Fifty Years On

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.
            President John F. Kennedy

Fifty years ago today, in the city of Dallas, the president of the United States died.  From a historian point of view, births and deaths are seldom discussed or noteworthy.  Yet, a man holding the most powerful position in the world, a man whose greatest promise was his youth and the time he possibly had in office, draws people in and invites them to delve into his achievements, his beliefs and his legacy.  I have my opinion on conspiracy theories, especially those related to the death of the president, however, they are beyond the point and not relevant.  What is relevant is what President John Fitzgerald Kennedy meant as a part of the American story and his role in the history he made and world he helped create.  

Among historians, it is often said that forty to fifty years are required to properly assess an event or individual.  So, it is with some historical certainty that I offer these thoughts.  From the beginning, John Kennedy was a classic New England liberal but one with conservative fiscal policies – today, what we would call the kind of left-leaning centrist that was instrumental to the approach of President Bill Clinton.  He had a compelling personal story as a member of one of the richest, most powerful American families.  He was a World War II veteran who served the dangerous duty of captain of a PT boat in the Pacific patrolling against the Japanese navy.  He had a beautiful family, including a glamorous wife and adorable children.  While southern Democrats bemoaned the Catholic, northern liberal, he made inroads into the South thanks to his vice presidential candidate, Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas. 

Politically, he is most discussed on two levels – his relationship with the Soviet Union and his actions dealing with civil rights.  President Kennedy’s record against Nikita Khrushchev was spotty at best.  His greatest highlight against the Soviets is undoubtedly the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis where the president displayed an intestinal fortitude greater than many of his critics imaged.  However, he flubbed horribly during the Bay of Pigs incident the year before and in a showdown with the Soviets over Berlin that led to the creation of a wall.  With regards to civil rights, he was reluctant to join the fray, fearing a backlash of southern discontent in the 1964 re-election bid.  He balked at James Meredith’s attempt to enter Ole Miss and he was not supportive of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s march on the capital.  It was this failing that led to some of his dreadful approval numbers prior to his death. 

In hindsight, his presidency when taken as a whole was not terribly productive.  One could say he did not have enough time and that is certainly a valid point but some presidents have done much more with less time.  Yet, his death created a mystique and aura that may only be available to us wrapped in nostalgia and our wonder of what could have been.  Some say that he was interested in scaling back in Vietnam but his increase of military advisors to the South’s government does not suggest he was making any serious exit strategies.  It is interesting to speculate how different his legacy would have been had he survived and won re-election.  Without the threat of another election, he could have been more decisive with civil rights, unions (part of a general centrist/right leaning fiscal stance) and other important aspects of his philosophy.  

This anniversary of President Kennedy’s death, unfortunately, will be misdirected.  It has been said that more people visit the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas than visit his presidential library in Boston.  In that is not just a morbid curiosity of his dramatic death but a disregard or misrepresentation of his record.  His promise was never fully realized but that is not a criticism.  Many good men have filled the Oval Office and failed to manifest their greatest hopes and aspirations.  John F. Kennedy is simply one.  Today does not need to be a saturnine remembrance but a reminder of our best intentions. 

What’s in a Name?

Since the 1990s, various sports teams at all levels have gone through a transformation.  These teams were among those who had, as a nickname, some reference to Native Americans.  While various tribes have authorized some use as legitimate or while others benefit from their ambiguous names, others still find themselves in the crossfire.  Throughout the controversy, one team has been more criticized than others – the National Football League’s Washington Redskins.  While the pinnacle of opposition coincided with the team’s appearance in the Super Bowl in the early 1990s, there have been renewed attempts, namely the Oneida tribe, to convince the team’s ownership to change.  

There are three types of Native American-connected names the subject of debate over the last several decades.  One dealt with teams whose names are a direct reference to a tribe such as schools like the Utah Utes, Florida State Seminols and Eastern Michigan Chippawas.  The second are those who use as their moniker more indistinct names that do not reference a particular tribe such as MLB’s Atlanta Braves, NHL’s Chicago Blackhawks and NBA’s Golden State Warriors.  The last category are those who have used names that have either an obvious or vague racist tones such as the Redmen of St. John’s University, the Louisiana-Monroe Indians and the aforementioned Washington Redskins.  St. John’s and Louisiana-Monroe have changed their names but the football team that calls the nation’s capital its home has stood resolute. 

