Pragmatic Illusions: JFK's Politics

 

Pragmatic Illusions: JFK’s Politics

Peter Schultz

 

                  Bruce Miroff, in his book Pragmatic Illusions, on the “Presidential Politics of John F. Kennedy” attributes to Kennedy a rather strange hybrid kind of politics.

 

                  On one hand, JFK treated foreign affairs as a realm of the apocalyptic, where communism and the Cold War represented an existential and moral threat to civilization itself. On the other hand, Kennedy did not or refused to deal with the domestic scene in apocalyptic terms. And this, Miroff argues, despite the fact that the civil rights movement was “a moral crisis that transcended the ordinary boundaries of American politics” and called out for JFK “to bear witness to its fundamental righteousness.” So, on the one hand, JFK was willing to act aggressively to preserve civilization and its moral principles when it came to the communist threat, but on the other hand, he willing to accommodate those opposed to civil rights in order to preserve domestic tranquility and protect his political prospects.

 

                  A suggestion: JFK’s politics were accommodationist rather than principled. And they were accommodationist not because that served his immediate political needs, e.g., getting elected and reelected. They were because JFK appreciated at some level of consciousness the dangers of principled politics, of a kind of politics that dramatizes political life as characterized by moral conflicts; in fact, as characterized by apocalyptic moral conflicts.

 

                  JFK’s politics were different than, say, Martin Luther King’s politics of non-violence. King argued that the purpose of “non-violent direct action” was “to dramatize [issues] so [they] can no longer be ignored.” Non-violent direct action seeks to create crises, which crises must then be dealt with, which cannot be ignored. So, non-violent direct action seeks to create conflict – King called it “creative tension” – even though those conflicts could and often would lead to violence. Dramatic, crisis-oriented non-violence is not always or innately non-violent.

 

                  Despite his rhetoric at times, JFK’s politics were accommodationist, seeking to avoid or moderate conflicts and crises. For example, JFK refused to use the US military during the Bay of Pigs invasion, leading to its failure. Surely, Kennedy had to suspect that that invasion was seen as a prelude to a US invasion of Cuba to overthrow Castro once it became obvious there would be no Cuban uprising against Castro. JFK also resisted sending US troops to fight in Vietnam, despite repeated attempts by his advisers to do so. Advisers yes, US troops fighting in Nam, no. He also rejected Eisenhower’s advice to use the US military in Laos. And, of course, he successfully did all he could to prevent an attack and/or an invasion of Cuba during the missile crisis.

 

                  So, JFK’s foreign policies and actions smacked of accommodation more than principle, as did his domestic policies and actions, especially regarding civil rights. As a result, he drew the ire, intense to say the least, of more principled politicos, both those on “the right” and those on “the left.” It may be said that JFK saw through the different principled elites vying for control of American politics. He saw through the militarism of the fervently anti-communists. He saw through the greed of the fervently capitalists. And he saw through the self-righteousness of those fervently seeking justice, racial and otherwise. Generally, it may be said that JFK saw through the appeal of principled politics, which is great indeed. The strength of that appeal might well be measured by JFK’S fate.