For the third year in a row, the November 22nd,
1963 assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy has been the topic of
considerable commentary. Many of us have
read countless reminders of that weekend.
Most of these reminiscences have borne testimony to the social,
political and moral strength of the American people and their government
throughout and consequent of that terrible tragedy.
On that long ago “black Friday,” one listened to friends and
opponents of Jack Kennedy express shock and indignation at his
assassination. Barry Goldwater cut short
an interview soon after learning of the shooting in Dallas by refusing to
discuss his future as a presidential candidate:
“Oh, let’s not talk about it, Mister,” Goldwater snapped to a Muncie,
Indiana reporter. “The president’s been shot.
I don’t care to discuss politics on a day like this – thank you!”
Former President Dwight Eisenhower said: “I share the sense of shock and
dismay that the entire nation must feel at the despicable act that took the
life of the nation's president. On the personal side, Mrs. Eisenhower and I
share the grief that Mrs.
Kennedy
must now feel. We
send to her our prayerful thoughts and sympathetic sentiments in this hour…
[I am sure the people] of this nation will join as one man in expressing, not
only their dismay, but their indignation at this act and will stand faithfully
behind the government...The American nation is a people with great common sense
and they are not going to be stampeded or bewildered.”
Certainly there were people who expressed feelings that
reflected less than grief that weekend, but it’s unlikely that their number
exceeded more than 1% of the two-hundred-thirty-million-plus Americans then alive!
Since that long ago time, we’ve learned a lot of less than
admirable things about the person and presidency of John F. Kennedy. Still, I dare to assert that a substantial
majority of those of us still living who remember our shock and grief that pre-Thanksgiving
Day weekend in 1963 would even consider apologizing for a single expressed regret
or shed tear.
Without a doubt, 21st Century Americans are far
more sophisticated and perhaps realistic when it comes to assessing the
political motives of our leaders than the generation of Americans who elected and
admired John Kennedy. After all, we live
in the Information Age. However, information
may be the parent of knowledge, but when was information ever the parent of
either wisdom or morality?
President Obama governs a citizenry that has far less adulation
towards him and, consequently, there are many more threats against the
president’s life than existed during “Camelot.”
Still, as history clearly demonstrates, only one “threat” has to be
carried through to create a national tragedy.
After all that might be said about him, Barack Obama is the President of
the United States of America. Yet, it’s
exactly that reality that causes this observer to wonder what a 21st
Century presidential assassination trauma might reveal about the health and
strength of modern America.
Historically, we’ve taken pride in our capacity and flexibility
to transfer responsibility and power from one president to another, especially
in the face of a presidential resignation or assassination. What worries me is what comfort or sense of
reassurance would 21st Century opinion makers have to offer those whose
political sentiments and personal values don’t mirror their own? Even more, how many Americans would be open
to receiving genuine expressions of sorrow and support given today’s political
and social environment?
I was slightly comforted a few months ago when the adequacy
of the Secret Service came under serious criticism even by individuals for whom
the personal welfare of Barack Obama might matter very little. Still, it is hard for me to imagine that Fox
News or CNBC would be likely to share a sense of loss as did all the media “mouthpieces”
in 1963. Try as I might, I can’t imagine
Rush Limbaugh wishing Joe Biden well or Jon Stewart wishing Dick Cheney success
even in the face of a national emergency.
The outrages of 9/11 brought about national unity in
anguished sorrow for the injured and slain, admiration for the casualties borne
by gallant rescuers, and a determination to squash its perpetrators. Additionally, there was considerable support expressed
for our national leadership from President George W. Bush to New York City’s
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Beneath the
blanket of this grim support, however, there were those who were more than
willing to bring all of us up short as to the root causes of our suffering that
September morning. Hence, no longer
could we lick our wounds as we once did and reassure ourselves as to our
greatness and our purity wrapped in a veil of tranquility. It may well be that the age of information has
turned on a spigot of self analysis that has stripped away the cloak of luxurious
calm which was historically available to us in the wake of national crisis. To put it another way, perhaps we’ve become
too sophisticated and agenda-laden for political honeymoons, even in the face
of national bereavement.
The question then is: can we really afford not to be
genuinely aggrieved should the act of November 22nd, 1963 repeat
itself?
If so, we’ve definitely traded freedom’s soul for freedom’s
pecuniary demands. It is equivalent to
an exchange made two thousand years ago.
Remember whose welfare was exchanged by Judas for thirty pieces of gold?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment