I always find Andrew Marr's programmes excellent, and JFK, the making of modern history was no exception. The focus of the programme was how Kennedy's election campaign marked a change in US (and world) political campaigning, and was perhaps the start of the dominance of spin in elections, where the marketing became as important, if not more so, than the message.
While I don't have too much detailed knowledge of JFK, overall I have a favourable impression of him, based on my understanding that he was an inspiring leader (his speeches are famous to this day), and the fact that while I don't think of him having being particularly successful in the domestic arena (no progress on civil rights I think), I know he definitely had some achievements in foreign affairs; in fact given the severity and complexity of things like the Cuban missile crisis, this alone would make him one of the more important presidents.
What I didn't realise though, was how thin on substance he seems to have been before coming to that office, or how much his 'celebrity' style played a part in winning it for him, and the consequences of this road to success. Furthermore he might not have even been the most suitable option the democrats had at the time. Since generally only the final two opposing combatants in a US election are remembered by the world at large, what is often forgotten is the fight within each party to choose its single representative. Since the elections themselves are often a grand battle between left and right for a swinging middle, they are probably less nuanced than the primary contests that precede them, in which different types of characters compete for the right to represent the same overall message, but in different ways. Indeed, if the general mood in a country is a major (if not dominant) force as to which way (leftish or rightish) it swings in that particular year, then what is also telling, or at least not unimportant, is how these primaries were resolved. For example if the democrats were well placed anyway to regain power, then what is more at issue is not that a democrat becomes president, but what kind of democrat, since he/she would shape their political message and destiny for the near future.
So it was fascinating to learn that Kennedy's main rival for the candidacy (Hubert Humphrey) was a very respected and principled politician, and that he was in effect steamrolled out of the way by the wealth and resources of the Kennedy machine. Kennedy relied more on style than substance, wowing the electorate with his rock star like charisma and panache, while in parallel the cynical usage of smears, dirty tricks, manipulation helped to wipe out a solid, decent politician. None of this sounds surprising, since such dynamics and tactics are (regrettably) assumed to be part and parcel of campaigning, until it becomes clear that this was probably the first election in which they really played a major, and transformational, role.
Indeed it wasn't only Humphrey who was caught unawares by this approach, it also worked effectively against the republican candidate, Nixon, illustrated perfectly by the TV debate fiasco, which was thought of as a win for the radiant Kennedy by people who had seen Nixon's sweaty and (literally) sickly appearance on TV, even though those who had only listened on radio thought Nixon had performed much better.
Here was known principles (Humphreys) and experience (Nixon, current vice-president) being shunned in favour of a captivating image, something which is even more striking given that this was a time when cold war was heating up, and the possibility of global annihilation was a real threat, and one would have thought serious times called for a serious candidate.
But maybe it was precisely such a sombre time of doom and gloom that was actually most suited to the positive qualities that Kennedy brought to politics. He wasn't presenting deeds and policies, he was offering a lifestyle, an inspirational soaring dream to aspire too, and maybe this is what was really needed (within reason of course on the final pragmatic political front!). It is no coincidence that this era, the 60s was also a time of growing movements which struggled to shrug off the boring (and worse) shackles of life in the 50s, the hippie movement, civil rights, and above all, consumerism. Kennedy probably was both a beneficiary and a driver of this changing, more active, worldview, and it does have some things to be said for it. Above all, he got people interested in politics, and even inspired them to be involved in their country. After the world war it is understandable that people relied on stable politicans, or even ex-generals, but now times were moving on, and it was important that they the people were once more involved, and Kennedy's soaring rhetoric, and indeed his style, helped with that.
But, it can't be denied that there is a dark underbelly. Even Kennedy himself was not only disingenuous in his campaign (criticizing the administration for letting the US fall behind in the arms race with the Soviet Union when he himself had seen classified information that this was not true) but even lied outright (about his health, denying he was suffering from a disease which records show he actually had); and unfortunately while it is of course a great thing to get more people involved in an election, the sad reality is that the manner in which that interest is whipped up means many, if not most, of them are likely to be more swayed by the propaganda than the programme. If it's all in the packaging, the more expensive wrapping paper wins the day, and this opens the door to well resourced, connected, and funded interests to gain control.
But is there any other choice? It's all very well to point out the dangers of an uninformed 'mob', but at the end of the day democracy is just exactly what is wanted by the biggest mob, informed or not. The only benign alternative is patronising elitism, which is also susceptible to manipulation by those with resources. At least in the former case, where everyone is involved, then everything is out in the open, and even if things go wrong temporarily, this transparency allows for self-correction, something which can't happen if the business of politics is handled only by those 'who know best'. You can't fool all of the people all of the time, and tt is this openness, feedback and ability for correction which makes democracy the best of a bad lot. It's not perfect, but it can improve, and this is what matters most.
So, Kennedy's legacy is a double edged sword; he ushered in a new era of politics whereby style mattered as much as substance, but it was this style which brought passion and enthusiasm back in. What is (as always) needed is a system of checks and balances, such that no one surge of style can completely derail the overall project. A charismatic leader is good, but only in conjunction with a solid parlimentary system where the people at the day to day level feel connected to politics, even if the head of the chain is a celebrity removed almost from the real world. Unfortunately I'm not sure the role of the US president, especially with his/her discretion when it comes to foreign policy, fully fits that description. However, it must be said that it is rare that the situation is as serious as it was when JFK took power, and he did ok, so it seems even being a celebrity is not a barrier to being a politician as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment