Does History Matter?

Via Ezra Klein, George Packer gets into my favorite hobby of wondering why comparing someone to JFK is supposed to me a good thing:

J.F.K. was a mediocre President. For two and a half years his position on civil rights was legalistic—he stood up for enforcing court orders—until the dramatic images from Birmingham in May 1963 forced him to describe the issue as a moral one. The civil-rights bill he then introduced into Congress stood little chance of passing partly because Kennedy was unwilling to spend the huge amount of necessary political capital. For those who believe he was on his way out of Vietnam when he was assassinated, how to explain the dramatic coup three weeks before his death that overthrew the government of Ngo Dinh Diem and pulled the U.S. ever deeper into the quagmire? Kennedy’s main domestic accomplishment was a tax cut; his main foreign accomplishment was avoiding nuclear war over Soviet missiles in Cuba (his finest hour).

All I'd observe is that it's actually common for invocations of the heroes of the past to be someone vacuous. FDR-praising liberals typically don't have the details of the New Deal legislative program in mind or any particular inclination to reinstitute something like the National Industrial Recovery Act. Similarly, it's been noted ad nauseam that the historical Ronald Reagan doesn't greatly resemble the Reagan Myth the right has constructed. At the end of the day, there's probably not much point in worrying too much about the strict accuracy of our comparisons.

Comments

Every writer should be allowed 200 uses of the the expression "at the end of the day" in their lifetime. You've used yours up.

Posted by Zippy | February 6, 2008 1:29 PM

On the FDR front, it strikes me that the praise is really for an attitude as much as a specific mix of policies. The details aren't always essential for making someone praiseworthy when the basic idea of the policy is both correct and ambitious, and when the rhetoric moved both the debate and the political atmosphere of its day in the right direction.

Posted by jhupp | February 6, 2008 1:32 PM

Frankly, this extract just proves Packer is either an idiot or totally ignorant of history.

JFK came very, very close to starting a global nuclear war with the Russians for no logical reason, a war that probably would have killed tens of millions of Americans. This was already discussed at length on a previous comment thread, but I guess Packer doesn't visit Matt's blogsite.

Suppose Bush came exceptionally close to starting a global nuclear war. Would sensible future historians then describe his stupid tax policies as the worst aspect of his disastrous presidency?

Posted by RKU | February 6, 2008 1:36 PM

Wasn't there that minor little thing called the Peace Corps? And something about the Moon...what was that again?

Those are just two specific examples of how JFK helped the nation see itself as something more than just a bunch of people trying to make a buck. Compare and contrast to W.

Perhaps on specific policies, JFK was "mediocre", but you can't deny he was inspirational. That's what politicians view being compared to JFK as a good thing.

Posted by Edo | February 6, 2008 1:39 PM

Of course we should worry about accuracy. Inaccuracies allow the Reagan myth to flourish and pervert our politicial discourse to the extent that even some Democrats feel they have to reach for the mantle of Golden Ron.

In 1980, Ronnie ran a very decisive, rouse the base, anti-Carter campaign. It was NOT morning in america (that came later). But the myth of Reagan allows Republicans and Democrats alike to forget that he was a very partisan figure who did little to "unite" the country.

Posted by Columbia | February 6, 2008 1:42 PM

His standing up to the military chiefs during the bay of pigs operation and the cuban missle crisis make him a god amongst American presidents. He didn't lose his head and he faced down the irrational beasts.

Posted by Northern Observer | February 6, 2008 1:44 PM

I think what Matt's discussion lacks is an understanding of the difference between ideology (for lack of a better word) and specific policy accomplishments. Reagan, FDR, and, to a lesser extend, JFK, all dramatically shifted the conventional wisdom of the nation about what the government can and should do.

Whether the specific policy manifestations of the ideological shifts these presidents ushered in were good or poor or even actually fit within the new ideological framework ends up being historically less important. They changed the terms of debate. They changed the underlying assumptions of the debate. That ended up mattering more "at the end of the day," as it were.

Thus, I think the myths surrounding these men are simultaneously instructive and complete bullshit.

