JFK Library

[Edited version] Back from Boston. Went to the JFK Presidential Library and Museum yesterday, and have a few thoughts on it. First, 1960 was a long, long time ago, in political terms. Think about it: the U.S. elected this son of privilege, a Democrat from Massachusetts. Could Kennedy get elected today? Not likely. The reason: the entire political landscape has been transformed. In comments, Wilson suggests that Kerry came close, and that with Kennedy's looks, he might have won. I'm skeptical. Kerry came close, but without a southern state . . . ? Wilson's suggestion about the primaries is more where I was going with this somewhat elliptical point: Kennedy didn't have to run on social issues. If Kennedy were around today, is there much doubt that his positions on such issues would be much farther to the right than, say, his brother's? (An aside: It's strange to think of what a dinosaur the "remaining" Kennedy is. His father was ambassador to the Court of St. James while Hitler was chancellor of Germany. Think about that.)

Additional thought: the political events of the 1950s and 1960s, especially the political figures of that period, have largely receded from memory. One video highlights how JFK "lost" the 1956 vice presidential nomination to Estes Kefauver. Anybody out there have a good idea who Kefauver was?

(Note to TMcD: Thanks for the editing. I was groggy when I wrote this, I guess. Btw, sure I know who Kefauver was. But I'm a bad measure for how well or poorly known a political figure is. My point instead was that these relatively major players on the national scene fade so quickly. So quickly. In twenty years, only hard-core political junkies will be able to tell you more than a few words about John Edwards, for example.)

Second, 1960 was a very short time ago, in historical terms. The museum has no "real" artifacts (although maybe Rebecca and Paul might have something to say here). Can a campaign button that's not even an antique really be a display? Nothing there is very old. The papers on display look like they were typed up last week.

Other thoughts: The Cuban missile crisis was a scary time. But the movie they show at the JFK library makes a much stronger case, at least, much more than I think is justified, that the Soviets "backed down." Now, it's true that Krushchev pulled the Soviet missiles out of Cuba. But at the same time, the U.S. agreed to dismantle its Atlas missiles deployed in Turkey. Those missiles were obsolete, but the U.S. did cut a deal here, a deal that doesn't really fit into the propaganda story. But it's part of the story, grudgingly admitted, in a final text screen, during the video.

Finally, the White House section highlights state dinners, but do they really have to display a picture of JFK and Jackie with the Shah of Iran? That seems wrong to me.