PDA

View Full Version : Was Kennedy a Conservative?



nathanbforrest45
11-22-2013, 03:23 PM
A recent book on the life of Kennedy discusses the fact that Kennedy would not be a Democrat today and was actually much more conservative than many of today's Republicans. The book states that several of Kennedy's speeches were actually edited when published after his death.

Discuss.

Mainecoons
11-22-2013, 04:05 PM
By the standards of his time, and I was there and just beginning college, he was a moderate. The Democratic Party has gone so far wacko left that today he would be considered a Reagan conservative.

I was a Democrat for 25 years. I never encountered anyone as crazy as the group of Democrats we have on this board, let alone the ones calling the shots for the party nationally these days.

However, everyone at that time, including me, really believed that government could function much better than it does now and solve a lot more problems. Instead, we have learned the hard way it cannot and actually has made both social and fiscal problems far worse than they should be.

At least some of us have learned. Today's liberals are people whose brains are in stasis and frozen in time. Confronted with failure after failure, policies intended to spread the wealth that have only resulted in impoverishing the working man and making the one percenters far richer than the Koch Brothers wettest dreams, the liberal of today sees only that we need to double down on failure.

The daily evidence is posted right here for all to see.

Adelaide
11-22-2013, 04:08 PM
By the standards of his time, and I was there and just beginning college, he was a moderate. The Democratic Party has gone so far wacko left that today he would be considered a Reagan conservative.

I was a Democrat for 25 years. I never encountered anyone as crazy as the group of Democrats we have on this board, let alone the ones calling the shots for the party nationally these days.

However, everyone at that time, including me, really believed that government could function much better than it does now and solve a lot more problems. Instead, we have learned the hard way it cannot and actually has made both social and fiscal problems far worse than they should be.

At least some of us have learned. Today's liberals are people whose brains are in stasis and frozen in time. Confronted with failure after failure, policies intended to spread the wealth that have only resulted in impoverishing the working man and making the one percenters far richer than the Koch Brothers wettest dreams, the liberal of today sees only that we need to double down on failure.

The daily evidence is posted right here for all to see.

That sounds a lot like what most Democrats seem to think of the Republican party.

Mainecoons
11-22-2013, 04:13 PM
Crazy as they've become, I'm not surprised.

Respectfully, this is something a Canadian might not understand. I've lived through and participated in the change.

Go look at what Kennedy advocated. It is much closer to the Republicans today by far. When I was a Democrat Kennedy was the standard. Now it is Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama.

Adelaide
11-22-2013, 04:15 PM
Crazy as they've become, I'm not surprised.

Respectfully, this is something a Canadian might not understand. I've lived through and participated in the change.

Go look at what Kennedy advocated. It is much closer to the Republicans today by far. When I was a Democrat Kennedy was the standard. Now it is Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama.

No, I'm sure I'd agree. It's entirely logical since that was 50 years ago.

Mainecoons
11-22-2013, 04:35 PM
The Republicans back then are not that different from today's establishment Republicans. They were the party of big business, particularly oil, and the establishment is today. They were statist and the establishment is still statist. They were hawks and still are. They favored tax cuts for the wealthy and big business and still believe these can stimulate the economy.

The libertarians are the new ROLLBACK philosophy on the scene. We look at what has happened to the country since Eisenhower and we have learned that much of it has been counterproductive and destructive of personal freedom, free enterprise and the general prosperity. The establishment Republicans are fixated on using government to legislate morality and police the world. The radicalized Democrats are trying to recreate the European failure in America.

The libertarians want to restore the Constitution and the limited government and emphasis on personal freedom, responsibility and privacy from the nanny state meddlers.

We libertarians are all about back to the future. That's the only new idea out there these days. The rest of it, be it Republican establishment or Democrat radicalism, is simply doubling down on failure.

Ravi
11-22-2013, 04:53 PM
No

nic34
11-22-2013, 05:03 PM
... and Nixon was a liberal....

Ravi
11-22-2013, 06:35 PM
... and Nixon was a liberal....
Check this out

http://wonkette.com/534932/breaking-wonkette-exclusive-john-f-kennedy-was-a-democrat-actually

The right is so prdictible

del
11-22-2013, 07:32 PM
A recent book on the life of Kennedy discusses the fact that Kennedy would not be a Democrat today and was actually much more conservative than many of today's Republicans. The book states that several of Kennedy's speeches were actually edited when published after his death.

