Last week, Robert Kennedy Jr. suspended his faltering presidential campaign. He said he’ll remain on the ballot in most states where his name appears, but will remove it from the ballot in swing states in order to help Donald Trump, whom he endorsed. However, election officials in the battleground states of Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin said it is too late for Kennedy to take his name off the ballot.
Kennedy’s speech announcing the end of his campaign began with some personal background. He noted that he’s been a Democrat since attending their 1960 national convention (the one that nominated JFK) at the age of six. He then went on to say that the Democratic party has abandoned him by abandoning the values it once stood for.
I feel the same way. When I began supporting Democrats (around the same time RFK Jr. did) the party stood for a colorblind, merit-based society, for free speech, for freedom of religion, for a strong national defense (a favorite cause of JFK), for defending Israel, and for the working man.
The Dems no longer want a colorblind, merit-based society. They favor race-based decisions in nearly all areas of American life.
Democrats back the cancel culture to the extent that it suppresses speech they don’t like. They aren’t particularly fond of religion and certainly think it should take a back door to not offending gays, lesbians, etc.
They are constantly trying to cut the military budget and favor acceding to America’s enemies (see e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan), rather than maintaining a military presence to thwart them. Increasingly, they are ambivalent about supporting Israel’s fight for survival.
The question of which party, if either one, can fairly claim to be the genuine friend of the working man is hotly contested. But it’s difficult to contend that the Dems fit that description. On both immigration and trade policy, the Democrats seem like the party of upscale consumers, not the working class. The same is true, I think, on cultural issues.
Kennedy argued that his father (Robert) and his uncle (John) would be appalled by the modern day Democratic party. Mainstream media types and various members of the Kennedy clan immediately countered that Robert and John Kennedy would be appalled that RFK Jr. is endorsing Trump.
I think both sides right, at least when it comes to JFK.
In my view, Robert Kennedy was an opportunist and a demagogue. Depending on the lay of the land and what point in his life we’re talking about, I can imagine Robert Kennedy getting behind Trump.
I agree, though, that JFK would have had no use for Trump. Stylistically, they are night and day.
Beyond that, JFK would have been appalled by many of Trump’s pronouncements about Ukraine. And he would be even more disgusted with nephew’s strenuous opposition to aiding that victim of Russian aggression.
If RFK is old enough to remember the 1960 DNC, he’s old enough to remember his uncle’s 1961 inaugural address. In that speech, JFK declared:
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
No “neo-con” (to use the term RFK throws around with such contempt) would go that far. In fact, no one of any stripe should go that far.
But it’s not going too far to provide arms to a nation like Ukraine that is struggling for national survival against an adversary of America. This would be true even if most of the money expended in our effort to support Ukraine didn’t remain in our economy.
Therefore, RFK Jr. is right when he says his uncle would not feel at home in the modern Democratic party — the one that has abandoned so many of its once-core values. But his critics are right when they say his uncle would not feel at home in the MAGA movement.
But then, maybe I’m just projecting my views onto JFK. I don’t feel even slightly at home in the modern Democratic party or very much at home in Trump’s MAGA movement.
I'm not so sure JFK would have been far from Trump on Ukraine. There's substantial evidence JFK would not have got us into the Vietnam morass, and Trump has not been categorically opposed to Ukraine involvement. He, unlike Obama, okayed lethal weapon support for Ukraine, and I think he recognizes that Ukraine needs support, but believes the U.S. and Ukraine have different war aims. The U.S. involvement is based on a domino theory, the fear that if Putin is not headed off in Ukraine, NATO countries will be next. The goal is to deter Putin. Ukraine, on the other hand, is understandably concerned with its territorial integrity. These goals are not necessarily congruent, and I think Trump is content with an outcome that gives Putin a deterrent bloody nose, whether or not that outcome achieves Ukranian goals. Determining what JFK would have sought to achieve here is of course sheer speculation, but it's quite possible that he would have bought into what appears to be Trump's war aims. Jim Dueholm
Trump’s style was very difficult for me to overcome at first. I agree with most of his policies, though, and will overlook many of his less attractive qualities. I am not really sure what it is about the MAGA movement that offends conservatives to the degree that it evokes. I would honestly welcome an explanation from someone on this platform. I seek to understand.