JFK - a 21st-century conservative?

  • Follow Letters

Today John F. Kennedy would have been considered an outcast in the Democratic Party.

In Massachusetts, newly elected Sen. Scott Brown, a conservative, used several campaign slogans reminiscent of JFK in his campaign. JFK introduced the Reaganomics theory before Reagan. JFK did not demonize the so-called evil rich as President Obama and the other progressives do today. He understood the way to generate more tax revenue was to encourage people with money to invest in the effort to make more money that would create growth and jobs for us less-fortunate people. As Reagan often said: A rising tide lifts all boats.

The progressives in power today believe in taxing the evil rich as much as possible and give to the less fortunate. JFK understood that kind of policy killed any economic growth.

JFK also understood that to protect our country we had to be strong. He knew that just pleading with our enemies did no good, and only showed signs of weakness. He demonstrated that during the Cuban missile crisis.

JFK believed in helping the poor, the disabled the elderly and other less-fortunate people. He believed there should be programs to help lift them up so that all able-bodied people of any race or color could make a good living. I don't believe he would approve of the welfare programs that LBJ started in which generation after generation of able-bodied families are made slaves of the government through entitlement programs.

JFK might not have been a Republican today, but he would have been considered a conservative.

Charles Cushman

Aiken, S.C.

Comments (39) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
dashiel
176
Points
dashiel 02/05/10 - 08:18 am
0
0
Finally, an interesting and

Finally, an interesting and original letter to the editor! Unfortunately, however, applying its logic to current day reality, Ronald Reagan would have been considered an outcast to today's Republican Party.

justthefacts
21402
Points
justthefacts 02/05/10 - 08:56 am
0
0
How so dashiel? I would

How so dashiel? I would interested in hearing your reasoning about Reagan being an outcast.

dashiel
176
Points
dashiel 02/05/10 - 10:12 am
0
0
I doubt you would care to

I doubt you would care to hear my own reasons, Just. I was referring to Michael Steele and the GOP's list with which they are asking potential Republican presidential candidates to comply ("voluntarily"). Check out that list and see if you think Reagan could make the cut. The Republicans have succeeded in turning The Big Tent into a sideshow. Sadly, they are also standing in the way of a new conservative movement that they should be leading (IMHO).

BCG
0
Points
BCG 02/05/10 - 10:18 am
0
0
The letter to the editor hit

The letter to the editor hit the nail on the head. The Democratic party of the JFK time period would shout from the roof toops of the error of the current party ideology. My grandfather was a "dyed in the wool" democrat but he would not be one now if he was still alive. His belief at that time that the Democrats stood for the people and the Democratic union of the United States.... he would not believe that now. At one point he would have been furious with me for not voting Democratic but now he would not be either. The government was set up with safegards to keep the people, the states and the Constitutions itself strong, now those currently in charge are busy finding ways to make themselves strong at the expense of all that we hold dear. Yes JFK would be what the people call Conservative. I would like to invite all who love this county to join together to save it from Government! Long live the Constitution as it was written let us get back to that POLICY! Get the government out of our lives and back to doing what they are commissioned to do serve the people, defend the borders and the people of this county and protect the Constitution all the rest is for the states and the people to do on there own.

justthefacts
21402
Points
justthefacts 02/05/10 - 10:32 am
0
0
dashiel, I asked therefore I

dashiel, I asked therefore I was interested. Again, after reviewing the 10 items on the list, I feel Reagan would sign on to all of them. Can you please tell me which one he would object to?

corgimom
31466
Points
corgimom 02/05/10 - 10:32 am
0
0
"JFK did not demonize the

"JFK did not demonize the so-called evil rich as President Obama and the other progressives do today"- how could he, he and his wife both came from very wealthy families.

teharper428
2
Points
teharper428 02/05/10 - 10:42 am
0
0
BCG - The past year I have