Discuss.

apparently, you don't know what a fact is and neither do the *author(s)* of whatever booklike product to which you refer. :laugh:

pretty funny in a pathetic sort of way

nice work!

zelmo1234
11-22-2013, 07:39 PM
... and Nixon was a liberal....

Yes, Nixon was actually tot he left of Kennedy on many issues,

JFK was for decreasing the tax rates and using private investment to grow the economy.

He was a pro life Catholic

He was for a very strong national defense?

And he himself was not a huge supporter of the civil rights act!

Remember the south at the time was controlled by the Democratic party and was very racist!

So I would say that today Nixon would be a blue dog democrat and JFK would be an establishment Republican!

Though the team of JFK and Clinton would be the all time winners in chasing women! JFK had better taste!

junie
11-22-2013, 07:54 PM
Kennedy's last speech. It was never delivered.



Trade Mart Speech (Kennedy's Last Speech)

The president was scheduled to deliver this speech the day he was assassinated, November 22, 1963.



...


This link between leadership and learning is not only essential at the community level. It is even more indispensable in world affairs. Ignorance and misinformation can handicap the progress of a city or a company, but they can, if allowed to prevail in foreign policy, handicap this country's security. In a world of complex and continuing problems, in a world full of frustrations and irritations, America's leadership must be guided by the lights of learning and reason -- or else those who confuse rhetoric with reality and the plausible with the possible will gain the popular ascendancy with their seemingly swift and simple solutions to every world problem.



There will always be dissident voices heard in the land, expressing opposition without alternative, finding fault but never favor, perceiving gloom on every side and seeking influence without responsibility. Those voices are inevitable.



...



We cannot expect that everyone, to use the phrase of a decade ago, will "talk sense to the American people." But we can hope that fewer people will listen to nonsense. And the notion that this Nation is headed for defeat through deficit, or that strength is but a matter of slogans, is nothing but just plain nonsense.



...



Above all, words alone are not enough. The United States is a peaceful nation. And where our strength and determination are clear, our words need merely to convey conviction, not belligerence. If we are strong, our strength will speak for itself. If we are weak, words will be of no help.
I realize that this Nation often tends to identify turning-points in world affairs with the major addresses which preceded them. But it was not the Monroe Doctrine that kept all Europe away from this hemisphere -- it was the strength of the British fleet and the width of the Atlantic Ocean. It was not General Marshall's speech at Harvard which kept communism out of Western Europe -- it was the strength and stability made possible by our military and economic assistance.






But the lessons of the last decade have taught us that freedom cannot be defended by strategic nuclear power alone. We have, therefore, in the last 3 years accelerated the development and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons, and increased by 60 percent the tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe.

...


Nor can Europe or any other continent rely on nuclear forces alone, whether they are strategic or tactical. We have radically improved the readiness of our conventional forces -- increased by 45 percent of the number of combat ready Army divisions, increased by 100 percent the procurement of modern Army weapons and equipment, increased by 100 percent our procurement of our ship construction, conversion, and modernization program, increased by 100 percent our procurement of tactical aircraft, increased by 30 percent the number of tactical air squadrons, and increased the strength of the Marines. As last month's "Operation Big Lift" -- which originated here in Texas -- showed so clearly, this Nation is prepared as never before to move substantial numbers of men in surprisingly little time to advanced positions any- where in the world. We have increased by 175 percent the procurement of airlift aircraft, and we have already achieved a 75 percent increase in our existing strategic airlift capability. Finally, moving beyond the traditional roles of our military forces, we have achieved an increase of nearly 600 percent in our special forces -- those forces that are prepared to work with our allies and friends against the guerrillas, saboteurs, insurgents and assassins who threaten freedom in a less direct but equally dangerous manner.



But American military might should not and need not stand alone against the ambitions of international communism. Our security and strength, in the last analysis, directly depend on the security and strength of others, and that is why our military and economic assistance plays such a key role in enabling those who live on the periphery of the Communist world to maintain their independence of choice. Our assistance to these nations can be painful, risky, and costly, as is true in Southeast Asia today. But we dare not weary of the task. For our assistance makes possible the stationing of 3.5 million allied troops along the Communist frontier at one-tenth the cost of maintaining a comparable number of American soldiers. A successful Communist breakthrough in these area, necessitating direct United States intervention, would cost us several times as much as our entire foreign aid program, and might cost us heavily in American lives as well.



