Yes, TCinLA, JFK should have extricated the US intelligence and military forces from Vietnam. And, he should not have helped people who built their fortunes by collaborating with the brutal dictator, Batista, to oppress 90% of the Cuban population. JFK made serious mistakes in those matters. However, in the matter of Vietnam, it seems to…
Yes, TCinLA, JFK should have extricated the US intelligence and military forces from Vietnam. And, he should not have helped people who built their fortunes by collaborating with the brutal dictator, Batista, to oppress 90% of the Cuban population. JFK made serious mistakes in those matters. However, in the matter of Vietnam, it seems to me fairer and more accurate to put most of the blame for the American-imposed catastrophe there on Eisenhower. He should have known better. He did know better. But Eisenhower had an anticommunist fervor shut up in his bones (to apply the superbly descriptive phrase from the King James Bible that Charles Blow adopted in an entirely different political context) that prevented him from sympathizing with people who had, at great sacrifice, thrown the French colonialists out of Vietnam and removed the local collaborators and beneficiaries of French rule from Vietnamese government. Instead, Eisenhower decided to permit and encourage the evil Dulles brothers to spew their venom unopposed. Vietnam was Eisenhower’s fault. He should have known better. He did know better. He had the power to shut down all US operations in Vietnam and let those who had thrown off their European oppressors build a government according to their own lights. But he didn’t. Vietnam is on him.
Eisenhower did all that (if you get my book "Going Downtown" be sure to read Chapter Two, "A Long Time Coming"), however Eisenhower did not commit troops - that crucial item was Kennedy's decision after he read the Soviet theory of wars of national liberation while looking for some way to "get back" at Khrushchev for publicly humiliating him at the Vienna Summit.
Yes. That is a plausible explanation. But I think Eisenhower should have made sure that JFK could not do that by pulling out all US opposition to Ho and maybe even publicly congratulating Ho for ejecting the colonists from his country. JFK was young and in need of wise council. Eisenhower was an old warrior who should have taken advantage of his experience and his popularity to put the US on a better track in Southeast Asia.
There was no way any American politician was going to do such a thing in the 1950s. they had all been through McCarthyism, they'd all seen what happened in the far right's "who Lost China?" campaign. Those events left a deep impression on every politician who had been conscious 1949-57. It had to do with why JFK wouldn't have pulled out in the year before standing for re-election and why LBJ went along with the New Frontiersmen.
Yes, that’s true, but Eisenhower was on his way out of politics. All he had to deal with was his legacy. Maybe I ask too much of him, but I think he should have done the right thing. I certainly don’t absolve JFK of blame. Nor LBJ, who, I agree, was far more skilled in politics than JFK (or, for that matter, than anyone since Lincoln but FDR and maybe Pelosi).
Unfortunately there was no way any American politician in that period was going to "do the right thing." It was the height of what would be seen as the coldest part of the Cold War. The GOP right wing would have attacked the "establishment" wing if such a thing had happened.
Eisenhower, who I respect, allowed the 1953 covert overthrow of Iran's Mosaddegh, which Truman had opposed. My knowledge of history is patchy, but it seems to me that move helped to set the stage for the surge of political "religious" fanaticism in the Middle East. In general, I think that covert campaigns to force changes in other nations tends to have troublesome unintended consequences. It's slimy. I believe that Eisenhower as not a fan of Joe McCarthy, but tolerated him (up to a point) because of the size and fervor of his base. I have read that JFK was a defender of McCarthy. I can't quite wrap my mind around what it means to be a president in the modern age. How it is possible to cover all the bases; how not wade into what might be out of one's depth. How not to commit the "sin of pride" or simply, in some ways, play the fool.
My overall impression of JFK remains positive, but I get that he had a creepy side. I think he still looks good compared to Bush II or Trump, and that social justice was more or less expanding under his watch. Vietnam was another strategic and moral disaster, in ways that I think still haunt us, but Kennedy was not the war's sole promoter, though he probably could have stopped it. I am unaware of any president of salient consequence that did not have a creepy side; TR, FDR? I hold some strong criticism of Obama for his seeming over-coddling of banks, his proposed "chained CPI" and the "TPP". Lincoln seemed phobic of black people, though he courageously defended their political rights. I condemn Nixon, but not as much as Reagan. I both admire and criticize Biden. I desperately want him to win.
"Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time." - Churchill
The Mossadegh overthrow is The Major Plot Point for all Mideastern history. Had Mossadegh and his western-style "British Labour Party" government succeeded, taking back their natural resources and using them for a democratic , secular, moderniztion of Iran, it would have changed the following history by its success. None of what we deal with now would have ever developed and democratic secular governments might be the rule through the middle east. Eisenhower listened to the idiots at Can't Investigate Anything, who were all onboard with British MI6 to protect British Petroleum's "property" in Iran. The big problem was the "mid-Atlantic ruling class" types in the CIA saw themselves and the Pax Americana as the logical successor to the Pax Britannica.
JFK was a "light" defender of McCarthy, but RFK Sr actually worked for the committee.
As far as social justice expanding under JFK - he was dragged kicking and screaming to support civil rights, which he (correctly) saw as the thing that would destroy the Democrats "Solid South." The real social justice warrior was LBJ throughout his political career.
It very much did once the Republicans recovered from the debacle of 1964 in the 1966 off-year, defeating all the Democrats in the House who had won Republican districts (they were the progressives who voted for the War on Poverty)and cutting down the Democratic House vote - when there were still "Southern Democrats" to vote against the War on Poverty to make a majority against.