I do believe that racism exists and I do believe that the Washington Redskins are on the wrong side of this issue.  Its name is clearly a reference to the more racist connotations of days gone by.  Having said that, I’m reluctant to mandate a change.  In the 1960s, President John F. Kennedy used his muscle to force the Washington to accept black players, the last NFL team to do so.  A combination of political and economic forces compelled the team to do what public opinion did not.  However, if Washington changes its name, it must come from the marketplace.  I mentioned in an earlier article about the Boy Scouts of America that I feel a little queasy when organizations or individuals are forced to do something.  This is no different but I understand the backstory. 

For Native Americans, their recent history is one of societal, economic and political subjugation.  They have endured racism and worse, near ethnic annihilation.  Since the heyday of the Native American civil rights movement and the militancy of groups like the American Indian Movement (AIM), activists have tried to right wrongs.  For the most part, the American public has agreed and has supported changes that favor America’s indigenous population.  However, groups like AIM have not always been disciplined in their attacks and have subsequently unleashed their efforts on things that are questionable.  Therefore, when a real case emerges or a real argument is put forth, people have begun to tune it out.  This could be the case with the Washington Redskins.  

I don’t believe the team or its administrative staff are racists nor does it have a predilection towards racist overtones.  Yet, it would be better if Washington changed its name.  The Oneida tribe has made it clear that they are going to protest and push until the organization does so.  However, the fans have not been a part of the chorus, at least to the point where they have chosen not to attend games or purchase merchandise.  If the Oneida tribe can do what many other activists could not do – convince the fans that this is a racial issue – so be it and we are probably better off for it.  If they can’t, the name should remain the same.   

The American Dilemma

In 1964, in the wake of President John F. Kennedy’s death, Lyndon B. Johnson signed into the law the Civil Rights Act.  In short, it became illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, skin color, national origin, religion and gender.  It was the culmination of decades of work by civil rights activists and a step towards a promise fulfilled in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.  Since the passage of the law, the country has tried to live up to the best intentions of the act.  Perhaps, the country’s measure of progress is highlighted by the actions of “civil rights’ leaders” on issues of little racial importance.   

In light of the Treyvon Martin case, the acquittal of George Zimmerman and the context in which both transpired, we have a classic example of what has happened to the civil rights’ movement.  More importantly, we have an idea of what has happened to its standard bearers.  To put succinctly, the civil rights’ activists have turned what is not racism into racism and have turned a blind eye to the true issues that face the black community.  To exemplify their lack of interests in solving real issues and in the midst of all of the protests, gesticulations and prognostications, there is a demand for a “conversation” on race.  Generally, when someone tells me there needs to be a conversation, it is never a true conversation they seek.  What they seek is a one-way channel of dogma to be digested and swallowed whole.  Anything short of that and the labels come out, be it racist or whatever.   

Reverend Al Sharpton, a man who built his career as a racial ambulance chaser, throwing out racist epithets toward Jews and other groups, has somehow, by the media and other interested parties, been re-cast as an arbiter of racial harmony, justice and equality.  None of his actions seem to support that image.  Mr. Sharpton’s power stems from the continuation of outrage and victimhood, following a two-step process.  First, he turns his rage upon things that has little to do with racial justice or equality, such as the Duke lacrosse team rape fiasco or George Zimmerman.  The real threat, in his mind, lies outside the community and not within.  Second, he continues the role of outraged speaker, stoking and maintaining support by not focusing on the community.  In short, his support is based on finding fault with others.  Fortunately, not all black leaders have been so detached.

