Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe War-Hero President and the Pacifist
'I may not be able to see you," the partially blind, stroke-impaired Ted Sorensen told a crowd at the John F. Kennedy Library in Boston last week, "but I have more vision than the president of the United States." Over 1,000 people gathered to hear JFK's speechwriter discuss his new book, "Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History." Those who expected a satisfying draught of the old Kennedy mystique were not disappointed. In the conclusion to his book, Sorensen writes, "Today's sorry political leadership, so different from JFK's, spurred me on as I wrote, rekindling my memory and reinvigorating my conscience."
Sorensen draws credit as Kennedy's soaring wordsmith. But perhaps that vigorous conscience was more to the point than rhetorical flair. Coming of age during the unquestioned World War II, the young Nebraskan took for granted that he would serve in the army, but the war ended when he was 17. The next year, registering for the draft, Sorensen applied for noncombatant service as a conscientious objector. He would serve his country in the military, as a medic perhaps, but, he explained to the draft board, "I could kill no man . . . I am what is called a pacifist."
Sorensen's application for conscientious objector status would be used against Kennedy, would feature in Sorensen's secret FBI file, and, eventually, would destroy his chances of becoming Jimmy Carter's CIA director in 1976. An underappreciated fact of history is that Kennedy, remembered as the paradigmatic cold warrior, so intimately depended on a man who boldly renounced any glorification of belligerence. No surprise, then, that the most important Kennedy-Sorensen collaboration is equally unappreciated -- the resounding declaration of peace that Kennedy delivered as a commencement address at American University 45 years ago next week.
After staring into the abyss of nuclear war over Berlin and Cuba, Kennedy chose that June as the "time and place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and truth is too rarely perceived -- yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace." That speech went beyond the reviled Neville Chamberlain ("peace for our time") by calling for "not merely peace in our time, but peace for all time." Instead of aiming, with Woodrow Wilson, to "make the world safe for democracy," the speech proposed to "make the world safe for diversity," a step back from triumphalist claims made for American democracy during the Cold War.
Most momentously, the speech broke with the Cold War judgmentalism that always blamed the attitudes of the other side, proposing instead "that we must examine our own attitudes -- as individuals and as a nation -- for our attitude is as essential as theirs" in causing conflict. The speech rejected Cold War demonizing, for "no government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue." Here was an American president proclaiming the need for self-criticism, and affirming the possible goodness of the enemy.
In calling for new structures of international law and negotiations toward disarmament, and in declaring a moratorium on atmospheric nuclear testing, the American University speech marked the end of JFK's rhetoric of toughness. "For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal."
The speech was heard loud and clear in the Soviet Union. Little more than a month later, the Partial Test Ban Treaty was agreed to, the beginning of the arms control regime that saved the world -- what Kennedy called a shaft of light cutting into the darkness.
Ted Sorenson was never more himself than in the work he did for the American University speech. Neither, he believes, was Kennedy. The journey of the war-hero president and the pacifist he trusted was a progression this nation desperately needs to resume. No accident that it was at American University in January that Senator Edward Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama. "A new leader and a new era are on the way," Sorensen concludes in his book, and I will continue to fight, to write, and to hope."
James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company
37 Comments so far
Show Allubrew12:
In re: "We were attacked on 9/11 by box cutter wielding assassins, whose appropriate tactical response was formulated by UNARMED passengers of flight 93"
Dear ubrew,
That is the MOST STUPID and HEINOUS pile of garebage; fit only for adumbrated morons, like yourself, who are so easily seduced by 4th grade propaganda!
Well said, peace coup. Those comments are absolutely to the point, and they are why electing Obama matters most.
cdcensors
This would all be comical if there weren't so many here that actually seem to think that the .5% of difference between the repugs and dimwits makes for a suitable solution.
There is not ONE example in the history of man that I can recall that ANY government turned to the good and actually served the interest of the sheeple that help prop them up.
In the long run they've ALL become corrupt.
Sorry to burst your bubbles folks.
But you may have to fend for yourselves ,kinda like adults.
