“In short, we must face problems which do not lend themselves to easy or quick or permanent solutions. And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient – that we are only 6 percent of the world’s population – that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 percent of mankind – that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity – and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.” - John F. Kennedy - University of Washington - Nov. 16th, 1961
I was so moved by a recent TIME Magazine article on John F. Kennedy that I tracked down the speech from the University of Washington’s 100th anniversary that provided some of the most compelling quotations found in the article (including the one above).
There are numerous striking similarities to the challenges we faced as a nation as well as those JFK did as a president more than 45 years ago during the Cold War. One could argue that JFK was afforded a more black-and-white approach to foreign policy during the Cold War as “the enemy” was clearly defined as the Communist Soviet Union, much unlike the entity of “terrorism” we face today.
Yet, JFK maintained an approach that was nuanced and complex - presumably one that would be shot down as “too confusing,” “not clearly defined” and risking the perception of “lacking a clearcut stance” by the focus group driven policy makers and speech writers in the current administration’s White House staff.
From the TIME article:
…Americans are still trying to figure out nearly half a century after his abbreviated presidency who Jack Kennedy really was. Was he a cold war hawk, as much of the history establishment, Washington pundit class and presidential hopefuls of both parties—eager to lay claim to his mantle of muscular leadership—have insisted over the years? Or was he a man ahead of his time, a peace-minded visionary trying to untie the nuclear knot that held hostage the U.S. and the Soviet Union—and the rest of the world?
As the U.S. once again finds itself in an endless war—this time against terror, or perhaps against fear itself—the question of Kennedy’s true legacy seems particularly loaded. What is the best way for America to navigate through a world where its enemies seem everywhere and nowhere at the same time? What can we learn from the way Kennedy was trying to redefine the U.S. role in the world and to invite Americans to be part of that change? Who was the real John Fitzgerald Kennedy?
The conundrum begins with Kennedy himself, a politically complex man whose speeches often brandished arrows as well as olive branches. This seemingly contradictory message was vividly communicated in J.F.K.’s famous Inaugural Address. While Kennedy vowed the nation “would pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty”—aggressive rhetoric that would fit right in with George W. Bush’s presidency—the young leader also dispensed with the usual Soviet bashing of his time and invited our enemy to join us in a new “quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all of humanity.” It would be hard to imagine the current occupant of the White House extending the same offer to Islamic jihadists or Iran’s leaders.
What is perhaps most striking about Kennedy is his clear regard for the intelligence of his audience. He talked up - not down - to the American people. And rather than possessing the cavalier stubbornness of W that mandates reducing even the densest of international affairs to simple black and white terms that can justify whatever position the White House chooses, Kennedy did not profess to have any sort of definitive solution - much less an easy one.
(Side note: for an interesting dissection of Bush’s search for his legacy, check out this Washington Post article)
Instead he speaks of his guiding principles when considering America’s position in the world. He discusses the two ends of the polarized national opinion spectrum and concludes that staunchly residing in either pole is to commit a costly error when choosing the course of the nation. On the surface, his message may appear contradictory, but I believe it is simply the sign of a man who realizes there is no cookie-cutter, black and white answer (”Either you are with us, or against us…”) to something as complex as defining America’s role as the dominant, hegemonic superpower in the world.
I urge everyone to read both the TIME article as well as the full text of the speech (after the jump). The article is great at providing contemporary context for Kennedy’s challeneges and ideals as a President. It gives chilling historical accounts, such as the famous incident where Kennedy narrowly avoided all-out nuclear warfare with Russia as his cabinet was urging a strike based on the 100% incorrect intelligence that there were no Russian warheads in Cuba, ready to strike the US at a minute’s notice. (If we could have just swapped WMD intelligence conclusions between eras…)
With regard to the speech, it’s startling how Kennedy even verges on a philosophical discussion with his audience. Compare that to the heavy-handed, spoon-feeding, over-simplification of Bush rhetoric. I’ve read several articles on how political research institutions and focus-group based politicking has sucked out what little earnest life was present in 20th century politics, but comparing this speech to any of Bush’s really sharpens the contrast between previous and current levels of respect for the American public’s capacity to think.
While W is avoiding college campuses all-together in the twilight hours of his presidency (for fear of protests and boos…check the Washington Post article for more details), Kennedy begins his speech by touching on the relevance of education in securing America’s future and then deftly transitions into his larger-scale points about American foreign policy.