Actor, comedian and activist Bill Cosby has drawn much criticism for his remarks about how the black community needs to get its own house in order.  He has gone after parents who are failing in their job in raising their children.  He has attacked the black community for accepting that which denigrates them such as certain entertainment and community standards (teen pregnancy, single-parent homes and some music).  He has further faulted its leaders for not calling enough attention to the problems tearing at the fabric of black society.  In recent weeks, there has been much attention drawn to the fact that since Trayvon Martin was killed, hundreds of black youths were killed in Chicago alone at the hands of other black youth.  However, Mr. Sharpton has nothing to say about that.  There is no “day of outrage” or mass demonstrations throughout the country on this subject.  There are no speeches, no threats of boycotts on the city (as Mr. Sharpton has threatened on Florida) and no bombastic charges about the threat the city poses to the black community. 

Ultimately, tactics used by men like Mr. Sharpton are counter-productive – certainly for the black community.  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said that destructive means cannot create constructive ends.  However, the politics being played by the good reverend as hysteria over reason and thought have held the black community back, creating a perpetual victimhood mindset.  It has also created a national atomism that can be ultimately destructive for the country as a whole.  Let me be clear.  There are real examples of racism that need to be dealt with and done so in a way that fixes the problem and does not exacerbate already high emotions.  One who deals with racism must also keep the legacy of past leaders in mind.  They can do this by rationally addressing real concerns and not focusing on trivial (from a racial point of view) matters that only stoke fear and distrust. 

When a Red Line Isn’t

Il nous faut de l’audace, et encore de l’audace, et toujours de l’audace (We must have audacity, and again audacity, and every day audacity).
            Georges Danton, French revolutionary

Earlier this year, President Obama spoke with uncharacteristic frankness and unequivocally laid out the nature of possible American involvement in Syria.  Meanwhile, the world watched.  Would the Syrians be so daring as to unleash chemical weapons with such an explicit threat laid down by the president of the United States?  Meanwhile, Israel laid out its own red line, along the same criterion as the president.  Should the Syrian government use chemical weapons on its own people, it would respond.  Both the U.S. and Israel declared a “red line” drawn and should it be crossed, it promised military action.  The response has been telling. 

By April of this year, stories leaked that the besieged Syrian government had possibly done just that.  Once there was sufficient evidence of the chemical attack, President Obama equivocated by suggesting that his “red line” was not analogous to military action.  Israel, upon its “red line” being crossed, sent jets into Syria and bombed some of its research facilities for chemical weapons.  As Geddy Lee of the band Rush once said, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”  Both say something revealing.  From an international perspective, which lies beyond the partisan posturing within which American politicians often wallow, the message is that Israel is decisive and to be taken seriously and the U.S. is not. 

Throughout U.S. history, there have been warnings that stem from dithering presidents – Franklin Roosevelt in Spain, John F. Kennedy in Cuba, Jimmy Carter in Iran, to name a few.  Therefore, President Obama finds himself at a crossroads that demand action.  The rhetorical gymnastics the Obama administration has done in explaining its inaction to the American press and public is not perceived the same way to international brutes and savages.  Bashar al-Assad and his government, while beleaguered on many levels by rebels, fundamentalists and now Israel, is not concerned with the United States. 

What does this mean for the United States?  If we proclaim to hold some sort of international mandate and authority to act in defense of the defenseless around the world, we must first put ourselves in a position to be taken seriously.  The more we fail to act on our principles, the more decayed we become.  The more we concern ourselves with the perception of our country and our goals, the more we will miss opportunities to do something right. 

Some might perceive an action by the Americans as threatening a widening of the conflict but I believe that to be entirely in the hands of the Assad regime.  Take the Israeli action for example.  What can Syria do?  They have suggested, as reported by al-Jazeera, that the Israeli military is in cahoots with Islamic fundamentalists but I can’t imagine there will be much traction from such an accusation.  They cannot fire upon the Israeli military or into Israel for fear of widening the conflict.  They cannot handle the rebels in their own country, much less the most sophisticated military force in the Middle East.   

It is quite possible that there is intelligence that is preventing the president from acting as he said he would months ago.  Unfortunately, either the Obama administration erred when they set the red line or they erred in deciding not to uphold such an ultimatum.  Either way, the administration is in a dangerous spot.  The war-weary people of Syria needed help a long time ago but inaction then does not justify inaction now.  We must do the good work to help the ordinary Syrians before the Assad military regime completely obliterates them.  One might think we are hated now – how is the situation served better by refusing to help those in need?