You took all those words right out of mouth, cdcensors.
thank you.
You forgot bombing a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, though
Oh and Waco, using tanks and military tactics against U.S. civilians is NEVER OK whether it was the terrible bombing of the Move compound in Philadelphia, or the driving of tanks through the Waco compound.
Any love anyone feels for B. Clinton is horribly misplace IMO. Oh I and I forgot the initially undeclared war against Serbia as well. And yes I walk the talk I protested Bush I's war against Iraq, Clinton's against Serbia and Bush II's against Iraq.
Corporate war mongering sock puppets don't get a SUDDEN break from me just because their parties name has a D in front of it...
Edward1793 Alas Bill Clinton and George Bush II are Very similar
1 Killed a million Iraqis:
a) Clinton yes in the form of barbaric sanctions denying basic medical and infrastructure needs to Iraqis
b) Bush II yes barbaric war of bombing and occupation, destroying infrastructure and leaving country to sectarian militias to fight it our.
2. Environmental Destruction:
a) Clinton yes "salvage logging" destroyed some of last old growth forests in Pacific Northwest, + failure to act to pass Kyoto treaty + promotion of NAFTA.
b) Bush II more of the same.
3. Domestic repression:
a)Clinton put more cops on streets, prison population passed 2 million, Seattle WTO and Miami anti globalization crackdowns on his watch.
b) Bush II more of the same plus "department of homeland security" plus some U.S. residents held without charge as enemy combatants.
Etc. Bush I and Bill Clinton are such peas in a pod that they are golfing buddies.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=1IM&...
All the Dims and Repigs have far more in common with each other and the global financial elite than either party has in common with anyone here.
P.S. Any of these you have questions about I can back up with citations.
What an insult to Bill Clinton, his policies are nothing like today's republicans. He was no saint, but at least he knew when not to overstay his welcome in a country. Today's republicans are money grubbing, hypocritics, looking out for the corporate rich and pandering to religious extremists. reagan was no better but at least his incompetence can be an excuse. After all he spawned the likes of cheney & rumsfield and had more than 150,000 people killed in his not so secret war to empower corporations in Nicaragua and Honduras all the while supplying Hussein with weapons to fight Iran causing upwards of 1,000,000 deaths.
I will say that neither H Clinton or Obama are no JFK but if given the choice between them and McCain, either of those 2 would be better.
We Americans like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists. We come by it genetically. My ancestors, and probably yours as well, came to America because they were malcontents who were willing to sacrifice family ties for the opportunity to make money. We seem to have a hard time with the concept of community. If we can't think of ourselves as a part of a community, how can we function as a nation in the world community?
Awaken states that "At least the despicable Republicans act on what they believe."
The primary difference between Democrats and Republicans is simple: the Republicans all believe in the same thing (i.e. greed) while Democrats have varying beliefs, some of them lamentable but most of them laudable.
Trying to frame Bill Clinton as some sort of Democratic savior in the same way as the Republicans worship Ronald Reagan is silly. The truth is that Clinton's views and policies are closer to current Republican thinking than Reagan's ever were.
jj
"make the world safe for diversity" is 180 degrees from what Dubya wants for the Middle East. He says, as do his counterparts in Israel, "We want to make peace with the Palestinians as soon as they stop all violence and develop a free market economy."
How narcissistic is this idea that peace requires your enemies to become you (our self-image)? Except in reality we do a lot of violence.
These rightwingers are so often angry about political correctness, especially when it stops them from voicing opinions about "bad or evil" ethnic groups (blacks or Muslims). But these same hypocrites cheer when political correctness stops liberals from voicing political criticism of their war policies. I imagine a congressional leader could lose a lot of respect these days for saying something good about Muslims or something bad about Jews.
A free press is supposed to be open to all political criticisms. All the same, expressing hatred of blacks or Muslims is not a political opinion, while speaking out against the war is just that: a political opinion.
Incredibly, when progressive journalists get fired for speaking out against the war the GOP cheers. Meanwhile, the same crowd jeers "the political correct police" when one of theirs gets canned for making racist remarks.
