tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post996102495735436400..comments2024-02-19T15:32:06.755-05:00Comments on Serene Musings: Was JFK a Conservative?Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-87952779579662687362013-09-20T13:55:33.376-04:002013-09-20T13:55:33.376-04:00Thanks for the comment, Sally.
I'm not sure w...Thanks for the comment, Sally.<br /><br />I'm not sure what history books you are reading, but the "GOP" did not "temporarily change their name" to the National Union Party in 1864.<br /><br />The Republican Party, which was less than a decade old, split in 1864 between abolitionists who saw Lincoln as weak on slavery and too eager to reconcile with the South, and moderates who supported Lincoln's stance. <br /><br />As a result, two new parties were created for the election - a pro-Lincoln party called the National Union Party, and an anti-Lincoln party called the Radical Democracy Party. <br /><br />The National Union Party was a fusion of moderate Republicans and pro-war Northern Democrats. Hence the reason Lincoln's running mate, Andrew Johnson, was a lifelong Democrat and disciple of Andrew Jackson.<br /><br />The Radical Democracy Party was made up of abolitionist, anti-war Republicans. <br /><br />Near the end of the campaign, the Radical Democracy Party's candidate, Republican John C. Fremont, bowed out of the race. As a result, Lincoln managed to win re-election.<br /><br />After Lincoln's death a few months later, Andrew Johnson took over and continued to consider himself a "National Union" president. When he failed to rally supporters under his National Union banner, he returned to the Democratic Party, only to lose his bid for nomination in 1868. <br /><br />During that same election year, the Republicans regrouped and reinvented themselves behind Grant.<br /><br />In any case, Lincoln was forced to form a coalition of supporters from among both Republicans and Democrats, and form an entirely new party, in order to run for reelection in 1864. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-65244549964732302762013-09-18T16:48:28.063-04:002013-09-18T16:48:28.063-04:00Hey Scott - Actually, you are incorrect in saying ...Hey Scott - Actually, you are incorrect in saying Lincoln had to form a third party because the Republican Party nominated someone else. ThLincoln wanted to attract some War Democrats, so the GOP temporarily changed their name to the National Union Party.<br /><br />Interesting article. I think people's perspective is whether they think the Democrat Party has moved left or not. Many people who were JFK Democrats say yes - and they left the Dem Party to join the GOP. . THey say they didn't leave the Dem Party, but that the Dem Party left them.Sally MJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-45596526879779974112011-12-06T11:21:43.335-05:002011-12-06T11:21:43.335-05:00To follow up on Scott's point about Teddy Kenn...To follow up on Scott's point about Teddy Kennedy's politics, if you've read Teddy's last book, he's very clear on the fact that his father's "liberal" politics informed everything about the family. The emphasis on helping others, working to fight poverty, and in general giving back in thanks for the families' own monetary fortune were instilled in all the children, and Teddy as the youngest brother always felt the burden of living up to these ideals and carrying his brother's legacies forward.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-3689513745373469562011-12-06T10:55:51.085-05:002011-12-06T10:55:51.085-05:00Another excellent response to Trent. You could al...Another excellent response to Trent. You could also add that we were obligated by the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) as strongly as we are obligated to NATO. We went for a reason and it was more than simply “to stop communism”, though that was certainly the center-piece of the argument. Australia, South Korea, maybe even the UK, and others were involved in Viet Nam. But as usual, we took the lead and did most of the dying. The rationale for Viet Nam (even its later escalation) was infinitely greater and more justified than when Bush invaded a sovereign nation and did so on the basis of what he knew or should have known were lies. And Viet Nam was fought using Draftees also. Bush was smart enough to know that had a draft been instituted, the support would have melted into the woodwork. <br /> <br />Involvement in Viet Nam was not inherently a mistake. It had a rationale (though, in fact, all wars are a mistake on another level!) The execution of the war…now THAT is a completely different story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-67612467873374847172011-12-04T21:18:43.342-05:002011-12-04T21:18:43.342-05:00Yeah, it wasn't very fair for me to take your ...Yeah, it wasn't very fair for me to take your passing comment and turn it into a whole blog post about a serious discussion. Kind of a dirty trick, really :) <br /><br />It actually started as merely a response to your comment, and then I decided it would make for a good post in its own right.