About 70 percent of our military assistance goes to nine key countries located on or near the borders of the Communist-bloc -- nine countries confronted directly or indirectly with the threat of Communistic aggression -- Viet-Nam, Free China, Korea, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Greece, Turkey, and Iran. No one of these countries possesses on its own the resources to maintain the forces which our own Chiefs of Staff think needed in the common interest. Reducing our efforts to train, equip, and assist their armies can only encourage Communist penetration and require in time the increased overseas deployment of American combat forces. And reducing the economic help needed to bolster these nations that undertake to help defend freedom can have the same disastrous result. In short, the $50 billion we spend each year on our own defense could well be ineffective without the $4 billion required for military and economic assistance.





I have spoken of strength largely in terms of the deterrence and resistance of aggression and attack. But in today's world, freedom can be lost without a shot being fired, by ballots as well as bullets. The success of our leadership is dependent upon respect for our mission in the world as well as our missiles -- on a clearer recognition of the virtues of freedom as well as the evils of tyranny.



...



Finally, it should be clear by now that a nation can be no stronger abroad than she is at home. Only an America which practices what it preaches about equal rights and social justice will be respected by those whose choice affects our future. Only an America which has fully educated its citizens is fully capable of tackling the complex problems and perceiving the hidden dangers of the world in which we live. And only an America which is growing and prospering economically can sustain the worldwide defenses of freedom, while demonstrating to all concerned the opportunities of our system and society.





...



My friends and fellow citizens: I cite these facts and figures to make it clear that America today is stronger than ever before. Our adversaries have not abandoned their ambitions, our dangers have not diminished, our vigilance cannot be relaxed. But now we have the military, the scientific, and the economic strength to do whatever must be done for the preservation and promotion of freedom.



The strength will never be used in pursuit of aggressive ambitions -- it will always be used in pursuit of peace. It will never be used to promote provocations -- it will always be used to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes.



We, in this country, in this generation, are -- by destiny rather than by choice -- the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of "peace on earth, good will toward men." That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago: "except the Lord keep the city, the watchmen waketh but in vain."




http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/jfk-trademart/

nathanbforrest45
11-22-2013, 11:24 PM
apparently, you don't know what a fact is and neither do the *author(s)* of whatever booklike product to which you refer. :laugh:

pretty funny in a pathetic sort of way

nice work!


So, instead of discussing the issue and listing the reasons you may believe Kennedy was a liberal you elect instead to resort to name calling. Typical response for someone bereft of the ability for rational discussion.

You madam, are just another morally bankrupt arrogant twit.

nathanbforrest45
11-22-2013, 11:29 PM
Kennedy's last speech. It was never delivered.



Trade Mart Speech (Kennedy's Last Speech)

The president was scheduled to deliver this speech the day he was assassinated, November 22, 1963.



...


This link between leadership and learning is not only essential at the community level. It is even more indispensable in world affairs. Ignorance and misinformation can handicap the progress of a city or a company, but they can, if allowed to prevail in foreign policy, handicap this country's security. In a world of complex and continuing problems, in a world full of frustrations and irritations, America's leadership must be guided by the lights of learning and reason -- or else those who confuse rhetoric with reality and the plausible with the possible will gain the popular ascendancy with their seemingly swift and simple solutions to every world problem.



There will always be dissident voices heard in the land, expressing opposition without alternative, finding fault but never favor, perceiving gloom on every side and seeking influence without responsibility. Those voices are inevitable.



...



We cannot expect that everyone, to use the phrase of a decade ago, will "talk sense to the American people." But we can hope that fewer people will listen to nonsense. And the notion that this Nation is headed for defeat through deficit, or that strength is but a matter of slogans, is nothing but just plain nonsense.



...



