Supreme Political Achievements

 

Supreme Political Achievements

Peter Schultz

 

                  Bruce Miroff, in his book Pragmatic Illusions, about John F. Kennedy’s politics, reports and takes issue with the argument that Kennedy’s handling of the Cuban missile crisis was “a supreme political achievement.” For Miroff, Kennedy’s handling of the crisis was too militaristic, foregoing diplomacy for some kind of military action that brought the world to the brink of nuclear war at least a couple of times. Kennedy, Miroff argues, ‘had brought the world to the brink of nuclear war for the sake of American prestige and influence [which] was hardly the stuff of political greatness.” [99]

 

                  Now, that’s a sensible argument but, as a thought experiment, entertain the idea that in fact Kennedy’s actions in the Cuban missile crisis did constitute “a supreme political triumph.” [99] What then does this tell us about “supreme political achievements” or “supreme political triumphs?” Do such achievements, such triumphs require a “crisis mentality,” which Miroff attributes quite persuasively to Kennedy? Are such achievements and triumphs dependent of an apocalyptic view of the human condition? And, finally, are such achievements and triumphs actually worth the dangers involved in them? After all, Kennedy brought on the brink of nuclear war over a relatively few Soviet missiles in Cuba, missiles that Secretary of Defense McNamara dismissed as inconsequential in terms of the nuclear balance of power in the world. Would nuclear war, which Kennedy did accept as a possibility as a result of his actions, have been worth it? Are supreme political triumphs worth their costs?

 

                  Or to consider another example: Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War is usually seen as a great political achievement, if not the greatest in US history. But what did this achievement involve? A horrendously bloody and terroristic war which, while leading to the formal abolition of slavery in the US, was then followed by the reinstitution of slavery in the South by another name and by an apartheid system called “segregation” in the North which lasted for about 100 years and led to degradation of the African Americans generally.

 

                  So, what should be made of “supreme political achievements?” Other examples that could be considered would be the Roman empire and the British empire, both of which are treated as supreme political achievements. Looked at candidly, unconventionally, what do these achievements tell us about the political? What do they tell us about political greatness? At the very least, these achievements should encourage contemplation of the political and of those, who in the name of greatness, affirm the political.