Those who argue the case for conspiracy in the JFK Assassination, frequently do so from the perspective that when JFK was killed, a great symbol of Progressive liberalism was snuffed out, and with his death, the hopes of revolutionary "progressive" reform in American society was snuffed out as well. Always, JFK is seen as one who would have been at home with the radicals of the late 1960s who marched against the war in Vietnam and demanded an end to the Cold War, and who argued for more action on social justice issues of civil rights and poverty. To the likes of an Oliver Stone, the murder of JFK represented a conspiracy by reactionary forces who wanted to stop the progressive ideas of greater action for social justice and the end of the Cold War from being implemented. As conspiracy author Jim Marrs put it:
But it may be worth considering what kind of America we might have today if President Kennedy had lived. Imagine the United States if there had been no divisive Vietnam War, with its attendant demonstrations, riots, deaths, and loss of faith in government. There may not have been the scandals of Watergate, other political assassinations, or the Iran-Contra Pentagon-CIA attempt at a "secret government." Detente with Communist Russia and China might have come years earlier, saving hundreds of millions of wasted defense dollars--dollars that could have been put to use caring for the needy and cleaning up the environment. Picture a nation where no organized-crime syndicate gained control over such divergent areas of national life as drugs, gambling, labor unions, politicians, and even toxic waste disposal. (Crossfire, p. 589).The fact of the matter is that the real JFK bears no relation to the progressive martyr envisioned by Oliver Stone, Jim Marrs, and by numerous members of Internet newsgroups. In order to promote the idea of JFK as "progressive," they have asserted some strange things that even liberal historians would find very puzzling.
The following is a list of claims made by conspiracy believers that are intended to promote the idea of JFK as a liberal-progressive in the mold of people like FDR and Adlai Stevenson. If these assertions were true, then one could make a case for JFK (as well as RFK) being part of the progressive-liberal tradition. The problem though is that not one of these assertions are true. When the truth is discovered, it becomes clear that far from being a progressive liberal, JFK was a moderate-centrist with viewpoints that were considerably to the right of the Democratic party's liberal wing. And if JFK was not truly "progressive" before or during his presidency, then the idea that he was murdered by reactionaries opposed to "progressive reform" loses all credibility.
But it may be worth considering what kind of America we might have today if President Kennedy had lived. Imagine the United States if there had been no divisive Vietnam War, with its attendant demonstrations, riots, deaths, and loss of faith in government. There may not have been the scandals of Watergate, other political assassinations, or the Iran-Contra Pentagon-CIA attempt at a "secret government." Detente with Communist Russia and China might have come years earlier, saving hundreds of millions of wasted defense dollars--dollars that could have been put to use caring for the needy and cleaning up the environment. Picture a nation where no organized-crime syndicate gained control over such divergent areas of national life as drugs, gambling, labor unions, politicians, and even toxic waste disposal. (Crossfire, p. 589).The fact of the matter is that the real JFK bears no relation to the progressive martyr envisioned by Oliver Stone, Jim Marrs, and by numerous members of Internet newsgroups. In order to promote the idea of JFK as "progressive," they have asserted some strange things that even liberal historians would find very puzzling.
The following is a list of claims made by conspiracy believers that are intended to promote the idea of JFK as a liberal-progressive in the mold of people like FDR and Adlai Stevenson. If these assertions were true, then one could make a case for JFK (as well as RFK) being part of the progressive-liberal tradition. The problem though is that not one of these assertions are true. When the truth is discovered, it becomes clear that far from being a progressive liberal, JFK was a moderate-centrist with viewpoints that were considerably to the right of the Democratic party's liberal wing. And if JFK was not truly "progressive" before or during his presidency, then the idea that he was murdered by reactionaries opposed to "progressive reform" loses all credibility.