Above all, words alone are not enough. The United States is a peaceful nation. And where our strength and determination are clear, our words need merely to convey conviction, not belligerence. If we are strong, our strength will speak for itself. If we are weak, words will be of no help.
I realize that this Nation often tends to identify turning-points in world affairs with the major addresses which preceded them. But it was not the Monroe Doctrine that kept all Europe away from this hemisphere -- it was the strength of the British fleet and the width of the Atlantic Ocean. It was not General Marshall's speech at Harvard which kept communism out of Western Europe -- it was the strength and stability made possible by our military and economic assistance.






But the lessons of the last decade have taught us that freedom cannot be defended by strategic nuclear power alone. We have, therefore, in the last 3 years accelerated the development and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons, and increased by 60 percent the tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe.

...


Nor can Europe or any other continent rely on nuclear forces alone, whether they are strategic or tactical. We have radically improved the readiness of our conventional forces -- increased by 45 percent of the number of combat ready Army divisions, increased by 100 percent the procurement of modern Army weapons and equipment, increased by 100 percent our procurement of our ship construction, conversion, and modernization program, increased by 100 percent our procurement of tactical aircraft, increased by 30 percent the number of tactical air squadrons, and increased the strength of the Marines. As last month's "Operation Big Lift" -- which originated here in Texas -- showed so clearly, this Nation is prepared as never before to move substantial numbers of men in surprisingly little time to advanced positions any- where in the world. We have increased by 175 percent the procurement of airlift aircraft, and we have already achieved a 75 percent increase in our existing strategic airlift capability. Finally, moving beyond the traditional roles of our military forces, we have achieved an increase of nearly 600 percent in our special forces -- those forces that are prepared to work with our allies and friends against the guerrillas, saboteurs, insurgents and assassins who threaten freedom in a less direct but equally dangerous manner.



But American military might should not and need not stand alone against the ambitions of international communism. Our security and strength, in the last analysis, directly depend on the security and strength of others, and that is why our military and economic assistance plays such a key role in enabling those who live on the periphery of the Communist world to maintain their independence of choice. Our assistance to these nations can be painful, risky, and costly, as is true in Southeast Asia today. But we dare not weary of the task. For our assistance makes possible the stationing of 3.5 million allied troops along the Communist frontier at one-tenth the cost of maintaining a comparable number of American soldiers. A successful Communist breakthrough in these area, necessitating direct United States intervention, would cost us several times as much as our entire foreign aid program, and might cost us heavily in American lives as well.



About 70 percent of our military assistance goes to nine key countries located on or near the borders of the Communist-bloc -- nine countries confronted directly or indirectly with the threat of Communistic aggression -- Viet-Nam, Free China, Korea, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Greece, Turkey, and Iran. No one of these countries possesses on its own the resources to maintain the forces which our own Chiefs of Staff think needed in the common interest. Reducing our efforts to train, equip, and assist their armies can only encourage Communist penetration and require in time the increased overseas deployment of American combat forces. And reducing the economic help needed to bolster these nations that undertake to help defend freedom can have the same disastrous result. In short, the $50 billion we spend each year on our own defense could well be ineffective without the $4 billion required for military and economic assistance.





I have spoken of strength largely in terms of the deterrence and resistance of aggression and attack. But in today's world, freedom can be lost without a shot being fired, by ballots as well as bullets. The success of our leadership is dependent upon respect for our mission in the world as well as our missiles -- on a clearer recognition of the virtues of freedom as well as the evils of tyranny.



...



Finally, it should be clear by now that a nation can be no stronger abroad than she is at home. Only an America which practices what it preaches about equal rights and social justice will be respected by those whose choice affects our future. Only an America which has fully educated its citizens is fully capable of tackling the complex problems and perceiving the hidden dangers of the world in which we live. And only an America which is growing and prospering economically can sustain the worldwide defenses of freedom, while demonstrating to all concerned the opportunities of our system and society.





...



My friends and fellow citizens: I cite these facts and figures to make it clear that America today is stronger than ever before. Our adversaries have not abandoned their ambitions, our dangers have not diminished, our vigilance cannot be relaxed. But now we have the military, the scientific, and the economic strength to do whatever must be done for the preservation and promotion of freedom.



The strength will never be used in pursuit of aggressive ambitions -- it will always be used in pursuit of peace. It will never be used to promote provocations -- it will always be used to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes.



