# Bush as the opposite of JFK **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 19, 2003, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-the-opposite-of-jfk/162446 "2003-03-19T03:30:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-the-opposite-of-jfk/162446/1 "2003-03-19T03:30:40Z")
A while ago I started a thread, which died a quick death, saying that you could discern the following Presidential sequence, with each President on the left being the opposite of the President on the right: ```auto Roosevelt Reagan Truman Bush the Elder Eisenhower Clinton Kennedy Bush the Unready ``` Without resurrecting the logic I used the last time, simply note that the Presidents on the left are of the opposite party to the Presidents on the right. Anyway, Bush the Unready is about as opposite to JKF as you can get. When JFK died, he was internationally loved. We will simply and charitably say that Bush the Unready is not and leave it at that. But here’s the truly controversial part: years ago, there was an article in The Atlantic by Garry Wills which contended that JFK botched the Cuban Missile Crisis, a crisis he had apparently won, by undermining Khruschev, and thereby killing for years the hope of a true rapprochement with the Soviet Union. Could it be that Bush the Unready, since he seems fated to do the opposite of JFK, is about to stumble into a diplomatic coup, one that will only become apparent in the fullness of time? And if so, what could it be? A fascinating thing to contemplate on the eve of this apparent total diplomatic debacle. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-the-opposite-of-jfk/162446/2 "2003-03-19T03:45:39Z")
> [@](#): > > When JFK died, he was internationally loved. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-the-opposite-of-jfk/162446/3 "2003-03-19T03:56:23Z")
I lost those moldy old newspapers a long time ago. However, I think it can be safely said that the Peace Corps is a pretty fair opposite to an invasion, no? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-the-opposite-of-jfk/162446/4 "2003-03-19T03:59:54Z")
And also, Eisenhower was bald, and Clinton has thick hair. Truman wore glasses, and Bush the Elder didn’t. Boy, I think you’re on to something here. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-the-opposite-of-jfk/162446/5 "2003-03-19T04:06:49Z")
> [@](#): > > I think it can be safely said that the Peace Corps is a pretty fair opposite to an invasion, no? No. Signing an executive order founding the Peace Corps is not the opposite of an invasion. The opposite of an invasion would be “not invading”, i.e. refraining from an invasion that seemed obviously necessary. And, sorry but offering “JFK founded the Peace Corps” as a cite to prove that he was “internationally loved” by November 1963 doesn’t cut it. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-the-opposite-of-jfk/162446/6 "2003-03-19T04:13:27Z")
[http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/aae/bios/35pkenn.html](http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/aae/bios/35pkenn.html) > [@](#): > > Kennedy won the election, but by a narrow margin. He lacked reliable majorities in CONGRESS. Primarily for these reasons, most of his domestic policies stalled on Capitol Hill. When advocates of racial justice picked up strength in 1962-63, he moved belatedly to promote civil rights legislation. He also sought a tax cut to stimulate the economy. > > At the time of his assassination, however, these and other programs such as federal aid to education and Medicare remained tied up in Congress. It was left to his successor, President Johnson, to push this legislation through the more compliant congresses of 1964 and 1965. People who are “internationally loved” don’t have their bills stalled out in Congress. And probably the Soviets didn’t like him much, either. > [@](#): > > Kennedy’s chief adversary abroad was the Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev. As early as June 1961 the two men talked in Vienna, but the meeting served only to harden Soviet-American hostility. Khrushchev then threatened to sign a treaty with East Germany that would have given the East Germans control over western access routes to Berlin. Kennedy held firm, and no such treaty was signed. The Soviets responded, however, by erecting a wall between East and West Berlin. Kennedy used the crisis to request from Congress, and to receive, greatly increased appropriations for defense. Neither did some people in Vietnam. > [@](#): > > He continued to bolster American defenses and stepped up military aid to South Vietnam, where revolutionary forces were increasingly active. By November 1963, the United States had sent some 16,000 military personnel to Vietnam. His administration also intervened in South Vietnamese politics by at least conniving at the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem in November 1963. ---