An excerpt:
“We cannot, as a free nation, compete with our adversaries in tactics of terror, assassination, false promises, counterfeit mobs and crises.
We cannot, under the scrutiny of a free press and public, tell different stories to different audiences, foreign and domestic, friendly and hostile.
We cannot abandon the slow processes of consulting with our allies to match the swift expediencies of those who merely dictate to their satellites.
We can neither abandon nor control the international organization in which we now cast less than 1 percent of the vote in the General Assembly.
We possess weapons of tremendous power–but they are least effective in combating the weapons most often used by freedom’s foes: subversion, infiltration, guerrilla warfare, civil disorder.”
The text of the speech - and its lasting relevance to today’s climate - is inspiring to say the least. It makes me hopeful of returning to the complexity of thought that once characterized the dialogue between the President and the people he represents to the world. It’s refreshing to see a President open in his uncertainty but steadfast in his conviction to a set of principles that represent a thorough analysis of the situation at hand. Eschewing the positions held by the extreme right and left of his time, Kennedy found refuge in his own plot of ground somewhere in the middle.
Learning his lesson the hard way when coerced by the military branch of his staff to invade Cuba, JFK decided to act singularly from that moment forward. Singular in thought, though…not unilateral in policy. And that just may be the most critical aspect missing from Bush’s presidency…the power and the will to adapt conviction to what is right based on weighing as many facts available at that moment and not, as Kennedy put it, “substituting rigidity for firmness.”
I believe JFK would be appalled at how the democratic ideals of this country have been violated by the people in the Bush Administration who are crafting communications to the American public. It seems that the research behind these communications portray an American public that simply wants superficial reassurance that the powers-that-be are dealing with all things outside the borders of the country and that the forces of good will prevail, just as they do in neat little episodic bunches in 24.
If it was the collective desire of Americans to be engaged, I have to believe that it would be reflected in all of the polls being taken daily to determine what the hot-button issues of the moment are. The onus has to be on us as well to demand more of our President.
Perhaps this is both naive and idealistic on my part. New media is revolutionizing politics in ways so that there is no turning back. Stumping can be done from anywhere and reach everyone in an instant thanks to the Internet. The fireside chat is replaced by streaming video and our attention spans are reflective of the neatly packaged byte size bits that information is delivered to us. Would a policy-laden speech such as Kennedy’s even be made in as isolated a forum as a college campus? Has presidential face-time gone the way of the dodo?
Still…
I do not think it is unreasonable or antiquated to demand a pensive, intelligent figurehead for our country. Regardless of Bush’s intelligence behind closed doors - the persona he projects is the strong, alpha-male that speaks in broad strokes and offers no room for interpretation - or insight - in what he says. He is the stern parent - not the college professor.
If we can’t count on our own President to have inherent faith in our capacity to understand and engage him/her…what is left of our democracy? And if we no longer care enough to treat our President’s addresses as subject matter for debate rather than as gospel…do we have the ability or the wherewithal to rebuild it?
[Click on the “Continue Reading…” link below to get to the full text of the speech from the main page]
Continue reading ‘JFK: When Did Complexity of Thought Depart the US?’
As has been plastered all over the blogosphere last week, a Cal Tech grad student named Virgil Griffith has created a web-based tool called the WikiScanner that essentially lays bare the legitimate extent of one criticism consistently leveled against the user-created-and-maintained web-based encylopedia: can it be trusted as a source for information?
According to 
So I’ve been on extended hiatus since June 30th - should have probably given a heads-up to the people who aren’t my good friends that come to this page on a regular basis…
So yeah, I’ve had this blog up for almost two months now. The name is “The Technologist.” And yet - this is my first post about the friggin device from Apple sarcastically dubbed “The Jesus Phone” in the tech community because of the rabid anticipation festering amongst techies, fanboys, and pretty much everyone else since its unveiling to the public a few months ago. There was SO MUCH coverage that I felt I was selling-out by writing about it. What was left to say, really?
I’ve been batting this one around for a while as it’s a pretty touchy subject. Touchy on a national level and because my mother (a staunch conservative Republican) forwarded this to me with the meesage “Please watch this. It’s absolutely chilling. I know who David Horowitz is. I believe every word and the timeline is indisputable.” After scrolling down a bit in the same message, I see a homegrown tagline from the original sender of the email: “The most powerful and frightening video you have ever seen…”