In Ohio, we have a GOP rep running for office on his proposed legislation requiring all Ohio government actvities to be transpired exclusively in the English language (it already is that way). The real reason is to foment racist or anti-immigrant sentiments in his voting block. Isn't that a sick way to abuse the taxpayers' time and money?
The world is becoming less safe for democracy since 2000.
McSame and Billary will probably add fuel to the fire.
it would have been nice if jfk had lived up to the "peace" talk he - and quite a few other - democrats gave at american u. i believe the awful mondale also spoke of new directions at american u during his campaign, and embarked on the same old crap for the rest of his campaign..
unfortunately, those high flown words are simply campaign gibberish, and as soon as jfk was elected he became the anti commie menace we - those of us without clouded minds - remember...viet nam, the bay of pigs and worse were all during this great "peacemakers" watch...while his murder was dreadful, we might have faced worse, much worse, if he had remained in office for the full eight years usually allocated these represenatives of ruling power...
fs
Oh yeah, that Biblical thing: Love your enemies, is a problem too.
I've always had a problem with the Biblical rule: Thou shall not kill and the military injunction: kill for your country.
@peace coupe
"while the Democrats believe we have the ability to live within a peaceful community of life (peace)"
Wow is that ever naive if you think Obama is goingt o bite the hand that feeds him his Wall St. backers, you are truly naive:
http://www.counterpunch.org/martens05052008.html
Republicans' primary tenet of their ideology is that government is bad. Grover Norquist's "I want to shrink government to the point where I can drown it in the bathtub" is their raison d'etre. And what do you expect to get when you elect a group of politicians from a party that believes government is bad and should exist solely for the purpose of military adventure and coddling corporations? What you'd expect: bad governing.
America has itself to blame for the state of the country whenever they elect a Republican. When will we stop worshipping money and corporate interests above all else? When the vast majority of Americans are poor - which, the way things are going now, under a majoriy of Republican governance for the last 20+ years - is steadfastly approaching.
jesus,etc. and Raven:
Why does everyone buy into the sad little mythology of the savior-president? I guess because it's the best we have in a completely controlled economic/political system. It is set up that way to keep us all enthralled with the campaign, primaries, election and all that nonsense.
All these months of campaign busy-ness and nothing real has changed. Democrats can't change because they are just misguided Republicans. No one has forgotten the impeachment of Bill Clinton but why can't the Democrats do the same? Weak, liars and part of the rotten system. At least the despicable Republicans act on what they believe.
Mr Carroll is wrong about the reason why the Senate rejected Sorensen as CIA director.It was not because he was a pacifist. It was because he was an arrogant, deceitful person, as Jack Nelson, the Pulitzer Prize reporter for The Los Angeles Times, noted at the time.
My feeling has always been that this speech had as much to do with JFK's assination months later as any other cause.
Kennedy made that famous speech in June, 1963. Five months later, he was shot.
When I first saw footage of this speech, I felt an ominous sinking in my stomach as he spoke of the inherent goodness and humanity of the Soviets.
It occurred to me immediately that his change of heart was punishable by death given his role.
Pacifism = weakness = marginalization
That's the formula we are living right now in public service in the US. From before JFK right on up to the current crop of candidates on both sides.
Clinton was always and will always be a hawk. McCain has grown more hawkish in an attempt to win back the base of his Party. And, Obama has been growing increasingly hawkish as the campaign has gone on, dismissing pacifists from his group of advisers.
I'm afraid JFK's speech has no students in the game today.
Kennedy's assassination by the transnationals was one of the turning points in the destruction of peaceful political means in this country.
We now know enough about Kennedy to not be fooled by Sorenson's attempt to re-write history. Like all American presidents, Kennedy advanced the belligerent national character of America - a character that started when the thirteen colonies revolted against the legitimate (by the norms of the time) power that was trying to restrain American passion to conquer the continent (we all know that it had little to do with "taxation without representstion) - a character that was also a norm for the times.