**Author:** ![SmackFu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/53a042/32.png) [@SmackFu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmackFu)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-the-opposite-of-jfk/162446/7 "2003-03-19T04:19:01Z")
Both were not elected by a popular majority. So much for opposites. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-the-opposite-of-jfk/162446/8 "2003-03-19T04:50:19Z")
Why is JFK so popular? The only thing he is known for is the Cuban Missle Crisis, the Bay of Pigs debacle and getting his head blown off? ---
**Author:** ![Hermann\_Cheruscan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b782af/32.png) [@Hermann\_Cheruscan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hermann_Cheruscan)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-the-opposite-of-jfk/162446/9 "2003-03-19T04:52:22Z")
Mmm… Kennedy was a (somewhat) conservative Democrat, while Bush is a liberal Republican. ---
**Author:** ![bjohn13](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@bjohn13](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bjohn13)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-the-opposite-of-jfk/162446/10 "2003-03-19T04:53:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SmackFu \* > \*\*Both were not elected by a popular majority. So much for opposites. \*\* Actually, both were elected by a popular plurality. [quote/] _originally posted by phantom_ I lost those moldy old newspapers a long time ago. However, I think it can be safely said that the Peace Corps is a pretty fair opposite to an invasion, no?\* Actually, I find the peace corps to be more of a similarity of Bush’s war than an opposite. In fact, the Peace Corps may be one of the many subtle reasons we find ourselves in the mess we are in today. An example comes from a lecture that I attended for an anthropology course I took about a decade ago. A New Guinea tribe had thrived for centuries in the dense jungles of the island. One day, the Peace Corps arrived. They noted how the tribe lived. They noticed that the life expectancy for the tribe was only about 25 years old. They also noticed that the cheif cause of death in the tribe was from lung cancer. The cause was easy to spot…they routinely used fire in their thatch huts, but hadn’t invented the chimney. The Peace Corps fixed that problem…they constructed chimneys for the tribe and showed the tribe how to make their own. About two years after the Peace Corps left, all of the huts collapsed from the decomposition that the chimney smoke prevented. Now, the tribe is extinct. Good intentions do not always yeild moral results. ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-the-opposite-of-jfk/162446/11 "2003-03-19T05:04:43Z")
You think Bush (the current Bush) is a liberal Republican? What leads you to that conclusion? To me, he seems too far right, and too favorable to the religious right, to be considered a liberal anything. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-the-opposite-of-jfk/162446/12 "2003-03-19T05:21:09Z")
Both Kennedy and Bush were rich New England preppies. Both of them had their elections largely bought by their fathers. One thing that’s opposite: Kennedy fought for his country, Bush deserted it. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-the-opposite-of-jfk/162446/13 "2003-03-19T05:26:47Z")
Forty years later, it’s tough to prove how JFK was percieved at the time of his death. However, you have to remember that Vietnam was still in the future as a debacle. His speech in Berlin before the Wall and the Cuban Missile Crisis, with its trademark Adlai Stevenson moment in the UN, which was certainly more successful than Colin Powell’s presentation there, gave the impression that he deftly handled the principle foreign policy questions of his day. As I stated above, and is obviously true from the posts so far, the impression 40 years later is not nearly as good. So the question is, is there some long term benefit that Bush is bringing us that we’ll only appreciate years from now? ---