BCG - The past year I have seen the mantra, "get the gov't out of our lives," could you please give us some examples of how the gov't in this past year is suddenly in our lives more than before? I see the Patriot Act as having the potential to invade our personal lives with unauthorized wire taps and seeing what is checked out at the local library, but that was passed in 2001.

constitutionnow
0
Points
constitutionnow 02/05/10 - 11:08 am
0
0
teharper, I don't believe

teharper, I don't believe that anyone is specifically referring to things that took place in the last year but rather what has taken place in the many years prior. A reading of the tenth amandment of the Constitution will reveal that the federal government has been overstepping it's bounds for quite some time. Now they're looking at the nationalization of health care, banks and recently your 401K (see RIN 1545-BJ04). A government that is allowed to grow beyond the point of electoral support is bound to fail by becoming top heavy. At some point, the working class which has in the past shouldered the bulk of the burden of the overzealous and unwise government programs will become disillusioned with that burden's weight and simply put it down.

chascush
0
Points
chascush 02/05/10 - 11:12 am
0
0
corgimom, JFK’s brother Teddy

corgimom, JFK’s brother Teddy Kennedy did demonize the ‘the evil rich’. Teddy was so dumb he can’t drive a whore across a bridge without drowning her. But then he was just a typical liberal.

teharper428
2
Points
teharper428 02/05/10 - 11:18 am
0
0
justthefacts- Just quickly I

justthefacts- Just quickly I spot from the republican platform, "We oppose amnesty." And Reagan did just that.

teharper428
2
Points
teharper428 02/05/10 - 11:25 am
0
0
constitutionnow- How is the

constitutionnow- How is the RIN 1545-BJ04 a bad thing? In reading the request it seems to be wanting information on how to protect people's 401s. In addition, the health care reform bill currently in Congress is in no way a "nationalization of health care." And, banks (along w/Wall Street), good Lord, they need some regulations, how in the world is that bad? Regulation protects our citizens.
Finally, sometimes the Federal gov't needs to override the state gov't, an example is federal minimum wage, can you imagine what the hourly wage would be here in the south if states got to decide?

justthefacts
21402
Points
justthefacts 02/05/10 - 11:34 am
0
0
Things were a bit different

Things were a bit different in that regard 25 yrs ago. And he stated he was "uneasy" about signing it. I highly doubt if that one issue, especially in today's context, would keep Reagan ostracized in the Republican Party. How about you? dashiel said he would be an outcast. Bit over the top don't ya think?

jack
10
Points
jack 02/05/10 - 12:01 pm
0
0
Best letter of the day/week.

Best letter of the day/week. Reagan would be a hero in today's conservative Republican Party that is going to take back our government in November from the Progressives. That will be when we can go back to welfare to work programs again and get the dead beats off their arses. One of the best deals when this happens will be Pilosi may not be around and Reid is definitely gone-then on to 2012 and good ridance to the clueless idiot we have now.

Rhetor
1004
Points
Rhetor 02/05/10 - 01:08 pm
0
0
The Democratic Party today

The Democratic Party today has a good share of moderates. Contrary to the misinformation on talk radio, actually, President Obama is much more moderate than what the right wing wants you to believe.

Irhab Jihadi
0
Points
Irhab Jihadi 02/05/10 - 01:16 pm
0
0
That must be why a

That must be why a significant number of moderate Democrats are distancing themselves from Obama and asking that he not come to campaign for them. Thanks for sharing that tidbit the rest of us had missed.

teharper428
2
Points
teharper428 02/05/10 - 01:30 pm
0
0
Don't tell us, let us guess,

Don't tell us, let us guess, Irhab, you read that Dems don't want Pres. Obama to campaign for them on a right wing blog or fox. I think you read it wrong, you were reading about republicans in 2008 having bush campaigning.