In the course of history however, other nations learned their lesson (to their dismay), America has yet to learn.
"For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal."
Too bad everyone on the planet can't seem to realize this little truth.
I believe one of the biggest problems we have in our country is the 'Majority Rule' structure of our government. This results in the Tyranny of the majority no matter how good an individual candidate of any party may be.
On top of the Majority Mis-Rule form of government, we are saddled with a self-nominated sleight of candidates. This allows the person with the most money and best campaign structure, [or worst, if you are speaking of morality] to bulldoze the less endowed [but also self-proclaimed] candidates into an early grave.
Those of us who supported Kucinich or Edwards, or Biden, or Dodd, et al, lost our voice and place at the table, long before the long descent into trivia and mud-slinging. Now we are told to shut up and support the best of two bad choices.
After participating in US Presidential elections for 50 years, I think it is time to go back to the drawing board. The US Constitution is a landmark document for the 18th Century when the US population was about 2 million [I don't know if that includes the 3/5 person-hood awarded to Blacks...] Now that we are a giant Empire with delusions of omnipotence, it is obviously past time to go back to the drawing board!
Did Kennedy have a moral reawakening as Sorenson [and James Carroll] asserts? Who can say? His life and Presidency was cut short before all the facts were in.
We were attacked on 911 by box-cutter wielding assassins, whose appropriate tactical response was formulated by the UNARMED passengers of flight 93.
EVERYTHING else: a 40% increase in the defense budget (now $600 billion a year), a $1 trillion war in Iraq, torture and illegal detention, and spying on Americans, has to be attributed to Republicans, primarily.
Al-Qaida just attacked the Danish for publishing cartoons depicting Muhammed. Yet America hasn't be attacked. Why? Quite possibly, closing our bases in Saudi Arabia after 911, and moving our smelly boots off the holy birthplace of the Prophet, is the reason why.
Bush gave Osama what he wanted, and they went away.
Just about everything else, dozens of new nuclear submarines and new aircraft carriers all helping to bankrupt the nation (while provided much appreciated welfare for America's cold warriors) hasn't been a war on Al-Qaida as much as its been a war on America.
Hate the Democrats all you want, but that particular rape has been performed by the other party.
"Going deeper into philosophy, Republicans see the world as a "war of all against all" where we all must conquer or be conquered (war), while the Democrats believe we have the ability to live within a peaceful community of life (peace)."
**interesting but I think in terms of policy they have the same agenda, just different ways of realizing it. They both have their base and certain issues that motivate the base, but when it comes to major policies, especially foreign policy, they are almost identical.
One is just more boisterous about waving the stick.
Republicans are better at wasting money.
andersdl (2:14 pm) writes, "Although the Democrats may only be one or two per cent better than the Republicans, that one or two per cent represents a huge difference for 97% of the population whose net worth is less than multi-millionaire status."
- I doubt that last assertion is true. I'd say the Dems being only "one or two per cent better" only represents a one or two percent difference for that 97%. Democrats have not shown the slightest interest in halting the corporate plundering of the economy -- and no improvement can come unless government becomes something other than a puppet of big business.
Although the Democrats may only be one or two per cent better than the Republicans, that one or two per cent represents a huge difference for 97% of the population whose net worth is less than multi-millionaire status.
There is a difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Republicans are a corporate party trying to weaken/destroy democracy in order to tie everything to the market. (while also catering to the religious right who wants to weaken/destroy democracy in order to tie everything to religious values.)
There are huge corporate interests on both sides, but sometimes a movement comes along where a democratic leader is supported from the bottom up instead of from the top down.
The internet is allowing the bottom up movements to have more power and influence than ever before.
Going deeper into philosophy, Republicans see the world as a "war of all against all" where we all must conquer or be conquered (war), while the Democrats believe we have the ability to live within a peaceful community of life (peace).
Democrat and Republican politicians both operate within the same corrupt system, but they are supported by people with different world views that lead to completely different strategies and goals of governing and leadership.