**Author:** ![Psi\_Cop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c57346/32.png) [@Psi\_Cop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Psi_Cop)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-the-opposite-of-jfk/162446/14 "2003-03-19T05:32:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Actually, both were elected by a popular plurality. Wrong. Bush the Younger lost the popular vote to Gore, although as mentioned, neither candidate got a majority. Just for reference, here are the numbers in each set: [Kennedy vs. Nixon](http://www.presidentelect.org/e1960.html): Kennedy had 303 electoral votes to Nixon’s 219. Another 15 went to a second democratic candidate, Harry Byrd. Kennedy picked up 34,227,096 votes (49.7%) to Nixon’s 34,107,646 votes (49.5%). Byrd took 116,248 votes. [Bush vs. Gore](http://www.presidentelect.org/e2000.html): Bush had 271 electoral votes, Gore had 266 (with an additional single vote not being cast as a protest). However, as I mentioned above, Bush lost the popular vote with 50,461,092 votes (47.9%) to Gore’s 50,994,096 votes (48.4%). -Psi Cop ---
**Author:** ![Lure](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ba8739/32.png) [@Lure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lure)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-the-opposite-of-jfk/162446/15 "2003-03-19T05:40:21Z")
> [@](#): > > People who are “internationally loved” don’t have their bills stalled out in Congress His stalled bills were mainly the result of,beside the Republican,read Eisenhower/conservative bloc,his own parties southern crew,who would never pass civil rights legislation “forced on them by the eastern “egghead” crew” who they were not found of,and of which,to their eyes,Kennedy represented. THE only reason those bills got passed at the time they did was because Johnson could appeal to the good 'ol boys from the south,and probably lingering feelings of regret over their coldshoulder appraoch to JFK before the assasination.That this bit of armtwisting done by Johnson didn’t go over to well with some,or most,of them,is evidenced by the '68 elections. Kennedy made a big hit in Europe in his swing through there,from Berlin to Paris to Ireland.Some said in no small part due to Jackie.and the feeling here in the in the states seemed to be a genuine love and concern from them for JFK when he was shot.I still remember newsclips showing Euro men/women in the streets crying. Unfortunately sme here where doing their impression of the Arabs dancing in the streets after 9/11.There was a big divide in this country over the civil rights situation,and those against it where pretty vocal about chickens coming home to roost at Kennedy’s and MLK’s deaths. A different time.Different issues. Cite?I lived it. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-the-opposite-of-jfk/162446/16 "2003-03-19T12:26:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bjohn13 \* > The Peace Corps fixed that problem…they constructed chimneys for the tribe and showed the tribe how to make their own. About two years after the Peace Corps left, all of the huts collapsed from the decomposition that the chimney smoke prevented. Now, the tribe is extinct. > \*\* Hijack Time I think that perhaps a culture that is unable to discover the concept of a hole in the roof to allow smoke to escape might be destined for extinction. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-the-opposite-of-jfk/162446/17 "2003-03-19T12:48:18Z")
Also it has been said that JFK would not be accepted by the democratic party of today. Mainly due to such issues as taxes and forien policy which fall along the lines as G. W. Bush the Ever-Ready (or what ever you called him). It is simply too early to find his opposite but may I suggest Teddy R. who focused on (IMHO) short term beneficial, long term harmful domestic spending programs. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-the-opposite-of-jfk/162446/18 "2003-03-19T14:30:56Z")
They were both fans of tax cuts to increase revenue and grow the economy. > [@](#): > > _by pantom_ > We will simply and charitably say that Bush the Unready is not and leave it at that. Bush has high approval ratings. Do you have a cite to show that Kennedy had higher ones right before his death? Or, are you simply referring to how much _you_ dislike him? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-the-opposite-of-jfk/162446/19 "2003-03-19T14:41:34Z")
Kennedy didn’t have the good fortune of a 9/11 attack. If it wasn’t for 9/11, Shrub would be dead in the water. His approval ratings are dropping like a turd in a well as it is. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-the-opposite-of-jfk/162446/20 "2003-03-19T14:43:55Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by pantom \* > \*\* > But here’s the truly controversial part: years ago, there was an article in The Atlantic by Garry Wills which contended that JFK botched the Cuban Missile Crisis, a crisis he had apparently won, by undermining Khruschev, and thereby killing for years the hope of a true rapprochement with the Soviet Union._\* How did Wills think it should have been handled? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-the-opposite-of-jfk/162446.md?page=2)