Posted by Rob Mac | February 6, 2008 1:47 PM

You have perfectly illustrated why JFK is overrated. Peace Corps is a nice little program that makes it's participants feel good and might make minor improvements in the communities affected. It has done little to nothing to enhance America's image in the world. Most of its benefits are felt by the young people who join, yet it's given credit for showing a "nicer face". A teensy program like this is great (domestic) PR but doesn't even compare to all the other stuff we do. Nor has it been shown the alumni of the program become better or more caring citizens of our own country.

The moon landing, in my view, is a boondoggle that has gotten our nation little in the way of benefits. but it sure did look cool! Again, image over substance (when compared to programs such as the civil rights act, social security, food stamps, federal highways, etc, etc).

Posted by Columbia | February 6, 2008 1:47 PM

Obama's running a campaign based on the idea that people want to be inspired by and feel good about their leaders after 8 years of crap sandwiches and cynicism (and possibly more depending on their feelings about Clinton I). It's not terribly substantive, but it may not be the worst idea in the world, either. That and his youth draw the inevitable JFK comparisons.

FDR and JFK served a long time ago. Drawing policy comparisons between them and modern candidates would be a largely meaningless exercise--the best you would be able to do would be to draw vague philosophical connections, or talk about who reminds you of whom in a personal sense, which is what's going on here.

Posted by Jake H. | February 6, 2008 1:52 PM

At the end of the day, there's probably not much point in worrying too much about the strict accuracy of our comparisons.

Except that it allows us, as we march forward into a glorious future, to forget the terrible things we've done in the past. A little self-knowledge, and an accurate understanding of history, is probably impossible and probably wouldn't do much good anyway. But there's a slim chance it might prevent us from always assuming that we're right, that everyone is grateful for the role we play in international affairs, etc.

For example, it would be educational to spend as much time on Kennedy's habit of plotting the assassinations of foreign heads of state and other foreign opponents as we do on his inspirational rhetoric. It would be useful to spend as much time explaining how Kennedy helped provoke the Cuban Missile Crisis as we spend explaining how he helped avert nuclear war.

Posted by JB | February 6, 2008 1:53 PM

"Nor has it been shown the alumni of the program become better or more caring citizens of our own country."

Evidently you've never met Mr. Christopher Matthews, extraordinary American and refreshing, unbiased, even-tempered commentator on the political scene.

Posted by Andruw | February 6, 2008 1:55 PM

I think everyone is missing the point. The comparison between Sen. Obama and President Kennedy is about charisma. President Kennedy's legacy has become a political football for a variety of reasons but what can't be denied is the late President's charisma and style. Obama has some of those same qualities - the beautiful young family, the (seemingly) effortless style and smoothness, the quick wit, etc. No other Presidential candidate has combined the same sort of qualities in 40 years, even Robert Kennedy didn't have the same sort of charisma as JFK. Personally, I think Obama is actually something between JFK and Bobby Kennedy as a Presidential candidate - he has the JFK charisma combined with the RFK ability to cross boundaries that other candidates can't cross-over.In any case, you should be able to talk about candidates as candidates and Presidents as Presidents without confusing the two.

Posted by dave.reese | February 6, 2008 2:04 PM

Partisans on both sides care more about winning than about policy, so they revere presidents who were popular. People liked JFK -- he squeaked by in 60, but he probably would have won re-election easily. And of course, he made the outstanding career move of dying young. FDR, Reagan, also very popular.

Posted by too many steves | February 6, 2008 2:09 PM

Thinking a bit more about things, I'd say that Matt and most of the commenters here really don't give our current President the credit he deserves.

Sure, he's made a few major mistakes here and there. But---so far at least!---he's avoided a major war with Iran, which would have had totally disastrous consequences both for America and the world.

Clearly, Bush's policy of "no war against Iran" is so significant that it balances out all of his other numerous failures combined...

Posted by RKU | February 6, 2008 2:09 PM

Perhaps on specific policies, JFK was "mediocre", but you can't deny he was inspirational

And this is precisely the problem. JFK created in the American people a modern addiction to "inspirational" presidents. Perhaps we'd be better off if we traded inspiration for competence. Plenty of people were "inspired" by Reagan and GW Bush and turned out to vote for them. I think that is certainly a problem. And hoping that every candidate be the second coming of JFK in his ability to "inspire" us leads us down some bad paths.

