THE KENNEDY SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT: YOUTH

As I sit and watch the second part of PBS' JFK: American Experience I sit and wonder if during those years youth was considered the best way for government. In just a few days it will be the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's assassination and rather than focus on the negative I would like to pose this question:

• Did Kennedy's youth represent new hope for the US or was it simply the start of an aggressive and somewhat reckless period? 

It seems like Kennedy's fearless nature led him to make mistakes such as the Bay of Pigs invasion, which seemed to empower Fidel Castro and embarrass the US. Kennedy was a symbol of hope in the 1960's and somehow that hope diminished for Kennedy as he realized that his advisors were not always looking out for the interests of the US. Kennedy was also faced with problems such as civil rights unrest brought about by segregation and inequality. 

The Kennedy white house came at a time when change was begging to take place, in a revolutionary manner. Kennedy's youth was one part of the equation, a positive part, but his inexperience was the negative counter. Yes, Kennedy did want to put us in space and he wanted to stand down on talks of nuclear war but his desires seemed to clash with the status quo. 

We made it to space, we did not engage in a nuclear holocaust and yet we were still a target. Kennedy was not necessarily as authoritative as his predecessor Eisenhower, nor as devious as Nixon, the man that would eventually take the White House in 68.' The start of the revolutionary period of the US came from an uncertainty on how to deal with communism and having a weaker foreign policy. With youth and inexperience the military ended up with a deeper level of involvement than necessary in Vietnam. 

Perhaps if Kennedy had not been killed there would have been an early pull out of Vietnam and there wouldn't have been such a massive loss of human life. Kennedy never had the opportunity to realize his dreams for an open system of government that showcased great American resolve and courage. Camelot was only 34 months of a lifetime and yet that spectrum was unique because of youth, aggressiveness, and inexperience. There will never be another Camelot and perhaps that's not a bad thing, then again it would be nice to see that hope once more.

IF HE HAD DONE IT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE TURMOIL

It's safe to say that the greatest hinderance to LBJ's presidential career and more than likely to his health both mental and physical was Vietnam. The most intense periods of conflict spanned the majority of LBJ's presidency starting in late 1965. LBJ was incredibly confident that he would be able to take care of this situation but unfortunately for him it was not to be. There is something absolutely hilarious about hindsight and life in general. LBJ announced in 1968 that he would not seek nor accept the democratic nomination for the presidency. With Johnson's announcement came Hubert Humphrey's nomination and subsequent run against Nixon.

Hubert Humphrey won the nomination because RFK was shot in June of that year and subsequently Humphrey was the go to guy since Ted Kennedy did not come out to take his brother's place. It was recently revealed that LBJ had a plan to come back into the race in 1968 during the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. LBJ's plan was to arrive on board Marine One and declare his intentions while simultaneously undermining Humphrey and striking a major blow to Nixon's not so dominant lead.

The underlying subject of Vietnam was going to be Johnson's big blow to Nixon as he had proof that Nixon was the reason for the extension of the Paris Peace Talks since he was basically serving a stop to the progress by saying that he could provide Vietnam a better result than Johnson should he win the election. LBJ accused Nixon of treason and while Nixon used cunning and deception to extend the war  Johnson was using it to extend his legacy. If Johnson would have gone back in the chances are that the turmoil experienced by the country would have been just as great in some different level. Johnson was growing weaker physically and his presidency was riddled with opposition from the anti war movement  and young angry voters deceived with the fact that Camelot came to a quick and bitter end yielding the way for a Texas war monger.

I think Johnson would have faced more challenges than Nixon with Vietnam and likely would have probably died in office. More than likely Johnson's exit would have yielded the way for either a McGovern presidency or an unlikely Nixon comeback on the basis of Johnson's inability to effectively craft a strong war policy to deal with Vietnam. Nixon would have probably served until 1981 and more than likely would have had a far better legacy being that his presidency would have dealt with inflation, the Panama Canal, and little to no overseas conflict. Perhaps a 20 year republican lead would have been beneficial seeing as how Nixon, Reagan, and Bush were almost liberal by today's republican standards.

The fact is that nothing like that happened but it's interesting to wonder if it had, maybe this blog would have been talking about a whole different set of possibilities.