My goodness, our love affair with JFK has endured DECADES after he died. The entire country apparently was swept up in the magic. Pundits were wondering if Obama would have a quote as poignant as “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
How is this any different for the rally of support that President Obama has? Is it such a wrong thing? I keep hearing people complain about him being the new messiah, calling his inauguration the “anointing” and other such disparaging views.
I like to think for every comment like that, a counter comment about what Dick Cheney eats for breakfast is made.
Honestly folks, how is it any better/worse/different?
Well, part of it is different because Obama hasn’t done anything in office yet. At least I think that’s a difference. Were people this crazy about JFK before he took office? Or was he only popular (with people in general, not just the Catholics who supported him beforehand) once he began doing things?
JFK inspired many to get involved in politics at all levels. Many joined the Peach Corps or otherwise served our nation.
He showed some class and taught America to appreciate it.
He may not have been the saint some make him out to be, but on the whole, he was a major benefit to America. (Thus all the good feelings even today.)
If Obama can do similarly, if he can make a dent in the huge problems this nation faces, (war, economy, health care, et al), if he can just make us feel good about ourselves, the nation and the future, this can’t be a bad thing.
Sometimes reality isn’t quite as perfect as we’d like it to be. Life is messy. You shoot for the stars and see how close you can get.
I don’t think there’s any great national love affair with Kennedy; what I believe you mean is the continued interest in his life. Which is easy enough to explain - in Kennedy’s day (which, as you remember, was nearly 50 years ago) the press didn’t report on the discrepancies between his ‘perfect’ family life and the truth, though ISTR from my own reading that his affairs were pretty widely known. He had some pretty staunch political adversaries and made some huge mistakes, including the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam, to name a couple. What makes him interesting is finding out the truth behind the pretty pictures.
I can’t comment on how people viewed Kennedy during his campaign (as I wasn’t born until 11 months into his presidency) but I have been struck by the hysteria of some Obama supporters and their refusal (again, SOME Obama supporters) to countenance even the idea that he is a flawed human being who has made mistakes, will make more, and at heart is a politician with a large ego and a willingness to run over people to achieve his goals, like every other candidate now and and in every election. You pretty much HAVE to be a politician with that kind of ego and drive to have the confidence and the ruthlessness to undertake the prospect of even attempting such a run for office.
If you want to “WOOT” about Obama, go right ahead. If you can’t find someone to “WOOT” with locally, you can find plenty of people online - heck, there are plenty right here. But it seems kind of silly to try to justify your feelings by saying “But people did it about Kennedy!” If it was over-the-top then, it’s over-the-top now.
I was born in 1968. In my lifetime, the fascination with anyone remotely Kennedy has endured for at least my 40 years. From my perspective, the adoration of JFK has been completely over the top, especially when it trickles down to 3rd cousins twice removed who get arrested for DUI. I can not believe that none of it started until after his death.
I quoted this section of your post for a reason. I’ve been WOOTing about Obama for quite a while, heck, I’ve even indulged in a little “neener neener.” My post was not about that. I was reading the web and kept hitting this roadblock of “how could he ever live up to” blah blah, or digs at how loyal his followers are. Which brought me to my question, How is it different, if it even is. I’d like to understand the difference, if there is one.
I’d also like it if one of those folks that mocks Obama’s supporters would explain the difference from their perspective, which is why I put it in IMHO.
To describe this as “mocking” is rather over-the-top, IMO. People are saying that Obama-mania has gotten out of control. I don’t think that qualifies as “mocking.”
Besides, I think that elfkin477 already identified a key difference. JFK was lauded for the things that he did as President. Obama was being venerated long before he actually took office. Regardless of whether this veneration is truly warranted, I think that’s a rather key distinction between the two situations.
I am not mocking. I am rolling my eyes. Like someone said above, he is a politician. I can’t get that excited over a politician and I don’t know how anyone can. I am hopeful but with realistic hopes.
And I disagree about Kennedy. He is lauded for more style than substance. Most of his agenda didn’t get pushed thru until after his death by the move savy LBJ. A lot of what he did do does not look too good from here.
ETA: I can certainly understand the excitement people feel about the historic aspect of his election. No matter what he does or does not do this presidency will be very important. I can understand how people who have lived through some very rough times can get emotional about that.
You’re right, and that is a distinction that I did not emphasize. I do heartily agree with you that all this Obamamania has gotten out of hand, though. As you said, people should have realistic hopes. Sadly, people seem to forget that politicians usually disappoint.
It’s all just a response to charisma. Obama has it; no president since Kennedy, except Reagan, has had any, and Reagan’s was weakened by a) his age, and b) his being largely a known quantity before taking office.
There was the “fallen hero” aspect to JFK, too. If he’d served a full 8 years, and made and had to be accountable for more mistakes than just Bay of Pigs, and if there had been some follow-up to the Cuba crisis, or if Jackie hadn’t invoked the name of the musical, there might not be as much la-la about him today, right?
Make the comparison after Obama has had a few years of substance to discuss - but not yet.
Mr. Briston,
There are differing views on every topic, to be sure. These two articles support the Peace Corps.
Brookings Institution 2003
“A recent Brookings study, Agenda for the Nation, refers to American military power as a kind of “glue” for global security and stability. At the same time, more of the developing world views this power resentfully as a means of extending American economic and cultural domination. By contrast, the Peace Corps is one of the few forms of engagement offered by the U.S. government that is eagerly embraced by developing countries. This is arguably a sufficient reason for expanding it.”
It’s Not for Everyone
"For many people, their 27-month tour will be one of the most challenging things they ever do. As a volunteer you will be bored, you will be lonely, and you will get some sort of exotic illness. You will need a good sense of humor, heaps of flexibility, and donkey carts full of patience. You will have to lower your comfort level and raise your tolerance level.
Some volunteers don’t finish a full 27-month tour. Peace Corps gives you the option of quitting and going home at any time with no penalty.
Though I sometimes question the value of the work I accomplished, overall I am glad that I served in the Peace Corps and I recommend it to anyone with an adventurous spirit, a giving heart, and two spare years on their hands. As long as you approach it with realistic expectations and realize you probably won’t change the world, you will have a rewarding Peace Corps experience."
Seeing as most of what he did (Kennedy) was bad-like getting involved in Vietnam, the bay of Pigs disaster, the race for space (in which lives were lost), nad the “Alliance for Progress”. OK, the guy was young and good looking-but there was a dark side as well (read S. Hersch’s “THE DARK SIDE of CAMELOT”-it will change your opinion!