Posted by Tyro | February 6, 2008 2:12 PM

Of course, charisma without substance is totally useless. Which is why the "bad side" of the Kennedy equation is also instructive.

Personally, I'd rather have a president who got stuff done that mattered to actual people's lives than one that looked really great as he was talking about moon landings.

Posted by Columbia | February 6, 2008 2:14 PM

His standing up to the military chiefs during the bay of pigs operation
Huh?!?!?! If he'd truly "stood up" to them early on the whole thing would never have happened!

I think what Matt's discussion lacks is an understanding of the difference between ideology (for lack of a better word) and specific policy accomplishments. Reagan, FDR, and, to a lesser extend, JFK, all dramatically shifted the conventional wisdom of the nation about what the government can and should do.

Under this model, I still don't get the Kennedy thing.

The real Roosevelt was a politically effective liberal with compromises, and the mythical Roosevelt becomes a paragon of the ideal liberal. The real Reagan was a politically effective conservative with compromises, and the mythical Reagan becomes a paragon of the ideal conservative. This is a completely unremarkable example of how history becomes myth.

But the real Kennedy was a president with a lot more charisma than substance who got killed before he accomplished anything, and so the mythical Kennedy becomes .. what? People feeling real good about being involved in politics without caring whether they actually accomplish anything? I can see why many candidates would like to use his methods to get themselves elected, but not why anyone would admit it....

Posted by Ralph Phelan | February 6, 2008 2:15 PM

It would be useful to spend as much time explaining how Kennedy helped provoke the Cuban Missile Crisis as we spend explaining how he helped avert nuclear war.

Word. It is bizarre how people act as though the missile crisis can be considered in isolation from say the Bay of Pigs.

Posted by er | February 6, 2008 2:15 PM

The comparison between Sen. Obama and President Kennedy is about charisma.

So does that mean that Obama's public persona is also a phony construct enabled by, among other things, a compliant press corps?

(BTW, I don't think Obama's a phony, i.e., the answer to my question is "no". I just think if one is going to draw such comparisons, you have to take the bad with the good.)

Posted by Glenn | February 6, 2008 2:25 PM

The whole idea of presidents as heroes annoys me. Presidents run a bureaucracy, they should be good bureaucrats.

Posted by miguel | February 6, 2008 2:28 PM

Kennedy's support for civil rights, though perhaps half-hearted, was major turning point, and it was not inevitable. I clearly remember that the conventional wisdom in 1963 was very ginger about civil rights -- most liberals and Democrats thought that things were "going too fast". Since the Civil War the Democrats had been the party of the white South, and Kennedy broke with that. Johnson finished it up, but you can't blame Kennedy for being dead in 1965. And Johnson would not have been surprised to be told that 7 of the next 10 Presidential terms would be Republican, or that the 3 Democratic Presidents would be white Southerners.

On the war in Vietnam I think that Matt is right.

Posted by John Emerson | February 6, 2008 2:37 PM

Perhaps we'd be better off if we traded inspiration for competence.

Wanting people to stop looking for inspiration from political leaders is about as realistic as setting up an economy based as on the principle of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." It sounds great, but there are several thousand years of human nature standing in the way.

Posted by Led | February 6, 2008 2:40 PM

People also underestimate the symbolic power of a Catholic President. It's hard for people to imagine a time when prejudice against white Catholics was a major factor, but WASP domination was pretty complete before 1960. (I actually think that the term WASP should be retired at the national level, though in high society and among the super-rich it may still have some meaning).

John A. Gronouski was the first Polish cabinet member ever. That really made a difference at the time.

Posted by John Emerson | February 6, 2008 2:44 PM

For those who idealize FDR, please go read When Affirmtive Action Was White by Ira Katznelson. The author is a progressive who shows how the New Deal and Jim Crow were intertwined. It is very sobering.

