69 million page views

Nexus not in Kennedy Assasination

Reader comment on item: Lee Harvey Oswald's Malign Legacy

Submitted by Stan Kreis (United States), Nov 22, 2007 at 01:43

The question raised is so important, it demands an answer, but not this one. I have thought about just this question for a long time. What gave rise to the tendency of American intellectuals to go soft on socialism and hard on American values dating before the 1960s? Certainly there existed a certain reaction to the bigotry of the Right and the mythology of hate in America in the rise of the progressive movement.

Certainly there existed a certain reaction to the lack of a distinctly and effectual Rightist ideological counterargument to the rise of Progressivism. Certainly there existed a challenge to the existing regime by way of social relations, specifically embedded in but not exclusive to, for instance, Identity Politics. All these problems, however, existed in the past and did not undo the Democrat Party thereby. I believe it is more worthwhile to look back at and contrast Winston Churchill with the Progressives now. Churchill did not have a problem making the Western way of life superior to other ways of life. He was no relativist and was unabashedly in favor of seeing the West as bound by a duty to bring Western civilization to the other parts of the World. He took up the cause of the Jews because he didn't favor Arab culture, which he perceived to be backward and destructive, in contrast to the Jewish opposite.

Kennedy, and even Scoop Jackson, probably would have agreed to a lesser extent. It is the assendency of this moral relativist point of view which has changed us and damaged the Churchillian counter-argument. We are going through a period of time whereby the relativist point of view is dominant, aggressive and assendent, but I do not think it will last.

At some point, such a period of self-doubt will collapse of its own contradictions with reality. That does not mean the Democrats will return to its roots in Kennedy and Scoop Jackson, or that the United States will hue to a pre-1960s line. Could it be that World prosperity is driving the tolerance and even desire for socialist poltiics among the nation-state populations?

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Submit a comment on this item

<< Previous Comment      Next Comment >>

Reader comments (42) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
grove [62 words]stacyMar 21, 2010 23:47170491
Owsald [93 words]BertEDec 19, 2009 10:27166012
he killed him for money case closed (revised) [305 words]adel elkabanySep 17, 2008 08:02138725
1Not just JFK, but also MLK and Bobby K. [267 words]DrRJPDec 18, 2007 13:24116467
Idealism Is The Psychosis of Morons [81 words]WinghunterSep 20, 2009 14:44116467
Oh Good Grief [99 words]JonDec 14, 2007 12:28116164
Another post Kennedy assassinations observation [548 words]HomefrontDec 13, 2007 07:42116103
1Oswald was a member of the pilgrim left [239 words]Peter HerzDec 7, 2007 09:14115871
1Oswald Killed Kennedy? [10 words]ploniDec 5, 2007 11:30115763
Two sides of the same coin [442 words]SheerahkahnNov 26, 2007 18:59114981
why did Oswald kill Kennedy [68 words]Robert L. FreedmanNov 26, 2007 12:47114946
Why Oswald killed Kennedy [109 words]Peter KauffnerDec 2, 2007 10:41114946
Ignoring The Obvious [310 words]Seamus MacNemiNov 25, 2007 18:42114810
Vietnam not Oswald [171 words]Lars NielsenNov 25, 2007 12:23114779
1Death of President Kennedy Emblematic of Those Times-But Points to Greater Tragic Legacy [936 words]M. ToveyNov 26, 2007 15:09114779
Vietnam Just Fuel, Not Fire [488 words]Michael USA, Viet VetDec 5, 2007 21:34114779
Reply to Michael USA [233 words]Lars NielsenDec 21, 2007 06:03114779
Nature vs. Nurture and a desire for votes [369 words]jennifer solisNov 23, 2007 23:10114548
The Book's Premise is Wrong - the Left has always been anti-American [619 words]Steve RogersNov 23, 2007 17:26114508
The Legacy of Abraham Zapruder & Creation of Suicidal Liberalism [527 words]James Burke,( Canada), CPA (Illinois),Nov 23, 2007 08:46114456
Disagree With "Oswald's Malign Legacy Hypothesis" [155 words]Peter StevensNov 22, 2007 23:13114422
Also Explains the Mechanism of Denial: "Sixteen Other Assassins..." [94 words]KarridineNov 22, 2007 19:41114414
The Dead Kennedy's and Liberal regression [212 words]Luta RD BelcherNov 22, 2007 15:04114383
Oswald's Malign Legacy [113 words]Tom QuiganNov 22, 2007 14:09114380
tunnel vision [116 words]David W. LincolnNov 22, 2007 10:43114369
Oswald's malign legacy? [270 words]Leon Van DykeNov 22, 2007 09:02114359
"Liberal" today means illiberal [195 words]Ian CampbellNov 22, 2007 07:30114355
This is line of reasoning is certainly thought provoking [652 words]Ken BesigNov 22, 2007 04:26114345
With my own eyes [304 words]zari namdarNov 22, 2007 04:14114344
An interesting perspective [130 words]jennifer solisNov 23, 2007 23:50114344
I'll Sign On With That [18 words]Seamus MacNemiNov 26, 2007 07:10114344
He's a She [33 words]jennifer solisNov 26, 2007 20:29114344
Nexus not in Kennedy Assasination [353 words]Stan KreisNov 22, 2007 01:43114333
Oswald [108 words]Gunther H. SchiffNov 21, 2007 23:54114319
US Treasury notes [167 words]meaNov 21, 2007 22:47114306
The Men Who Knew Too Much [268 words]Rebecca MouldsNov 21, 2007 22:38114305
Liberals are cultural marxists [61 words]RodgerNov 21, 2007 22:31114304
Lee Harvey Oswald [132 words]Dannel R. BallesterosNov 21, 2007 21:45114299
simplistic [306 words]John W. McGinleyNov 21, 2007 21:10114295
National Self-Hatred [186 words]Paul EidelbergNov 21, 2007 20:53114288
A clear, concise and very true article... [475 words]AyashaNov 21, 2007 20:23114285
Liberal Drivel and Capitalist Clap Trap [200 words]Seamus MacNemiNov 25, 2007 20:38114285

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)