<br /><br />I do think that Kennedy was pretty much a "liberal." Of course, we can debate about how he would fall in the modern world, but that's ultimately just an academic activity. The fact is, he can only be judged by the world in which he lived. It's a bit like trying to argue about whether Jesus is a Republican or a Democrat, or trying to determine if Caesar would have preferred a Mercedes or a Cadillac.<br /><br />Within the context of his life and times, there's no question JFK was a liberal, and was viewed as such by those who were living at the time.<br /><br />Whether it means something different to be a liberal today than it did in the 1960's is ultimately irrelevant, although putting issues like this in a modern perspective can certainly be instructive in terms of understanding them better. <br /><br />Honestly, I don't know if I can say that Kennedy was to the right of Obama. Would Kennedy have wanted universal healthcare and higher taxes on the wealthy if he had lived in a world identical to the world we live in? Again, it's impossible to say for sure, but I suspect he would have (particularly if his younger brother's politics are any measuring stick with which to gauge JFK).<br /><br />As for "super wealthy" - that comment was specifically referring to the latest tax plan axed by Republicans. This was part of the "payroll tax cut" bill, which lowers the amount taken out of your paycheck for Social Security - thus putting more money in your pocket. It was first enacted in 2010, and now Obama wants to make it an even bigger cut, to put even more money in your pocket. To pay for it, he has proposed a new tax for people making more than 1 million dollars per year - 3.25%. <br /><br />Essentially, this would be helping out the middle class by requiring a little bit more of the "super wealthy". So yes, I would say that 1 million a year makes you super wealthy.<br /><br />However, I agree that 250K per year does not make you "super wealthy." I should have made that more clear in the post.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-84659262261027530742011-12-01T02:12:54.205-05:002011-12-01T02:12:54.205-05:00Wow. That was quite an undressing Scott! My commen...Wow. That was quite an undressing Scott! My comments were actually even less than a pet theory. It was just a quick thought that crossed my mind as I was reading the comments section of your prior post. I obviously didn't put a lot of effort into my post and I apologize for that. But I am glad we both used it as a chance to learn more about JFK. <br /><br />Although you made some good points, you didn't exactly convince me JFK was akin to a modern day "liberal" (certainly not in the mold of his recently deceased younger brother). Side note: You only delved into war and taxes, I wonder where Kennedy stood on the vital social issues of the day? <br /><br />Allow me to rephrase my original comment...... Instead of saying Kennedy was to the right of GWB, how about we compromise and agree that Kennedy was to the right of Obama?<br /><br />I enjoyed your post but have to nit pick one thing. What is your specific definition of the "super wealthy"? You say this is the only group Obama wants to raise taxes on. But as I'm sure you know, Obama wants to raise marginal tax rates for any family that combines for $250K and above. Now, I'm not denying that $250K for a married couple is not a very nice income...... but "SUPER" wealthy????? Not exactly. That's why it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people arguing for higher tax rates only use Warren Buffett, Bill Gates et al as the only people who will be affected. There are actually veteran firefighters married to veteran school teachers in Connecticut who combine for over $250K, and under your definition would be considered "super wealthy".<br /><br />As a reviled member of the 1%, I'll pay your extra taxes without complaint IF we cut spending 5% to go along with the tax hikes? Perhaps i'm completely nuts, but that sounds more than reasonable to me.<br /><br />As always, you make me think and that's why I enjoy your stuff. Keep it up and thanks for writing a whole piece on my passing comment!<br /><br />PS - Kennedy has an invasion of a sovereign country on his resume as well. See Cuba, Bay of Pigs.<br /><br />TrentTrent N.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12038292184477849932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-10396850449008442512011-12-01T01:29:08.012-05:002011-12-01T01:29:08.012-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Trent N.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12038292184477849932noreply@blogger.com