Posted by MGJ | February 6, 2008 2:46 PM

Agreed, Led. Though one way might be to try to stop making the president look like a political leader.

Seriously, do you think voters were clamoring for a "leader" when they elected Harding or Coolidge?

Posted by Tyro | February 6, 2008 2:46 PM

You have perfectly illustrated why JFK is overrated. Peace Corps is a nice little program...

Way to ignore the larger point. And if you think the "moon landing" was the end all be all of the space program then wev.

Posted by Edo | February 6, 2008 2:49 PM

Similarly, it's been noted ad nauseam that the historical Ronald Reagan doesn't greatly resemble the Reagan Myth the right has constructed.

Count me as a fan of the historical Reagan. The one who cut taxes, but tweaked them upwards, when necessary (still resulting in a large overall cut). The one who decided the middle east was too primitive and irrational to warrant American involvement. The brinksman who had no intention of actual involvement in any significant wars. The federalist who said "Government is not the solution, it's the problem," and "Concentrated power is the enemy of liberty." (note that last point, GW)

Regarding JFK: the notion that he was a mediocre president is pretty widespread on the right, but I tend to disagree. His performance (and that of his brother) in the Cuban Missile Crisis was nothing short of miraculous.

Maybe he only did one thing right--but it was just about the most difficult and important thing he could have done.

Presidents run a bureaucracy, they should be good bureaucrats.

Presidents also run a state, which is a far more important function.

Posted by Shinyk | February 6, 2008 2:49 PM

No Edo I got the point. kennedy put forward meaningless programs that made little practical differences in people's lives but - gosh darnit! - we sure did feel good about ourselves. My point was that that is hardly an accomplishment. When my preferred singer wins on American Idol, I feel good about myself too, but self-esteem is not a governing philosophy.

Posted by Columbia | February 6, 2008 3:04 PM

It is absolutely fascinating that so many of the commentators who - rightfully - mock the Republicans for their fixation on Reagan, nevertheless go gaga over the "Kennedy mystique."

If you are an outdated fart because you remain fixated on Reagan, then you are at least twice that if your fixation is the Kennedys.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | February 6, 2008 3:10 PM

Obama is like Kennedy in that both make people want to be more idealistic. It's not just self-esteem. It's about feeling part of something bigger than yourself - something important. Hillary is of the past - Obama is for the future.

Posted by fasteddie | February 6, 2008 3:18 PM

No Edo I got the point. kennedy put forward meaningless programs...

Clearly you didn't get the point.

Posted by Edo | February 6, 2008 3:18 PM

Shinyk, the argument against Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis is that there shouldn't have been a crisis in the first place. I'm not sure I necessaily buy that, but it's not absurd.

Posted by AlanC9 | February 6, 2008 3:22 PM

It should be noted that many inventions that we consider necessities came about from the space progam so in that sense they did have an impact on ordinary Americans. The space program was created along with expanding science education as a result of the Russian being succesful foray with Sputnik. Kennedy wanted Americans to be advanced in the sciences. So we should not be entirely dismissive of everything he has done.

FYI-people should stop saying that Obama has no substance when they don't even bother going to his website and check to see what he stands for. This complaint is getting really old.

Posted by MGJ | February 6, 2008 3:29 PM

It should be noted that many inventions that we consider necessities came about from the space progam so in that sense they did have an impact on ordinary Americans. The space program was created along with expanding science education as a result of the Russian being succesful foray with Sputnik. Kennedy wanted Americans to be advanced in the sciences. So we should not be entirely dismissive of everything he has done.

FYI-people should stop saying that Obama has no substance when they don't even bother going to his website and check to see what he stands for. This complaint is getting really old.

Posted by MGJ | February 6, 2008 3:29 PM

It should be noted that many inventions that we consider necessities came about from the space progam so in that sense they did have an impact on ordinary Americans. The space program was created along with expanding science education as a result of the Russian being succesful foray with Sputnik. Kennedy wanted Americans to be advanced in the sciences. So we should not be entirely dismissive of everything he has done.

FYI-people should stop saying that Obama has no substance when they don't even bother going to his website and check to see what he stands for. This complaint is getting really old.

