A funeral attended by presidents past and present. It is Senator Edward Kennedy’s final farewell held at Our Lady of Perpetual Help in Boston. A milieu has come full circle in American politics. The “new king” presides over a ceremony rich in symbolism, a king spiritually descended from the noble line of Camelot. America is a land of the supposedly free, but many still yearn for the magic of ritual and royalty.
It is strange to read in biographies how Kennedy’s Roman Catholicism was a hurdle to overcome on his way to the White House. How far we have progressed, here was America’s first black president, Barack Obama, eulogising the last of the Kennedy princes. The vaulted ceilings of the Catholic Cathedral carrying his words of condolence to everyone while the fallen dragon, George W Bush listened on.
Many clichéd comparisons between Obama and his Democratic predecessor, Jack Kennedy, have been made: the soaring rhetoric, the “audacity of hope” and the good looks of the candidates. Both of whom were, establishment outsiders. As Obama had to overcome the last vestiges of racialism, Kennedy had to persuade the Democrats that he was not too young, too inexperienced, and above all, too Catholic. Both candidates understood the power of the word “change”. Kennedy’s former speechwriter, Richard Godwin, said: “He had to touch the secret fears and ambivalent longings of the American heart, divine and speak to the desire of a swiftly changing nation — his message grounded on his own intuition of some vague and spreading desire for national renewal.”
Likewise, Obama’s speechwriter, Jon Favreau, coined the catchphrase “Yes We Can”, effortlessly blending it with notions of nobility. In a sense, Kennedy’s pitch was counter-intuitive. The outgoing Ike Eisenhower, a decorated war hero, was the most popular president since FDR. Yet — and this speaks of iconic leadership — he read the mood of a restive America correctly: the decline of manufacturing and the rise of the white-collar economy, Soviet expansion and black civil unrest.
Obama’s rhetoric intuitively befitted our time. Obama’s “just words”, to quote his now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, served as “a staff to comfort” the American people in “the valley” of an economic depression and “the shadow” of al-Qaeda. Note my shameless filching of Psalm 23: “The Lord is my Shepherd”. Any random reading of Kennedy and Obama’s speeches reveal the religious texture and musical tempo of the Old Testament’s prophets. In particular the Book of the Prophet Isaiah with themes of the “heart, divine and national renewal”.
In simple terms, the two candidates needed poetry and a country ready for change. The absence of either ingredient would have probably spelled failure in both contests. Both candidates only had a thin crust of public service in the Senate to offer, unlike their vastly experienced rivals. Another infrequently mentioned similarity, for we tend to treat our icons with kid gloves, is that Obama, like Kennedy, is not a fine speaker: he prospers only in the grand set pieces. First-time listeners are not prepared to hear the shrill recording of Kennedy’s Boston accent and, in his Senate days, the un-modulated voice, in his Presidential Library. Obama is already mocked for his perceived over-reliance on the teleprompter and his off-the-cuff remarks never match his formal eloquence. This in time moulds our perceptions. Watch over the next few years how even the most ardent partisans will begin to tire of it. Think of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair.
Then there are appearances. Kennedy was the first American leader groomed for the television age. Kennedy’s television duels, the first ever, with Richard “Tricky Dicky” Nixon were said to tip the balance in his favour as he projected youth and, misleadingly, health. Both candidates showed a firm grasp of policy. But it was Kennedy’s grace in front of the camera, his Florida tan and good looks placed in sharp contrast to Nixon’s five o’clock shadow that convinced many viewers he was the more able.
Obama was the first American leader groomed for the internet age. His online campaign mobilised the young and floating voters, and raised record sums of funding with small-sized donations. His attractiveness is an iconographer’s dream. The “Hope” stencil portrait of Obama in the colours of the Union: solid red, white and blue, with the word “progress”, “hope”, or “change”, immediately evoked Jim Fitzpatrick’s Che Guevara poster, and today it adorns millions of T-shirts, mugs and chocolate bars in every American city.
The two presidents’ supposed robust health is an illusion. Kennedy’s frail body was ravaged by Addison’s disease; his ruddy glow a side-effect of injected cortisone. If fate had not intervened, his disease-ridden body may well have cut his presidency, if not his life short. Obama’s “six-pack” is chiselled by daily workouts, basketball sessions with his staff and a low cholesterol diet. Skinny in person, television magnifies him. Then, of course, there are the lovely first ladies. Jackie Kennedy was a legend in her own right. The camellia beauty sprinkled rosewater over Camelot. She was stylish in simple outfits and pillbox hats; a style emulated today by Carla Bruni. Jackie was elegant, erudite and charming. Michelle Obama is all these things too and possesses, perhaps, a seemingly less contrived touch. The winsome children complete the scene.
