.

He also supported unions, something neither Clinton nor Obama can be accused of, unfortunately.

[AgingAmerican]

71. He cut the marginal rate from 91% to 70%

But he did so because there were so many loopholes that many were paying almost nothing. He closed so many loopholes that revenue actually increased in spite of the reduced rate. It had nothing to do with 'spurring growth". The whole, "JFK was a supply sider" nonsense is based on an out of context snippet from his debate with Nixon.

The 91% top marginal rate was genius and it caused full employment. Instead of taking money out as income, business owners would reinvest their profits back into their businesses, causing them to grow. They would merely take their money out later in the form of equity at low tax rates. The side effect was plentiful jobs and full employment.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

17. Obama's lowest popularity rating is still higher than JFK's lowest. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. JFK had an average approval rating of 70%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ratings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx


http://jfk14thday.com/jfk-presidential-approval-ratings/

[Dr Hobbitstein]

20. Your second link hints at why that's deceptive.

JFK only had 2 years, and in the months before his death, his approval ratings were slipping. To below 40%.
It took Obama 5 years to get to that point.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Even at his nadir he had an approval rating of 58%

If President Obama has an approval rating of 58% when the 016 presidential election comes around since his approval rating will either be a net negative , a net positive, or of no impact at all, we should be popping bottles of champagne.

[oberliner]

23. This is not true

Not sure where you got that inaccurate info from.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

26. You are correct...

I was confusing JFK's low with LBJ's low in my head. I had to go back and look it up.

Disregard.

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/data_access/data/presidential_approval.html

[oberliner]

29. No worries

Thanks for the corrected info!

[Baitball Blogger]

9. The problem I have with the move forward concept of Liberalism,

is that I want to belong to the Liberal faction that examines history carefully, because it's where we learn about what works, and what doesn't. And I also do not want to belong to a party that continually walks away from a fight where the consequences of that decision will hamper us in the future.

[Hari Seldon]

12. I identify with that sentiment

so I rec.d it.

the pursuit of social justice is our obligation

[wyldwolf]

13. Liberals didn't care much for him in '59 - '60

I can just imagine the conversations had DU been around.

* After a major election year loss, JFK distanced myself from the liberal/progressive wing of the party, declaring, “I’m not a liberal at all… I’m not comfortable with those people.”

* His father told a leading national magazine, “How could any son of mine be a god damn liberal? Don’t worry about him being a weak sister. He’ll be tough.”

* In a Senate race, he refused to endorse the Democratic candidate and instead endorsed the Republican!

* As president-elect, he appointed high level Republicans to prominent cabinet posts!

* His most well-known catch phrase was a rebuke of welfare and a promotion of individual responsibility. "Ask not what your country can do for you..."

* Another phrase was a call to arms for “Liberal Internationalism.” "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

* A master of the New Democrat perfected “triangulation,” he alienated Labor Unions by not siding with them on a number of issues, believing disputes must be settled with what is best for the public’s interest.

* He considered our tax system obsolete and advocated massive tax cuts.

* A leading Republican characterized him as “a Democrat by accident of birth; he is more of a pragmatist than a Democrat.”

* Congressman John Lewis (D, GA) a civil rights hero, said his civil rights actions were “too little, too late.”

Just sayin'

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Because folks are three dimensional figures and not cartoons. /NT

[SidDithers]

32. Well said...nt

Sid

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. I really didn't mean it as a criticism of wyldwolf but politicians like people are complex.

Plus politicians in a democratic or ostensibly democratic society work within the confines of a system where certain things are possible and certain things aren't.

For instance JFK was always right on civil rights and although his interaction as a Boston Brahmin with blacks was limited he knew they were entitled to the same rights as every American citizen. He couldn't just snap his fingers and make it happen.

[DCBob]

14. that's me too.

[Skidmore]

22. This is the best definition I've seen to date of a liberal as I, too, see it.

I find myself at odds with the slapdash labelling that has occurred on DU recently. I have and always will be a liberal. No one will define me as anything else but a liberal. I am willing to work with you as such. I will not be denied as a liberal.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. I like that he defines it as a set of ideals and goals...

I like that he defines it as a set of ideals and goals and not a manual in which one can not deviate from and achieve them.

[simak]

27. Where do you come down on "Ask not what your country can do for you... "?

Belief in that one seems to have changed a bit since Kennedy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. I believe if JFK

I believe if JFK was asked to elaborate he would say that wasn't a condemnation of folks who need a lift up but a call for volunteerism.


IMHO, liberalism is a set of goals, it not like a manual you get with a new car with which if you deviate from you violate your warranty.