dashiel
176
Points
dashiel 02/05/10 - 01:35 pm
0
0
Just, on lunch break so will

Just, on lunch break so will be brief. Yes, outcast is probably too strong, but the LTE chose to use that word re: JFK. Assuming we both subscribe to its preposterous premise, which I do not, Reagan could not sign on today because he more than doubled the deficit (2.7 GDP in 1980 to 6.0 in 1983); signed off on a $165 million bailout of Soc Sec; and raised the gasoline tax. Also, Iran/Contra (selling arms to Iran during the Iran-Iraq War while espousing policy supporting Iraq at the same time) might give him pause at item 6. Also, I would even question item 10 as he sponsored and proudly signed the Brady Bill. Gotta go. Hope this helps. If not, since you call yourself JustTheFacts, please feel free to continue arguing with these till I can maybe get back and change you again after five. Sorry kid, daycare ain't the same for all of us.

bentman
455
Points
bentman 02/05/10 - 03:55 pm
0
0
That's right Charles. In his

That's right Charles. In his 1962 address to the New York Economic Club, JFK promoted a reduction in tax rates to increase the total revenue collected, the same thing Clinton suggested to Japan during his stranglehold on the country. Not a chance you'll hear that today from the bleeding hearts in DC.

justthefacts
21402
Points
justthefacts 02/05/10 - 04:45 pm
0
0
dash, I think I made my

dash, I think I made my point. Without resorting to insults, I might add.

chascush
0
Points
chascush 02/05/10 - 04:46 pm
0
0
Rhetor, Maybe Obama is more

Rhetor, Maybe Obama is more moderate then Hugo Chavez and that is just a maybe. Obama is absolutely a progressive/socialist. Read his books and you will understand what he is.

AutumnLeaves
7143
Points
AutumnLeaves 02/05/10 - 06:47 pm
0
0
This is a thoughtful letter.

This is a thoughtful letter. Just a note: Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. JFK was a Democrat. Neither one would exemplify today's Republicans or Democrats, but that doesn't really matter for those of us that check out the individual person's stand on the issues before we vote. We do not have to vote along party lines. We are living in a republic, not a democracy, which is a form of checks and balances, since most of the public doesn't bother to educate themselves about the issues if they vote at all.

rubaxter
0
Points
rubaxter 02/05/10 - 07:01 pm
0
0
Let's see, does the original

Let's see, does the original letter writer REALLY want us to think JFK represented the 'conservative' values of all those bigots and racists who were subsequently kicked out of the Democratic Party, and who have since found a loving home in the GOP?

You know, all those WORMs who now pop up like moles in the White House lawn, spouting their Old Testament views, playing to the fundies and other intellectually challenged portions of the electorate.

But, when has a talking head ever bothered to put context on their rants and raves?

And, Kennedy couldn't be an openly liberal candidate OR president because look at the Commie-baiters he was running against.

There's that 'context-thang', again...

You might as well claim Thomas Jefferson was a 'conservative' because he not only was a Republican, but he owned slaves.

dashiel
176
Points
dashiel 02/05/10 - 07:03 pm
0
0
Sorry, Just, but I also find

Sorry, Just, but I also find it insulting when Republicans who won't stay answered insist on facts and when I go to the trouble to supply them as patiently as possible, they merely choose to deny them. I will not be making this mistake again, I promise. Reagan had Altzheimer's, and is not to blame for his hazy memory, but (mosr of) the rest of you have no such excuse. Nevertheless, while he held office, the national debt ROSE in FACT, from $909 billion to $2.6 trillion. The Republican theory that cutting taxes would force the government to stop spending was not borne out. Therefore, Ronald Reagan himself would not be able to sign the so-called "Reagan Resolution." Deny or dismiss this however you choose: nevertheless it remains public record.

chascush
0
Points
chascush 02/05/10 - 08:45 pm
0
0
JFK’s conservative views

JFK’s conservative views would not have been in line the democrats/socialist that we have running our country today. It is pretty typical of liberals to call anyone they disagree with bigots and racists. I’m sure JFK would have been called such names.

