Did American liberalism die with JFK? It's an interesting thesis, that so many so-called liberals want to delude themselves that he was a victim of the right wing and homegrown reaction, rather than of a communist and the Cold War.

Wow! And I've always thought JFK was shot by a lone whacko without any larger conspiracy in involving Manichean forces of good and evil.

So, Bill, do you think that his "whacko"ness was completely unrelated to, and unalloyed with, his devotion to Soviet communism? That the latter played no part whatsoever in his motive in murdering the American president?

I see moving goalposts here. When dealing with lone whackos the phrase "played no part whatsoever" is pretty hard to prove or disprove. Inside that twisted mind, perhaps he thought he heard Karl Marx speaking to him from the grave.

I dunno, and neither do you.

Anyway, it's more that until today I hadn't ever even considered the idea that JFK was a victim of the home grown right wing. I do vividly recall the day JFK was shot. I was four years old and I remember my mother crying.

And until today the idea that JFK was shot by a home grown right winger was something I never thought anyone took seriously.

...until today the idea that JFK was shot by a home grown right winger was something I never thought anyone took seriously.

Then you don't spend much time on Kennedy conspiracy web sites (and be glad you don't).

I always find the refusal to face the Lee Harvey Oswald motive interesting. He really wasn't ideological. He wanted to be important. First as a famous general. Then when the Marines kicked him out as a Soviet spy. When they kicked him out, he tried being a mercenary – etc. But he stayed a nobody – until he bagged himself the biggest truph buck a hunter could bag, a world famous president. He was so proud of himself he could hardly keep from puffing him self up and smiling when asked if he killed the president.

Course that was just to horrible and unacceptably petty a way for Camelot to end. So for generations folks have searched for any other possible reason, unwilling to face the truth.

At the remove of forty-five years, the details of how John Kennedy died are no longer germane.

What is interesting is how present-day "liberals" have gone from "pay any price, bear any burden" to "that's too haaaaaaard and too expeeeeeensive, let's just quit" in a generation.

Regards,
Ric

What is interesting is how present-day "liberals" have gone from "pay any price, bear any burden" to "that's too haaaaaaard and too expeeeeeensive, let's just quit" in a generation.

I see it as being exactly the other way around . . .

Today's neo-cons just want to toss a few JDAMS or Tomahawks and announce "mission accomplished" and avoid getting dirty fingernails from the serious business of nation building.

Ric: What is interesting is how present-day "liberals" have gone from "pay any price, bear any burden" to "that's too haaaaaaard and too expeeeeeensive, let's just quit" in a generation.

The latter are centrists, not liberals.

Rand: "It's an interesting thesis, that so many so-called liberals want to delude themselves that he was a victim of the right wing and homegrown reaction, rather than of a communist and the Cold War."

He was a victim of a nut, and that nut had rather curious associations for a communist. But while it's true the notion of conspiracy is seductive in this case, nothing says parsimony and paranoia can never be in the same ballpark. Leaving aside the massive persecutory fantasies of Oliver Stone, is it truly that implausible to suggest that a handful of people in the intelligence community who had been involved in political murders overseas might kill their own president? There's no specific evidence for it apart from circumstantial, but it does get a little silly listening to some pseudo-skeptics affectedly giggle at the notion like it's wildly ridiculous--as if stone-cold psychopaths are awed by American soil.

There is a mirror image to conspiracy theorism known as "denialism," and while generally less prevalent than its counterpart, it does show up strongly among people who value the forms of rationality over its substance. Whereas a conspiracy theorist has an overactive sense of human agency, attributing powers to groups and individuals far beyond reality, a denialist's notion of agency is largely suppressed. They tend to be conservative, highly patriotic, institutional thinkers who are always ready to minimize damage to their own worldview with highly dubious rationalizations. Unfortunately, most of the skeptical scholarship on the Kennedy assassination exhibits some level of this mentality, so the curious amateur is left trying to squeeze facts out of opposing delusions.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Oswald was a disturbed loner who did some off-books intelligence work for cash, got involved with Cuban exiles he admired, and decided he wanted to impress them. But it also wouldn't surprise me if they were involved, nor if they had support from some clique in the defense community. There's that old proverb about war being politics by other means, but the reverse is also true. No matter how civilized a system is, it inevitably comes down to raw power at some point.

I thought it was the left demanding the end of nation building lately.

Between the time of the assassination and the arrest of the assassin, it was widely assumed by left-wingers, and in some cases even reported, that the assassin was a right-winger. It turned out he was a left-winger. It is the resulting cognitive dissonance among left-wingers, and the failure to get past it, that did the damage.

The question is, was this damage what reduced "liberalism" to the pitiable state in which we find it today. I think it was a symptom rather than a cause. I think "liberalism" decided "reality" was more trouble than it was worth much earlier.

BS: "It wouldn't surprise me at all if Oswald was a disturbed loner who ...."

So you wouldn't be surprised if Oswald was the creation of evil America?

We're not surprised that you believe that either.

Cecil: So you wouldn't be surprised if Oswald was the creation of evil America?

What are you babbling about now?

We're not surprised that you believe that either.

I'm not surprised at your incoherence.

Never mind JFK and Oswald. Please explain the "Did American liberalism die" part of the post.

BS "What are you babbling about now?"

Can't remember your own posts? Lay off the bong.

Whether American "liberalism" (better called statism) died with Kennedy or not. American plutocracy sure didn't.

Whether American "liberalism" (better called statism) died with Kennedy or not. American plutocracy sure didn't.

Sorry about double post.