We, in this country, in this generation, are -- by destiny rather than by choice -- the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of "peace on earth, good will toward men." That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago: "except the Lord keep the city, the watchmen waketh but in vain."




http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/jfk-trademart/

I have the feeling your sycophants do not have the slightest clue what Kennedy is actually saying here and think somehow he is actually promoting a very dovish strategy.

del
11-22-2013, 11:39 PM
So, instead of discussing the issue and listing the reasons you may believe Kennedy was a liberal you elect instead to resort to name calling. Typical response for someone bereft of the ability for rational discussion.

You madam, are just another morally bankrupt arrogant twit.

there's nothing rational about discussing what is obviously a masturbatory fantasy of yours.

it is not a *fact* that kennedy would not be a democrat today; it is some other dimwit's opinion which you would wish was a fact.

therefore, this is not an issue, but unmitigated horseshit, which seems to be your stock in trade.

your opinion of me doesn't have the sting you might think, nate. :laugh:

have a pleasant evening

jillian
11-22-2013, 11:44 PM
So, instead of discussing the issue and listing the reasons you may believe Kennedy was a liberal you elect instead to resort to name calling. Typical response for someone bereft of the ability for rational discussion.

You madam, are just another morally bankrupt arrogant twit.

people who pay homage to treasonous kkk grand wizards shouldn't talk about anyone else being morally bankrupt

zelmo1234
11-23-2013, 02:43 AM
people who pay homage to treasonous kkk grand wizards shouldn't talk about anyone else being morally bankrupt

So you mean like Democrats that paid Homage to Robert KKK Byrd!

You do remember that the Democrats were the party of the KKK! So If you want to go through all of the Democrats that did not switch parties again we can, you know that families Like the Gores that voted against the civil rights act!

Mainecoons
11-23-2013, 07:55 AM
... and Nixon was a liberal....

Yes he was.

Another brilliant rebuttal from Ravi, I see. Ravi, you simply demonstrate that liberals are out of ideas and only know to keep repeating failure. Thanks for showing us that repeatedly here.

countryboy
11-23-2013, 07:59 AM
By the standards of his time, and I was there and just beginning college, he was a moderate. The Democratic Party has gone so far wacko left that today he would be considered a Reagan conservative.

I was a Democrat for 25 years. I never encountered anyone as crazy as the group of Democrats we have on this board, let alone the ones calling the shots for the party nationally these days.

However, everyone at that time, including me, really believed that government could function much better than it does now and solve a lot more problems. Instead, we have learned the hard way it cannot and actually has made both social and fiscal problems far worse than they should be.

At least some of us have learned. Today's liberals are people whose brains are in stasis and frozen in time. Confronted with failure after failure, policies intended to spread the wealth that have only resulted in impoverishing the working man and making the one percenters far richer than the Koch Brothers wettest dreams, the liberal of today sees only that we need to double down on failure.

The daily evidence is posted right here for all to see.
Achhhha!!! That would explain your occasional Tourette's style liberal outburst. :D j/k :D :D

countryboy
11-23-2013, 08:02 AM
That sounds a lot like what most Democrats seem to think of the Republican party.
It is, but I'm not sure where they get that idea. Even a casual observer can see it is not true.

Mainecoons
11-23-2013, 08:11 AM
Twelve Kennedy quotes. Sounds a lot like me these days.

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/#post-711299

junie
11-23-2013, 10:42 AM
... and Nixon was a liberal....


Yes he was.

Another brilliant rebuttal from Ravi, I see. Ravi, you simply demonstrate that liberals are out of ideas and only know to keep repeating failure. Thanks for showing us that repeatedly here.



:laughing4: get a grip old man, you are replying to a post made by nic, not ravi...





Was Kennedy a Conservative?



No

Boris The Animal
11-23-2013, 10:48 AM
For the record, I'm registered Right To Life and vote Conservative, but NB Forrest has is right. Kennedy was far more Conservative than practically the entire Democrat party today. Here in Buffalo, we had a Mayor who was a Democrat but solidly Conservative and served four straight and successful terms.

nathanbforrest45
11-23-2013, 11:34 AM
Twelve Kennedy quotes. Sounds a lot like me these days.

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/#post-711299


I especially liked this one

. I’d be very happy to tell them I’m not a liberal at all…I’m not comfortable with those people. Saturday Evening Post, June 1953

Ravi
11-23-2013, 12:41 PM
:laughing4: get a grip old man, you are replying to a post made by nic, not ravi...