[Skidmore]

35. Exactly.

As such, goals are cooperative and not the purview of a few selected individuals. You can't just chose someone and expect that person to do all the heavy lifting if you are a liberal.

[simak]

41. That suggests any liberal Democrat could still say that today. I seriously doubt it.

Volunteerism lacks the security that characterizes modern liberal policy objectives. Liberals want laws because you can't just decide to suddenly stop voluntarily complying with the law like you can stop supporting a nonprofit.

Volunteerism is about promises, or at least good gestures. But the law is a contract. You're arguing that Kennedy wanted promises, but those would appear to fall short of the hard guarantees that modern liberals demand from government.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. I think you are overanalyzing this.

JFK is asking folks to do more than just meet the minimal requirements for citizenship which is obeying the law and to volunteer to make the nation and the world better. That's why he created VISTA and the Peace Corps.

[ReRe]

39. K&R

[Omaha Steve]

48. Funny how conservatives, Rush, etc...

Say today because he cut the tax rate he would be a Republican???

I bought an old framed JFK photo this summer at an estate sale. So many people walked by it on the stairs and didn't even know what it was. It is on the wall next to a large famous photo of the "Rat Pack" in front of the "Sands" sign and John Lennon next to our bar.

I'm still upset on the time 15-20 years ago I just missed out on a period Wilson photo cheap at auction.

OS

R btw.

[daleanime]

49. sure you are....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. I wear your ad hominem cryptic attacks like a badge...

I will compare my Democratic and liberal bona fides with yours which includes donating money to Democratic candidates, canvassing on their behalf, and voting for them every single time they appear on the ballot.


KISSES
DSB


on edit- my fondest memory is my mom taking me to the front of a ropeline in Queens, New York when I was six years old when Robert Kennedy was running for senator from New York to shake his hand which I did.

[daleanime]

54. You seem to be dancing with yourself.....

way to "welcome new ideas" and "find common ground".


Although if you think my questions are "ad hominem attacks", I'm curious about how you have any kind of discussion on line?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. Starting a conversation by implying your interlocutor is a liar...

Starting a conversation by implying your interlocutor is a liar isn't a particularly efficacious way to foster dialogue.

[daleanime]

58. Huh?

Did we read the same response?





Implying that your a liar? No. Stating that you, like every one else, sees things from their own viewpoint, yes.

My father calls me a communist, some of my co-workers use to tell me that I was a liberal elitist, I call myself a democratic-socialist.

None of us are liars.

I don't believe in children going hungry or denying medical care, so in my fathers eyes I am a communist.

I don't believe in any liberian Paradise of unrestricted 2nd amendment rights and I do believe that government has a role to play, so I am a liberal elitist.


Now what I am to you, I can only guess, but hopefully I'm a chance for a little more self awareness. Why make these kind of responses instead of just answering the question?


You kind of remind me of the Palin interview, where she was asked about what she read. You know the one, right? When she said that she read all of them. She later tried to explain that her awkward answer was caused by fear of a personnel attack. And no, I'm not calling you stupid. I don't know you so how could I do that? But you do seem to be showing the same kind of overly self consciouses.

Well, rumbled on a bit and I don't honestly expect a real answer, but feel free to disappoint me.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. I am in a mellow mood now.

"Now what I am to you..."


I will give you the benefit of allowing you to be whomever you say you are.

[ladyVet]

57. Me, too, and damned proud of it! nt

[HereSince1628]

61. Me? Probably more like a Great Society Dem with

admiration for Eugene McCarthy.

[Odin2005]

63. Odd, because JFK was a centrist warmonger.

He was pretty chicken on civil rights out of fear of offending Dixiecrats who were already queasy about his Catholicism and started the ramping up of US involvement in Vietnam that continued under LBJ. And there of course was that little clusterfuck called Bay of Pigs.

It was LBJ who started the Great Society programs.

The only reason he is seen as some sort of great president is because of how his charisma rubbed off on young adults at the time and because of the influence of conspiracy theory BS that turns him into a Liberal martyr.

Were it not for Vietnam it would be LBJ we admire, not JFK.

[LeftInTX]

65. FDR was an even bigger warmonger

He wanted us to go into WWII way before Pearl Harbor was attacked. He did everything he could, but Americans said No.

He knew about the atom bomb and didn't bother to tell his Vice President about it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. Don't get me started on Lincoln

[Odin2005]

69. WW2 was a necessary war.

Ho Chi Minh was a rebel leader, not Hitler.

[onenote]

68. "were it not for Vietnam"

Kind of hard to overlook that elephant in the room.

[AgingAmerican]

70. "Looks ahead and not behind" has nothing to do with liberalism

Welcoming new ideas (right wing) has nothing to do with liberalism.