Obama’s advisors are deeply conscious of the dynastic parallels. This recognition might have been taken a step too far earlier this year. The White House released pictures showing Obama at his desk watched on by Caroline Kennedy. The scene depicted him peering into a section in subtle mimicry of her brother, John, who had looked out from the self-same desk 46 years earlier. What about the substance? The world watched intently as Kennedy’s administration ran into serious difficulties and the polls looked ominous. Obama’s Afghanistan of today looks like Kennedy’s Vietnam of yesteryear. Healthcare reform was presaged by the quest for a higher minimum wage and comprehensive housing legislation. Political support then, as now, did not run deep. Both men reached outside the democrat demesne for talent, raiding the opposing Republicans.
Then an assassin’s bullets brought down Kennedy in Dallas. The king had fallen and a world was gripped by an impotent frenzy. He passed on into fields of myth, leaving behind the shrapnel of broken dreams. Obama wears the mantle now and no heaven will bless the poetry of his words unless he rhymes them to action.
They are both the same. They both against the Socialist Republic of Cuba.
Obama:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-un-cuba28-2009oct28,0,5873058.story
Kennedy:
http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/baypigs/jfk-1.htm
They also support the Israel.
Kennedy:
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=K4SD77nkmGjly6TfTDhxmNhP0NCWTF4ykQqKLh5LgMr4pMLf6YFQ!1443948790!1022415409?docId=5002548800
Obama:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=832667
and quite frankly they are both Americans–Selfserving, manipulative greedy capitalists.
http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/579557
The world is better off without them; anyway China & India would take care of Africa and the rest of the Oceana region.
http://worldfocus.org/blog/2008/10/13/chinese-investment-in-africa-soars/1555/
http://www.africa-business.com/features/india_africa.html
Obama’s somniferous “grand set pieces” espousing nebulous ideals of ‘hope’ and ‘change’ are naught but vacuous spin behind which lurks offerings of ‘more of the same’
Which means more tincture of George W for the ills of the world; a commitment to insane presidential profligacy, more Federal Government, more spending, more grandiose welfare schemes hatching an illusory prosperity for a bankrupt nation, more ‘priming the pump’ of a derelict economy with a clogging glut of two trillion worthless debt dollars which the Federal Reserve has the galactic temerity to call ‘equity’ and ‘securities’!
Parallels drawn on the basis of ethnic class, looks and the poise and dress sense of wives may impress the politically jejune, but are irrelevant to astute young Americans who know Social Security is a bankrupt scam from which promised benefit they are compelled to pay for will not be forthcoming, that bailouts are sucking the little remaining lifeblood of the nation into a terminal black hole of bureaucratic squander and further malinvestment into failed enterprise, and the national health insurance scheme means more taxes for less health.
It is curious that FDR should be mentioned by way of comparison, as his ‘New Deal’ policies succeeded in protracting the Great Depression rather than facilitating ‘recovery’, yet he was popular amongst a large body of public who were economically ignorant and did not understand the cause of their difficulties.
Obama’s ‘New Deal’ is the same old deal which will be popular yet fail for the same reasons.
Mr Obama is a superb US president – in my view not a JFK, but a Bill Clinton with honestly and personal morality – a great complement, as Mr Clinton was probably the best recent US president. But the challenges he faces are nowhere near JFK’s – JFK was facing World War 3 – and together with the much maligned Ronald Reagan, did more than any other presidents to avoid thermonuclear holocaust. As for Siphiwo’s comment that JFK was against the ‘socialist republic of Cuba’ – JFK probably ensured that Cuba wasn’t invaded by Curtis le May and the SAC leaders and that Castro – who did everything he could to provoke a thermonuclear war – even Kruschev said he was a complete madman who couldn’t care less if Cuba and the world were completely annihilated – lived to collect his pension.
Your article attempts to downplay the Obama effect on the US and the rest of the world.
The comparison to JFK is not a fair one since JFK came from a background of privilege that groomed the Kennedys for public office which they saw as their divine right. Obama came from a background of struggle and poverty, but a strong family who rose above their circumstances and raised wonderful kids.
Obama’s achievements are just beginning. Is the healthcare bill, a herculean feat, given that past presidents miserably failed in this, proof enough? How does one measure the recent shift in international relations towards America? Is this important? What value does one put on giving voice to the voiceless? Is there a dollar value one can put on the recent improvements in race relations in the US?
Your macabre implication that Kennedy’s assassination is another possible similarity is also weird. The era of assassinations is so sixties and highly unlikely given his top notch security.
@Siphiwo Siphiwo
“..anyway China & India would take care of Africa..”
In your dreams buddy! And why does any foreign power have to “take care” of Africa?