Awaken, time to awaken. Check your facts. Where did the surplus go? No, I will not defend Clinton, but why destroy a discussion before it starts with nonsensical assertions?
The downward spiral is both fiscal and moral, in my humble opinion. Do we now have the right to claim any better fate? Morally, the third world now towers above us.
Awaken would have us believe that our current economic woes are due solely to Bill Clinton's policies.
The stripping away of vital regulations for the financial sector was primarily the work of Republicans (e.g. Phil Gramm). While Clinton may have signed legislation that he should have vetoed, Bush supporters conveniently forget that he spent much of his second term under the cloud of the idiotic impeachment effort prosecuted by bitterly partisan Republicans.
In other words, our current mess could have developed without Clinton but not without the Republicans.
jj
Comparing the circumstances the next president will face to the JFK years is totally misdirected.
Unless the next president establishes a new deal on a greater scale than FDR's new deal, the US will accelerate its downward spiral to third world status.
It is likely that Obama, and certainly Hillary would be very "tough" in order to show that they can handle the threat of terrorism. If anyone thinks we will see much of a difference with a Democrat they are sorely mistaken. Maybe a Democrat can divert our attention from their military efforts by completely destroying our ecomomy, like Billy Clinton did. No not right away, but soon and probably forever == unless you were already rich.
"We now know enough about Kennedy to not be fooled by Sorenson's attempt to re-write history. Like all American presidents, Kennedy advanced the belligerent national character of America - a character that started when the thirteen colonies revolted against the legitimate (by the norms of the time) power that was trying to restrain American passion to conquer the continent (we all know that it had little to do with "taxation without representstion) - a character that was also a norm for the times."
-----
John C. I would respectfully suggest that you do more reading into both the Kennedy admin, and the structure of the Cold War. Kennedy has been subjected to harsher media treatment than any other president over the last twenty years. There is a very good reason for that.
Remember the RIOT Time and Newsweek started by belittleing the idea the JFK was pulling out of Vietnam. Guess what? Kennedy was pulling out of Vietnam. Virtually every history of that question,published by academic presses such as Oxford University, have concluded Kennedy WAS IN FACT GETTING OUT OF VIETNAM. Yes I know guru Chomsky disagrees, but his picture of Kennedy is INCREDIBLY DISTORTED. He offeres no picture of JFS CIA during the period and takes the Executive Branch very litterally as controlled by the President. To correct that view I recomment James Carrolls excellent House of War and also the Excellent book called Perrils of Dominance by Common Dreams contributor Garreth Porter.
It's an insult to Kennedy to compare him with the presumptuous opportunist Obama. A better comparison would be with Bliar - similarly an opportunist who latched onto and betrayed a party and who enthusiastically led his country to war, not peace. If only the human race would learn from other people's experience: but evidently they won't. So the US makes another huge mistake because of its quest for a messiah who will make change oh so easy.
"The US Constitution is a landmark document for the 18th Century when the US population was about 2 million [I don't know if that includes the 3/5 person-hood awarded to Blacks…]"
...and Blacks and Women didn't vote...
Interestingly, Nations who have written their Constitutions after WWII may have looked at the US doc. but didnt use it for their nations - its social justice section is sadly lacking in(fill in your favorite abuse), as we all know from witnessing the plunder of our Planet and our economic rights.
Let's all copy the Sorenson/Kennedy speech and email it to our 'elected leaders'.
On the subject of the JFK Assassination, I would like to recommend the book that clearly answers all of the very one-sided arguments of Chomsky and Cockburn.
The book is JFK and the Unspeakable by James W. Douglass. You will be surprised by the reviews on this one. As someone who was onece pursuaded by Chomsky and Cockburn on the JFK assassination, I can assure you that they are painting a very very misleading picture. It is, however, a picture that is easy to paint, given the Cold War context of the time.
This book is the answer to Chomsky and Cockburns misleading writings on JFK. It goes far to explain why JFK has been the most villified president in the Corporate Media for the last fifteen year.
And the future - Green Island - where the adults have taken over, finally.