Daniel Pipes
Mobile Edition
Regular Site

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?


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 for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

Submit a comment on this item

Search by Enter name or date
Search Forum Comments:

Reader comments (40) on this item

Title By Date
he killed him for money case closed (revised) [305 words]adel elkabanySep 17, 2008 08:02
Not just JFK, but also MLK and Bobby K. [267 words]DrRJPDec 18, 2007 13:24
Idealism Is The Psychosis of Morons [81 words]WinghunterSep 20, 2009 14:44
Oh Good Grief [99 words]JonDec 14, 2007 12:28
Another post Kennedy assassinations observation [548 words]HomefrontDec 13, 2007 07:42
Oswald was a member of the pilgrim left [239 words]Peter HerzDec 7, 2007 09:14
Oswald Killed Kennedy? [10 words]ploniDec 5, 2007 11:30
Two sides of the same coin [442 words]SheerahkahnNov 26, 2007 18:59
why did Oswald kill Kennedy [68 words]Robert L. FreedmanNov 26, 2007 12:47
Why Oswald killed Kennedy [109 words]Peter KauffnerDec 2, 2007 10:41
Ignoring The Obvious [310 words]Seamus MacNemiNov 25, 2007 18:42
Vietnam not Oswald [171 words]Lars NielsenNov 25, 2007 12:23
Death of President Kennedy Emblematic of Those Times-But Points to Greater Tragic Legacy [936 words]M. ToveyNov 26, 2007 15:09
Vietnam Just Fuel, Not Fire [488 words]Michael USA, Viet VetDec 5, 2007 21:34
Reply to Michael USA [233 words]Lars NielsenDec 21, 2007 06:03
Nature vs. Nurture and a desire for votes [369 words]jennifer solisNov 23, 2007 23:10
The Book's Premise is Wrong - the Left has always been anti-American [619 words]Steve RogersNov 23, 2007 17:26
The Legacy of Abraham Zapruder & Creation of Suicidal Liberalism [527 words]James Burke,( Canada), CPA (Illinois),Nov 23, 2007 08:46
Disagree With "Oswald's Malign Legacy Hypothesis" [155 words]Peter StevensNov 22, 2007 23:13
Also Explains the Mechanism of Denial: "Sixteen Other Assassins..." [94 words]KarridineNov 22, 2007 19:41
The Dead Kennedy's and Liberal regression [212 words]Luta RD BelcherNov 22, 2007 15:04
Oswald's Malign Legacy [113 words]Tom QuiganNov 22, 2007 14:09
tunnel vision [116 words]David W. LincolnNov 22, 2007 10:43
Oswald's malign legacy? [270 words]Leon Van DykeNov 22, 2007 09:02
"Liberal" today means illiberal [195 words]Ian CampbellNov 22, 2007 07:30
This is line of reasoning is certainly thought provoking [652 words]Ken BesigNov 22, 2007 04:26
With my own eyes [304 words]zari namdarNov 22, 2007 04:14
An interesting perspective [130 words]jennifer solisNov 23, 2007 23:50
I'll Sign On With That [18 words]Seamus MacNemiNov 26, 2007 07:10
He's a She [33 words]jennifer solisNov 26, 2007 20:29
⇒ Nexus not in Kennedy Assasination [353 words]Stan KreisNov 22, 2007 01:43
Oswald [108 words]Gunther H. SchiffNov 21, 2007 23:54
US Treasury notes [167 words]meaNov 21, 2007 22:47
The Men Who Knew Too Much [268 words]Rebecca MouldsNov 21, 2007 22:38
Liberals are cultural marxists [61 words]RodgerNov 21, 2007 22:31
Lee Harvey Oswald [132 words]Dannel R. BallesterosNov 21, 2007 21:45
simplistic [306 words]John W. McGinleyNov 21, 2007 21:10
National Self-Hatred [186 words]Paul EidelbergNov 21, 2007 20:53
A clear, concise and very true article... [475 words]AyashaNov 21, 2007 20:23
Liberal Drivel and Capitalist Clap Trap [200 words]Seamus MacNemiNov 25, 2007 20:38

Comment on this item

Name
Email Address (optional)
Title of Comments
Comments:

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 for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

See the 25 most recent outstanding comments.

Back to top of page