@Perry Curling-Hope
You spout the same tired old rhetoric of the Republican neocons. Even though the idea of a black man as the most powerful person in the world is distasteful to some SAns, you have to admit that he enjoys the support of an overwhelming majority of Americans especially the younger generation!
“hope and change” those “nebulous ideals” is what gives Americans courage to face the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Those “nebulous ideals” have even given the rest of the world renewed hope in America after the destructive reign of Bush -a perfect example of white AA.
beautiful article
i really hope they don’t shoot Obama too… i fear that the people with vested interests in health care, war etc who would like to see him fail may very resort to such extreme measures if he begins to succeed in the delivery of his election promise… change
some people don’t want it… and of course this is conjecture because no one really knows… but it was those same people who killed kennedy… to stop the change he was going to bring… ending the vietnam war… lyndon johnson’s very first act as president (within 24 hours of assuming the position after kennedy’s death) was to send more troops to vietnam reversing the moves kennedy had started which would lead to america pulling out…
Dave Harris’ stuff is as much vacuous garbage as the “hope and change” and “yes we can” of the Obama administration.
Instead of all this fluff, try looking at the actual current events…facts and reality.
Just one, for example…as a direct result of the wild money-tree mentality of the U’S. congress, India just recently purchased $400,000,000,000 (that’s 400 billion) dollars of gold bullion. Any of you have any idea whatsoever what this portends for the U.S. dollar? Any idea what happens to the U.S. economy when the U.S. dollar is dropped as the world’s currency standard?
I thought not.
I am also quite taken aback by Siphiwo’s claim that China and even India can take care of Africa. If anything, Africa is taking care of India. Droves of Indian citizens are flocking to the West and increasingly to South Africa in pursuit of a better life. India cannot afford to take care of its middle-class citizenry (the quality of life of many middle class Indians is more than 3 times lower than that of South African middle class- that is not to mention the appalling conditions under which India 9and China’s) poor live under.)They are struggling with overpopulation (1 billion people in our single country is not a joke. The rich are etraodinarily rich whilst the poor are etremely poor.
Jon, this article is very interesting but you are mistaken in comparing Michelle Obama to ‘Jackie O’. For one, Michelle is highly educated and has been very active in American business and political life. She has also been a fierce advocate for women and social activist working hard to uplift the poor. Jackie Kennedy was very beutiful, adorable, classy etc but she and Michelle are different.
Any similarities between B.Obama and J Kennedy are superficial. Kennedy was a truly phenomenal liberal democrat who espoused noble values (most of the time). So is Obama. But Obama is SO MUCH MORE. He is a visionary, the man who changed American (and world) politics forever, a magna cum laude HAvard Lawyer, a dynamic, noble, fiercely intelligent statesman
Phillipa has apparently joined the church of Barack Hussein Obama of Latter-Day Saints.
Bowing low in obeisance to the king of Saudi Arabia doesn’t make him a “fiercely intelligent statesman”. Get a grip, Phillipa.
Phillipa, Obama seems a heck of a nice guy, but let’s not hero worship him. He may talk left, but so far he walks right. He may be black – but so was that warmongress Condi Rice. When Obama came in, the Front Storeman changed – but the products and goals of the store stayed pretty much the same as they were under the old Storeman – GW Bush. Obama is slick – but he is also Commander In Chief of two very dubious, bloody wars which seem to be more about oil than delivering democracy (at gunpoint), making the Nobel Peace Prize an Orwellian moment. Not a whole lot has ACTUALLY changed under Obama – if you look beyond the big smile. He enabled the bailing out of Wall Street, heads up 700 US military bases around the world and fronts a nation that’s hobbling the Copenhagen talks. Lose the rose-tinted spectacles – there’s no such thing as a Saint-Saviour who will single-handedly put the world right. Obama is an Establishment Man, a Corporate Man, a Pentagon Man. Disappointingly, his hands are tied.
Obama is Commander in Chief of two dubious wars that are more about oil than delivering democracy at gunpoint/liberating women/capturing Osama Bin Forgotten.
Nothing has ACTUALLY changed under Obama. He enabled the bailing out of greedy Wall Street Bankers, his country is hobbling Copenhagen, he signs off obscene amounts of money to the world’s biggest army and oversees 700 military bases – giving a lie to his Orwellian Nobel Peace Prize.
Obama is a smooth Establishment, Corporate, Pentagon Man.
People seem to worship him for his rhetoric. We childishly project our strange fantasy notions of “The American Dream” onto him.
But we need more from leaders than nifty rhetoric. Obama talks left, but seems to walk centre (and in the case of the military he oversees) right.
His speeches are great – but get a grip – they’re penned by a cool scriptwriter who earns a fortune for his word skills.