Yes, TCinLA, JFK should have extricated the US intelligence and military forces from Vietnam. And, he should not have helped people who built their fortunes by collaborating with the brutal dictator, Batista, to oppress 90% of the Cuban population. JFK made serious mistakes in those matters. However, in the matter of Vietnam, it seems to me fairer and more accurate to put most of the blame for the American-imposed catastrophe there on Eisenhower. He should have known better. He did know better. But Eisenhower had an anticommunist fervor shut up in his bones (to apply the superbly descriptive phrase from the King James Bible that Charles Blow adopted in an entirely different political context) that prevented him from sympathizing with people who had, at great sacrifice, thrown the French colonialists out of Vietnam and removed the local collaborators and beneficiaries of French rule from Vietnamese government. Instead, Eisenhower decided to permit and encourage the evil Dulles brothers to spew their venom unopposed. Vietnam was Eisenhower’s fault. He should have known better. He did know better. He had the power to shut down all US operations in Vietnam and let those who had thrown off their European oppressors build a government according to their own lights. But he didn’t. Vietnam is on him.
Eisenhower did all that (if you get my book "Going Downtown" be sure to read Chapter Two, "A Long Time Coming"), however Eisenhower did not commit troops - that crucial item was Kennedy's decision after he read the Soviet theory of wars of national liberation while looking for some way to "get back" at Khrushchev for publicly humiliating him at the Vienna Summit.
Yes. That is a plausible explanation. But I think Eisenhower should have made sure that JFK could not do that by pulling out all US opposition to Ho and maybe even publicly congratulating Ho for ejecting the colonists from his country. JFK was young and in need of wise council. Eisenhower was an old warrior who should have taken advantage of his experience and his popularity to put the US on a better track in Southeast Asia.
There was no way any American politician was going to do such a thing in the 1950s. they had all been through McCarthyism, they'd all seen what happened in the far right's "who Lost China?" campaign. Those events left a deep impression on every politician who had been conscious 1949-57. It had to do with why JFK wouldn't have pulled out in the year before standing for re-election and why LBJ went along with the New Frontiersmen.
Yes, that’s true, but Eisenhower was on his way out of politics. All he had to deal with was his legacy. Maybe I ask too much of him, but I think he should have done the right thing. I certainly don’t absolve JFK of blame. Nor LBJ, who, I agree, was far more skilled in politics than JFK (or, for that matter, than anyone since Lincoln but FDR and maybe Pelosi).
Unfortunately there was no way any American politician in that period was going to "do the right thing." It was the height of what would be seen as the coldest part of the Cold War. The GOP right wing would have attacked the "establishment" wing if such a thing had happened.
Might have been a good thing to have internecine Republican battles before they took over the Dixiecrats and the white working class.
There's definitely an argument to be made there.
Eisenhower, who I respect, allowed the 1953 covert overthrow of Iran's Mosaddegh, which Truman had opposed. My knowledge of history is patchy, but it seems to me that move helped to set the stage for the surge of political "religious" fanaticism in the Middle East. In general, I think that covert campaigns to force changes in other nations tends to have troublesome unintended consequences. It's slimy. I believe that Eisenhower as not a fan of Joe McCarthy, but tolerated him (up to a point) because of the size and fervor of his base. I have read that JFK was a defender of McCarthy. I can't quite wrap my mind around what it means to be a president in the modern age. How it is possible to cover all the bases; how not wade into what might be out of one's depth. How not to commit the "sin of pride" or simply, in some ways, play the fool.
My overall impression of JFK remains positive, but I get that he had a creepy side. I think he still looks good compared to Bush II or Trump, and that social justice was more or less expanding under his watch. Vietnam was another strategic and moral disaster, in ways that I think still haunt us, but Kennedy was not the war's sole promoter, though he probably could have stopped it. I am unaware of any president of salient consequence that did not have a creepy side; TR, FDR? I hold some strong criticism of Obama for his seeming over-coddling of banks, his proposed "chained CPI" and the "TPP". Lincoln seemed phobic of black people, though he courageously defended their political rights. I condemn Nixon, but not as much as Reagan. I both admire and criticize Biden. I desperately want him to win.
"Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time." - Churchill
The Mossadegh overthrow is The Major Plot Point for all Mideastern history. Had Mossadegh and his western-style "British Labour Party" government succeeded, taking back their natural resources and using them for a democratic , secular, moderniztion of Iran, it would have changed the following history by its success. None of what we deal with now would have ever developed and democratic secular governments might be the rule through the middle east. Eisenhower listened to the idiots at Can't Investigate Anything, who were all onboard with British MI6 to protect British Petroleum's "property" in Iran. The big problem was the "mid-Atlantic ruling class" types in the CIA saw themselves and the Pax Americana as the logical successor to the Pax Britannica.
JFK was a "light" defender of McCarthy, but RFK Sr actually worked for the committee.
As far as social justice expanding under JFK - he was dragged kicking and screaming to support civil rights, which he (correctly) saw as the thing that would destroy the Democrats "Solid South." The real social justice warrior was LBJ throughout his political career.
LBJ, Senator from.... Texas. Some things don't change but a lot has.
LBJ - raised a "poor boy" in Texas. Elected to Congress in 1934 as a supporter of the New Deal.
My understanding is that the Vietnam debacle kinda pulled the rug from under LBJ's anti-poverty initiative.
It very much did once the Republicans recovered from the debacle of 1964 in the 1966 off-year, defeating all the Democrats in the House who had won Republican districts (they were the progressives who voted for the War on Poverty)and cutting down the Democratic House vote - when there were still "Southern Democrats" to vote against the War on Poverty to make a majority against.