Was Kennedy a Conservative?
hes an aging Dixiecrat. Mentally unsound?

Chris
11-23-2013, 01:05 PM
hes an aging Dixiecrat. Mentally unsound?

IOW, you and your buddy junie can muster no rational arguments against his so you attack him. Pathetic.

Kennedy was way more conservative than Dems today. Kennedy was a Blue Dog Democrat even back then.

Ravi
11-24-2013, 06:14 AM
The increases in purchasing power resulting from a higher minimum wage will help to restore consumer demand required to put our idle industrial capacity back to work. The elimination of unfair competition based upon substandard wages will protect fairminded employers anxious to maintain fair labor standards.

jfk

zelmo1234
11-24-2013, 06:50 AM
The increases in purchasing power resulting from a higher minimum wage will help to restore consumer demand required to put our idle industrial capacity back to work. The elimination of unfair competition based upon substandard wages will protect fairminded employers anxious to maintain fair labor standards.

jfk

I can actually see JFK saying this, As has been pointed out, he was not a total conservative

However, I would love to see a link to it? Not that I don't trust you, but you do tend to make shit up!

junie
11-24-2013, 08:06 AM
I can actually see JFK saying this, As has been pointed out, he was not a total conservative

However, I would love to see a link to it? Not that I don't trust you, but you do tend to make shit up!



:rollseyes: that's a myth 'made up' and perpetuated by dishonest hacks.




Here, for example, is then-Senator John F. Kennedy explaining why he voted against a Republican attempt (http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/jfk/aug60/jfk090860_civil.html) to strip government funding for public housing, education and medical services and a minimum-wage hike from a civil-rights bill in August 1960.


"These bills—housing, education, medical help, and minimum wage—are vitally important to millions of American Negroes and whites because they affect all those Americans who are on the lower level of our economic ladder."


Here is the senator the following day, explaining his support for amendments to the Fair Labour Standards Act (http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/jfk/aug60/jfk100860_fairlabor.html) which raised the minimum wage by 25% and extended the act's protections to millions of previously uncovered workers, mainly in the retail and service industries.


"Conscience and good business sense join in demanding the enactment of this measure. The bill will extend to the lowest paid workers—to 3½ million men and women and their families—a fairer opportunity to share our high standard of living. To pass them by—to water down the help they need, or merely assume that prosperity at the top will someday reach them—shocks the conscience of those who care.
The increases in purchasing power resulting from a higher minimum wage will help to restore consumer demand required to put our idle industrial capacity back to work. The elimination of unfair competition based upon substandard wages will protect fairminded employers anxious to maintain fair labor standards."


I've bolded parts of the above statements because the economic sentiments expressed would put Senator Kennedy somewhere on the far left of today's congressional ideological spectrum.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/10/john-f-kennedy

zelmo1234
11-24-2013, 08:12 AM
:rollseyes: that's a myth 'made up' and perpetuated by dishonest hacks.




Here, for example, is then-Senator John F. Kennedy explaining why he voted against a Republican attempt (http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/jfk/aug60/jfk090860_civil.html) to strip government funding for public housing, education and medical services and a minimum-wage hike from a civil-rights bill in August 1960.

These bills—housing, education, medical help, and minimum wage—are vitally important to millions of American Negroes and whites because they affect all those Americans who are on the lower level of our economic ladder.

Here is the senator the following day, explaining his support for amendments to the Fair Labour Standards Act (http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/jfk/aug60/jfk100860_fairlabor.html) which raised the minimum wage by 25% and extended the act's protections to millions of previously uncovered workers, mainly in the retail and service industries.
Conscience and good business sense join in demanding the enactment of this measure. The bill will extend to the lowest paid workers—to 3½ million men and women and their families—a fairer opportunity to share our high standard of living. To pass them by—to water down the help they need, or merely assume that prosperity at the top will someday reach them—shocks the conscience of those who care.
The increases in purchasing power resulting from a higher minimum wage will help to restore consumer demand required to put our idle industrial capacity back to work. The elimination of unfair competition based upon substandard wages will protect fairminded employers anxious to maintain fair labor standards.