Posted by MGJ | February 6, 2008 3:30 PM

Shinyk, the argument against Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis is that there shouldn't have been a crisis in the first place. I'm not sure I necessaily buy that, but it's not absurd.

I've heard that one, Alan, but I find it a bit far-fetched to say Kruschev wouldn't have put missiles in Cuba if Kennedy had removed the offending American batteries beforehand.

Posted by Shinyk | February 6, 2008 3:41 PM

They may WANT to be more idealistic, but if that doesn't translate into actually doing something idealistic or focusing that energy.... well than it's just an exercise in self-esteem. And I have yet to see the "legions" of inspired Obama fans do something besides ... vote for Obama.

Posted by Columbia | February 6, 2008 3:43 PM

Personally, I find Eisenhower a more appealing President from a liberal perspective than Kennedy.

Eisenhower warned against the destructive effects of the military-industrial complex, and urged restraint in military spending. "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." Kennedy and Nixon both ran far to Eisenhower's right in 1960. (Remember the "missile gap"?) Eisenhower was right and Kennedy/Nixon were wrong; a strong civilian economy was far more important to defeating the USSR than military meddling throughout the Third World.

Kennedy gave drastic income-tax cuts to the wealthy. Eisenhower didn't.

Kennedy founded the Peace Corps and the space program. Eisenhower founded the interstate highway system. Now, I've never been to the Moon, but I sure have driven on plenty of interstate highways. Wise investments in infrastructure are far more appealing to me than flashy dick-measuring contests like the space race.

During Eisenhower's administration, union density hit an all-time high in American history.

Both Eisenhower and Kennedy were willing to enforce court decisions and stop the worst excesses of Southern segregationists, but neither were willing to push the envelope. That task would fall to LBJ, who sacrificed his own political future and that of his party to accomplish the fulfillment of American ideals.

Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren, the greatest Supreme Court justice of the 20th century.

I'd take Eisenhower over any modern-day Republican and over half the Democrats.

Posted by Josh G. | February 6, 2008 3:48 PM

They may WANT to be more idealistic, but if that doesn't translate into actually doing something idealistic or focusing that energy.... well than it's just an exercise in self-esteem. And I have yet to see the "legions" of inspired Obama fans do something besides ... vote for Obama.

Personally, I find it very odd that people are saying, suddenly, that Obama is only about being inspiring. He has good policy, too - especially foreign policy. He said very early on, for example, that he would talk to foreign leaders without preconditions, unlike Bush.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | February 6, 2008 3:57 PM

why comparing someone to JFK is supposed to me a good thing

Well, don't know about anyone else, but it definitely turns this person off when they do that. Pushing someone as the second coming of this or that mythical hero makes me suspect that person is lacking something to enable them to create their own individual image of strengths.

And in addition to that, the farther back in time the model is, the more stupid the whole shtick seems, as many history books have inevitably been written that deconstruct the mythical hero as having human faults, at the same time as buyers into the myth are dying off. They need to take Andy Warhol lessons or something about making their own star. If you don't have your own charisma, it doesn't work with me to try to take someone else's pre-deconstruction charisma.

Put it this way, would you be interested in a musician being sold as "the second coming of John Lennon"?

Posted by artappraiser | February 6, 2008 3:58 PM

Once again, everyone is wanting to engage in an argument on the relative merits of a Presidency versus one's relative merits as a Presidential candidate. The two are not necessarily connected - especially when one considers someone running for a first term Presidency. Whatever individuals perceive about JFK's performance as President, comparing someone's style as a candidate has little to no bearing, directly or indirectly, on whether or not the individual will be successful as a President. Is Obama's appeal as a candidate somewhat similar as the electorate found appealing about JFK and/or RFK? Yes. Does that mean that Obama is JFK/RFK? No. Is it a good thing to be compared to a JFK/RFK when it comes to campaigning? Absolutely. They were great campaigners. What one accomplishes in office is a completely different matter. You've got to have something as a candidate before you even get a chance to be President. Name a crappy candidate who was a great President? You can't. Crappy candidates don't get elected.

