>>> jf noonan <jfn1 at msc.com> 01/14/00 12:55PM >>>
So they killed JFK and got LBJ -- how did that help their right-wing goals? JFK wasn't about to do a Great Society program or meaningful Civil Rights legislation. They did worse than waste their time; they shot themselves in the foot, no?
&&&&&&&
CB: If you'll notice I tend to think that the Kennedy assassination was mainly motivated by Kennedy's actions internationally ( aside from the lifestyle things).
I don't think the rightwing reversed the mass domestic trends they didn't like which you mention (Civil Rights and expanded Liberal New Dealism in the Great Society) by the Kennedy assassination. They were focussed on international issues, anti-communism with that act.They were in a real contest. They couldn't do everything at once. This struggle continued for many years.
Perhaps a key point I should say here is that Johnson's programs were passed because of the mass pressure and direction of mass public opinion at the time, not because of the individuals Johnson or Kennedy. The bourgeois were not able to stop that mass trend right then, but Johnson was an advance for them from their standpoint on the Cold War issues.
The rightwing really only reversed the whole direction of the country with the election of Reagan and the institution of Reaganism , which did finally effectively reverse the Civil Rights gains and Great Society/anti-poverty programs, culminating through Clinton, who is a Reaganite in this longview.
Notice that Johnson resigned too. Then there were the King and RFK assassinations as further stopping the mass trends I mention. King was a real mass, working class leader. This was still the same "conspirators" (sorry to use that word) banging away at the whole ball of wax of issues, building toward getting at exactly the issues you mention as well as the international issues, through preemptive strikes this time. By this time, RFK was openly and winningly against the Viet Nam war. King had spoken out against that war. The bourgeois were in general , relative political crisis. Even Nixon had to resign. Also, the JFK killing was preemptive against the future possibility that RFK would follow JFK. The Kennedys were showing way too much personal independence, a couple of upstart punks ,but very charismatic, and potentially exactly some kind of dynasty.
Killing Kennedy in '63 was cutting their losses at that time, but the hidden all around "civil war" was not won until 1980 or post-1980.
CB
-- On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Charles Brown wrote:
> See last post in response to Wojtek's similar question. You
> are looking at Kennedy from the eyes of a leftist in the
> year 2000, not the extremely worried rightwing,
> anti-communist , anti-swinger lifestyle types of the early
> 1960's. Try to think like Barry Goldwater or a McCarthyite
> or John Birchite and it might come to you. The Soviets had
> just put up Sputnik. The Cuban revolution had just turned
> communist 90 miles from Florida. National liberation
> movements were winning independence for colonies all over
> the world. Capitalism was in serious international crisis.
> The Civil Rights movement was at its peak. And Kennedy just
> agreed to a test ban treaty with the Soviets. Barry
> Goldwater/Birchite types were going bananas about all that
> stuff. That was treason as far as they were concerned. It
> was the complete opposite state of mind of the fall of the
> SU and the paleo-liberal triumphalism of today.