I've bolded parts of the above statements because the economic sentiments expressed would put Senator Kennedy somewhere on the far left of today's congressional ideological spectrum.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/10/john-f-kennedy


Yes a person that is pro life, for cutting taxes and a strong military, for private investment to spur and grow the economy? Is far left?

I wish that was the case.

However he was not a total conservative and was very much in favor of many labor laws. Thanks for the link by the way, so I do not disagree with that part of your post!

But to say that he is far left? Bit of a stretch don't you think, He is actually to the right of people like McCain,, and Graham

junie
11-24-2013, 08:25 AM
the author of the article goes on...



It is true that Kennedy belonged to a relatively hawkish wing of the Democratic Party, and that Democratic leaders such as Adlai Stevenson, while also fiercely anti-communist, were less inclined to play on hysterical ploys such as the "missile gap" with the Soviets, which defence experts ultimately acknowledged did not exist.

Mr Stoll waves away Kennedy's enthusiasm for liberal causes such as foreign aid (including the Peace Corps) and big-government scientific research (including the space programme) by arguing they were ultimately intended to make American capitalism more appealing than Soviet communism. And so they were!

Liberals believed that the strength of the West's mixed state-private economies, their ability to provide better social safety nets, deliver more aid to poor countries, and lead the world in science, would make them more attractive than communism. If being anti-communist makes you a conservative, every single elected federal officeholder in American history has been a conservative.



the context leading up to the article...



THE temptation to write a tongue-in-cheek post arguing that Ronald Reagan was a flaming left-winger is a mighty one. But ultimately, the public interest is not served by a #slatepitch race to the bottom. So I will confine my response to Ira Stoll's ridiculous argument in Time, "JFK Was a Political Conservative (http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/14/jfk-was-a-political-conservative/)", to simply noting that John F. Kennedy, the Democratic president who inspired a generation of liberal idealists, championed liberal labour and civil-rights legislation, and, in accepting the 1960 presidential nomination of New York State's Liberal Party, announced "I'm proud to say I'm a liberal (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/jfk-nyliberal/)", was in fact a liberal.

Common
11-24-2013, 09:08 AM
Some in the south didnt think Kennedy was a moderate when he sent troops to force then Gov George Wallace to integrate schools. They thought he was a flaming left wing loon.

Kennedy was they type of democrat for his time, was he a liberal? No not by todays standards, todays type liberals didnt exist until later in the 60s after kennedy was assasinated

Peter1469
11-24-2013, 10:18 AM
The increases in purchasing power resulting from a higher minimum wage will help to restore consumer demand required to put our idle industrial capacity back to work. The elimination of unfair competition based upon substandard wages will protect fairminded employers anxious to maintain fair labor standards.

jfk

Increases in wages can also increase inflation. So you make more money but it is worth less.

Chris
11-24-2013, 10:35 AM
The increases in purchasing power resulting from a higher minimum wage will help to restore consumer demand required to put our idle industrial capacity back to work. The elimination of unfair competition based upon substandard wages will protect fairminded employers anxious to maintain fair labor standards.

jfk


That forgets the costs of higher wages.

What you need to do is show that the benefits outweigh the costs.

Kennedy, same speech, did recognize the costs: "It would be naive to deny that there will be no dislocations. In a few instances there may be an undesirable compression of the wage structure. But, fairly read, both history and the available studies show that the increases can be absorbed without damage to business, inflationary price increases, or unemployment."

It is left to you, ravi, to account for it, to justify it with data or logic.

Chris
11-24-2013, 10:39 AM
I can actually see JFK saying this, As has been pointed out, he was not a total conservative

However, I would love to see a link to it? Not that I don't trust you, but you do tend to make shit up!

http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/jfk/aug60/jfk100860_fairlabor.html

Ravi
11-25-2013, 05:43 AM
Yes a person that is pro life, for cutting taxes and a strong military, for private investment to spur and grow the economy? Is far left?

I wish that was the case.

However he was not a total conservative and was very much in favor of many labor laws. Thanks for the link by the way, so I do not disagree with that part of your post!

But to say that he is far left? Bit of a stretch don't you think, He is actually to the right of people like McCain,, and Graham

No one claimed he was far left. Here's some advice for you. If you see Kennedy as a conservative, run someone like him in the next presidential election and I will vote for him or her. Most of the country will do the same.