chascush
0
Points
chascush 02/05/10 - 08:40 pm
0
0
rubacter, you need to study

rubacter, you need to study history. Some of the biggest racist was members of the Democratic Party. The Gov. of GA Lester Maddox was a democrat; Gov. George Wallace was a democrat. As a senator, LBJ opposite Truman’s civil rights program. Many people felt that JFK should not have been picked LBJ as VP because of it.
In 1965 the civil rights act was passed by congress and sign by LBJ. There were more democrats voted against the civil rights than republicans.
In the senate
Republicans 30 yes 2 no
Democrats 47 yes 17 no
In the house
Democrats 221 yes 61 no
Republicans 112 yes 24 no
The civil rights would not have passed without the republicans. There were 26 congressional republicans that voted against the civil rights act but there were 78 democrats.
The liberals want to continue to make slaves of poor black and white people to the government. The slaves will have to vote them back in office.

CobaltGeorge
155632
Points
CobaltGeorge 02/05/10 - 09:14 pm
0
0
TNTHOMSON, Yesterday I took a

TNTHOMSON, Yesterday I took a close look at your patch. Could you be a dit da buddy, Torrii Station, Sobe, Oki, my first 4 years 58 -62

CobaltGeorge
155632
Points
CobaltGeorge 02/05/10 - 09:25 pm
0
0
TNTHOMSON .- .-. . * -.--

TNTHOMSON .- .-. . * -.-- --- ..- * - .... . .-. . ?

TheFederalist
1
Points
TheFederalist 02/05/10 - 11:49 pm
0
0
Wow...Mr. Dashiel...your

Wow...Mr. Dashiel...your words display an intense dislike for Republicans. I wonder what caused this anger? That aside, I do not dispute that Ronny raised the national debt, but how do you think that his stats, compared to Mr. Hussein's will shake out? Ronny raised the national debt, as a % of GDP by 7.3% his first term, and 11.2% his second term. Since we can only estimate at this point what his full term will bring, the figures so far are that Mr. Hussein will raise that figure by a whopping 31.6%! Quite an achievment for only 13+ months into his first term. I guess I am just not smart enough to figure out how you can spend your way out of a depressed economy, by owing failing banks, buying major car companies close to bankruptcy and passing major entitlement programs. Maybe you can shed some light on the subject sir?

TechLover
15
Points
TechLover 02/06/10 - 08:36 am
0
0
http://www.factcheck.org/askf

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/are_congressional_democrats_talkin.... One might also note that The Revenue Act of 1964 lowered the tax rate to 70% for those making over $400k and the corporate tax rate to 48%. Let's go back to those conservative JFK principles. chas: You might want to check the regional breakdown of the Rep/Dem vote on The Civil Rights Act. From the old CSA, in the House the vote was 7 Dems for, 87 against, zero Repubs for, 10 against. In the Senate, again from the old CSA, 1 Dem for, 20 against, zero Repubs for, 1 against. From the rest of the country, however, the vote in the House was Dems 145-9 for, Repubs 138-24 for. In the Senate, Dems 45-1 for, Repubs 27-5 for. As far as, "A rising tide lifts all boats." Great if you have a boat. If not, you drown.

Brad Owens
4290
Points
Brad Owens 02/06/10 - 09:01 am
0
0
Reagan was supposed to cut

Reagan was supposed to cut one tax dollar collected AND match it with a dollar cut in spending. He cut the collections, but could not seem to get the spending cuts. He soared military spending and cut social programs, but did not cut overall spending like he should have. Business grew but so did the debt. No one is less or more guilty here. Democratic/Dimocratic or Republican/Reichpublican are just different sides to the same coin. I am shopping for a third party myself or I will turn straight up indie if some sanity is not returned to our government. Either way, Reagan was no savior and Obama is no Saint. everyone is robbing the Company Store and blaming it on each other. No matter which side holds the keys to the safe, they all steal as much. The only diffrenence is WHO gets the gold in the end and who gets the power because of it. I sure wish the Reform Party had not evaporated.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs