Matt Lewis

JFK’s assassination radicalized liberalism

James Piereson’s new book, “Camelot And The Cultural Revolution” argues that the assassination of John F. Kennedy dramatically altered liberalism, changing it from a practical and optimistic philosophy to a radical, paranoid, anti-American ideology.

In 1960 when Kennedy was elected, Piereson writes, modern liberalism featured “a sense that progress must be built on the solid achievements of the past, an awareness of the threat of Soviet totalitarianism, and a conviction that its domestic opponents were radicals at war with modernity…” But almost immediately after Kennedy’s assassination, “liberals would repudiate many of his central ideas, thereby paving the way for conservatives to claim them.”

(Listen to our full conversation here.)

“The liberalism of 1970,” Piereson writes, “had only a tenuous connection to the liberalism that Kennedy stood for when he ran for president in 1960.”

So what caused liberalism to undergo such a dramatic change–within such a short span of time? Piereson argues that the intentional misinterpretation of Kennedy’s assassination is to blame for the dramatic change.

If you’re intrigued by this, listen to my full conversation with Piereson here.

  • Pingback: Lee Harvey Oswald did NOT shoot JFK? | Is the End soon?

  • Ishs_tbird

    Funny, I’ve never heard a liberal want to use “Second Amendment remedies.”

  • Pingback: The Ed Morrissey Show: Matt Lewis « Hot Air

  • Bubba Gritts

    Liberalism never existed.  Its just a term made up by the KKK to blame anyone who is ripping his A.$.$. out.

    Liberalism never existed.  There is no Liberal Agenda.

    There is no Liberal Conspiracy.

  • Y2jboy

    ‘liberal’ in Kennedy’s day was harsh cold-war anti-communism…while holding back civil rights legislation and escalating a hot war. I think that explains why after his death, the dam burst–against the excesses of the Cold War and the anti-communist hot war hysteria (in Vietnam), the movements for equality, peace and social justice broke out into new territory.
    Doesn’t seem all that surprising that the debate broke out of the 1950’s straight-jacket and went furhter to the left. The debate was not so far to the right as it is now–what Pereson & Lewis cast as liberal is more like center/right.

  • u r fascist

    are you conservative fascist?
    u probably r.

    “Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt
    By U Eco

    In spite of some fuzziness regarding the difference between various historical forms of fascism, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.

    * * *

    1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.

    Traditionalism is of course much older than fascism. Not only was it typical of counterrevolutionary Catholic thought after the French revolution, but is was born in the late Hellenistic era, as a reaction to classical Greek rationalism. In the Mediterranean basin, people of different religions (most of the faiths indulgently accepted by the Roman pantheon) started dreaming of a revelation received at the dawn of human history. This revelation, according to the traditionalist mystique, had remained for a long time concealed under the veil of forgotten languages — in Egyptian hieroglyphs, in the Celtic runes, in the scrolls of the little-known religions of Asia.

    This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the dictionary says, “the combination of different forms of belief or practice;” such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a sliver of wisdom, and although they seem to say different or incompatible things, they all are nevertheless alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.

    As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.

    2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.

    Both Fascists and Nazis worshipped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon blood and earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life. The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.

    3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake.

    Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Hermann Goering’s fondness for a phrase from a Hanns Johst play (“When I hear the word ‘culture’ I reach for my gun”) to the frequent use of such expressions as “degenerate intellectuals,” “eggheads,” “effete snobs,” and “universities are nests of reds.” The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.

    4. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.

    In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.

    5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.

    Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.

    6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.

    That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old “proletarians” are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.

    7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.

    This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside. In the United States, a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson’s The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are many others.

    8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.

    When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers of Ur-Fascism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.

    9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.

    Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. But such “final solutions” implies a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts the principle of permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this predicament.

    10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.

    Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people in the world, the members or the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party. But there cannot be patricians without plebeians. In fact, the Leader, knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler.

    11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero.

    In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of the Spanish Falangists was Viva la Muerte (“Long Live Death!”). In nonfascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.

    12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.

    This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons — doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.

    13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.

    In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view — one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.

    Because of its qualitative populism, Ur-Fascism must be against “rotten” parliamentary governments. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.

    14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.

    Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, as the official language of what he called Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning. But we must be ready to identify other kinds of Newspeak, even if they take the apparently innocent form of a popular talk show.”

    * * * 

  • Anonymous

    People may consider liberals as radical but them radicals somehow manage to straitghten out
    the messes that the right wing neo-nazi republicans seem to create. Republicans are the ones who hate this country. Why else would they do everything in their power since 1994 to destroy the middle class which just happened to be the backbone of the US econmy. The time has come to run all the radical estremist republicans out of Washingotn.That is the only way this country will be saved. The GOP ran up the debt to the tune of 9 trillion dollors while they controlled the White house and both houses of congress. The only thing the GOP is capable of is creating problems and when they can’t
    fix them they blame the Democrats. It astounds me how any intelligent human being could be fooled into supporting a political party that cannot fight their way out of a paper bag. If you don”t make at least 6 figures and you vote republican you my friend are a fool.