JFK on being a liberal - countering the GOP spin that JFK was conservative in the mold of today's GOP
At Eloy's suggestion, I have decided to make this comment that I wrote for this diary into a diary by itself. I have added to my original comment.
I wrote this comment/diary to refute an argument made by a person named Frances Rice that appeared in a letter to the (Sarasota) Herald Tribune
First, you need to evaluate Kennedy and his definition of liberalism in his own words, not the words as interpreted by a "conservative".
JFK's
Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
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."
I recommend clicking on the link and reading the entire speech.
However, the following passage may be one piece of evidence that the so-called conservatives are twisting to further their argument about JFK.
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."
The problem is, JFK makes it clear in an earlier sentence that, in his opinion, liberalism is not a "set of policies, or platform promises" but "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." Looking at what Kennedy said, it's clear that Frances Rice misses the point about what liberalism is and how Kennedy would not be a conservative in the GOP mold.
Kennedy believed, at the time, that lowering taxes was the right thing to do to advance the cause of liberalism. If, however, raising taxes were required, IMO, it is clear that JFK would have gone that route. This is, incidentally, how a lot of Democrats have always felt (about taxes).
What irks me most, however, is how Frances Rice tries to frame the Democratic Party in his or her list of what the Democratic Party supports. I'm not going to perpetuate the myth promoted by Rice and undoubtedly copied from a Limbaugh email by recreating the list here. I'll just refute it with the following: Democrats know that the party is not pro-tax, we are pro-growth and pro-responsible government. Democrats know too that we are on the correct side of cultural issues. We are pro equal rights for all (which is why civil-unions or outright marriage are not opposed by Democrats in general); we are pro-life in that we want to reduce abortions (but not make them illegal since we respect individual liberty) while also ensuring that those children who are born have an equal chance to succeed in their lives; we are for keeping America safe from threats abroad, ergot the Democratic proposal for a Homeland Security Department (initially opposed by the GOP until it was co-opted); and, like JFK, we're against the mixing of church and state, but contrary to what people like Rice want others to believe, we do not propose banning god from the public square.
Consider this statement by JFK:
It is my firm belief that there should be separation of church and state as we understand it in the United States -- that is, that both church and state should be free to operate, without interference from each other in their respective areas of jurisdiction. We live in a liberal, democratic society which embraces wide varieties of belief and disbelief. There is no doubt in my mind that the pluralism which has developed under our Constitution, providing as it does a framework within which diverse opinions can exist side by side and by their interaction enrich the whole, is the most ideal system yet devised by man. I cannot conceive of a set of circumstances which would lead me to a different conclusion.
-- John F. Kennedy, letter to Glenn L. Archer, February 23, 1959, from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom
That statement alone would place JFK outside of mainstream GOP thought.
People like Rice are simply doing one thing: they are trying to co-opt or twist the beliefs of a politician who remains popular with their Democratic opponents in order to say that there never has been a 'liberal' philosophy. The GOP wants to perpetuate the belief that the Democratic Party is a party of policies, not core beliefs, when in fact the party that seems to lack core beliefs is the GOP (how else can Bush's nomination be explained). The problem with the Democratic Party isn't it's beliefs, it's the Democratic Party's recent inability to articulate those beliefs in a way that makes it through the filter of the RWCM. In addition to the foregoing, Rice's lame attempt to frame today's Democratic Party also serves as a vehicle to perpetuate the victim mentality of today's GOP. This GOP mentality, however, requires one to ignore the reality that the GOP currently holds all of the reigns of power at the federal level.
After reading what JFK actually said, it's clear to me that JFK's politics have no home in today's GOP, since today's GOP, as evidenced by its actions, not words, has no interest whatsoever in "increas[ing] for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves" -- i.e. the core belief of JFK's liberalism.
Bush's "freedom on the march" and the GOP's attempt to re-invent itself as the party of civil rights (in words with window dressing, not in good deeds that have a positive effect on society) does not cut it.
Note: For some time I have actually wanted to write about the Kennedy political legacy more from the RFK perspective than the JFK perspective, since I feel that RFK's 1968 campaign has resonated through today's politics by influencing both major political parties (in different ways of course). Maybe I'll get to do that at a later date, but for now I'm limiting myself to dealing with this individual wingnut.