Posted by dave.reese | February 6, 2008 4:27 PM

Didn't JFK precipitate the Cuban Missile Crisis in the first place by provoking the Soviets with missiles in Turkey? At best, avoiding a nuclear war he almost provoked sounds like a push.

Posted by Fred | February 6, 2008 5:23 PM

dave reese:

Wouldn't you rather compare yourself to someone who ran an effective campaign then became a good President than to someone who ran an effective campaign then got us into Vietnam and almost started WWIII?

Posted by Ralph Phelan | February 6, 2008 5:30 PM

Ralph Phelan:

First, Obama hasn't been making these comparisons, others have made these observations. I know I have since his Iowa victory speech. Second, who else are Democrats going to drag out to use to describe the appeal of Obama? He's running against a Clinton so Bill is out. I wouldn't think Dukakis, Carter, McGovern, Humphrey, or Johnson would be very positive examples, although I think Johnson and Carter have been harshly rated but let's stay out of that argument. If you go back further, your stuck with a curmudgeonly (and never particularly popular while serving as President) Truman who makes today's partisan rhetoric seem like lovers' pillow talk or FDR who was certainly a dynamic political figure in '32 and '36 but that was at a time when he's ability to walk could be hidden and everything was based on his oratory ability. Also, by the time he died, Roosevelt was the a picture of walking death. Oh, I guess we can include Wilson. Do you remember anything about Wilson's campaigning style? I know I don't and I'll bet no one else here does either. So, if people, or something worse than people such as teevee pundits, radio hosts, or bloggers, seek a quick and easy example of a former candidate to compare, quality-wise, to a current candidate who has loads of personal charisma there isn't much choice other than a Kennedy.

Posted by dave.reese | February 6, 2008 7:01 PM

There is a problem with George Packer - a man who whined for war in Iraq then complained when he got what he wanted - He was phony when he complained to be surprised by Bush's actions.

Posted by Comment | February 6, 2008 10:39 PM

So Glenn indicates he thinks Kennedy (and Obama) was not really charismatic, then he changes his mind - That's the summary of this whole thread.

Posted by Comment | February 6, 2008 10:43 PM

"There is a problem with George Packer - a man who whined for war in Iraq then complained when he got what he wanted - He was phony when he complained to be surprised by Bush's actions."

That characterization applies to what's-his-name too, the one who looks like he could be Ezra Klein's big brother. The one with the gap between his front choppers... Ah, I'm having a brain cramp. You guys know who I'm talking about. Jew, liberal, former Iraq hawk, DC pundit, mid-thirties, wrote a book about how smart Democrats are about foreign policy...

Posted by Fred | February 7, 2008 1:17 AM

I agree that JFK is inaccurately deified, but you have to admit that avoiding an all-out nuclear war, at a time when that was looking like a very plausible scenario, is a pretty big accomplishment. Nothing else would have much mattered if he'd blown that one. Just as a thought experiment, consider the likely outcome if W had been the president at that time? It's pretty easy to imagine us all in cinders as a result.

Posted by beckya57 | February 7, 2008 1:56 AM

Re: Matt's post, "...there's probably not much point in worrying too much about the strict accuracy of our comparisons."

History matters. Iraq is not Vietnam. Obama is not Kennedy. Neither Hillary nor McCain is Eisenhower.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 7, 2008 3:20 AM

First, Obama hasn't been making these comparisons, others have made these observations.

Yeah, but many of those others claim to be his supporters.

Second, who else are Democrats going to drag out to use to describe the appeal of Obama?

Say he's unprecedented and unique?

I suppose using the comparison makes sense given the existence of the Kennedy myth, it's the Kennedy myth I have a problem with.

I was going to say I don't get the Kennedy myth, but I do ... it's a lot like the James Dean myth. They both died too young to ever disappoint their fans the way real humans always do, and will live forever in that first glow of hoped-for potential.

Here's hoping Obama's life goes differently, and he gets to enjoy a full political career and end up a cynical, cranky old bastard with a legion of disappointed ex-fans and betrayed ex-allies on both the left and the right. Kinda like John McCain or Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | February 7, 2008 8:06 AM