Kennedy Era

Born into an incredibly affluent Boston family, it would be quite reasonable to say that Kennedy had a relatively fortunate upbringing. That is not to say that wealth allows for the absence of difficulty; it is simply an admission that any familial strain is brought forth by internal action and not that of a larger force; that force being a failure to provide for one’s family as the consequence financial struggle. In an interview with Rose Kennedy, the former-president’s mother reflected on points in her son’s youth in which he was vibrantly rebellious ; which some would say is a luxury reserved exclusively for those that could afford it. I mention this only as a means to explore some of the possible factors that may have influenced any personal sentiments and syntax that the president used while discussing the Vietnam conflict with the American people. It must be asked whether or not the fear of being drafted that possessed such an intense grasp on every young man during all of the 1960’s and half of the 1970’s was even in the mind of JFK at this time. After all, as a result of his determination, intelligence, and affluence Kennedy was able to attend Harvard University and was able to make the decision to enlist himself. As stated before, intrinsically motivated heartbreak is a gift reserved for the wealthy.

Possibly more than any of the other three presidents that will be discussed here, Kennedy was acutely aware of the consequences of war. Serving in the Navy for four years, earned six medals including a Purple Heart, and lost his older brother Joe Jr., it is fair to say that war was something incredibly personal to the young president . However, it must be asked whether or not this was representative in his rhetoric regarding the Vietnam War. Well, this is where it becomes difficult to draw the distinction between his personal sentiment towards the impending war and his efforts at effective leading. Kennedy often made his distrust of the “military industrial complex” so well known that he even coined the aforementioned phrase. But if one is to review President Kennedy’s rhetoric surrounding war, it can be separated into two distinct schools; in theory and in practice. During his commencement address at American University, JFK provided the nation with possibly his most rhetorically influential speeches. Often referenced to this day, this half hour address details the president’s hopes and plans for world peace. As Kennedy so beautifully stated,

"What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time”.

Most noticeably within this excerpt is the intense and unwavering desire for peace. This is a prime example of Kennedy’s rhetoric surrounding a theoretical notion of peace. It is hopeful, and it is ambitious, yet he designs his ideas in such a way that his goals are seemingly attainable. One should note the subtle use of historical references that draw a fascinated parallel between the American and Roman empires. This was particularly wise word choice on behalf of his speech writers because the fall of the Roman empire is often cited to be its intense militarism.

It is my conjecture that what made Kennedy such a proficient public speaker was his ability to make abstract concepts seemingly tangible. As a means to fully explain this, which will in turn make a later point much easier to dissect, I am going to make a quick digression and deconstruct one of Kennedy’s most quoted line. Although it has very little to do with the ways in which Kennedy relayed information about the Vietnam war to the public, it is quite indicative of his rhetorical style and his means of communication. During his inaugural address, Kennedy famously declared “…ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” . I choose to cite this quote from his address because it is a fantastic example of the way in which Kennedy was proficient at making the abstract definitive. The sheer notion of serving your country has so many nuanced meanings and applications, yet this line is structured in such a way that it is applicable to nearly any situation involving a citizen and their nation. Kennedy did not need to define what this unknown action was because he wanted the American people to fill in the blank. He personally could not pinpoint a deed that would inspire each of his constituents, so he found a way to do so without corrupting or diminishing his message. So, what exactly does this have to do with Vietnam? Well, it is my belief that where Kennedy excelled in abstractions and theoretical ideas, he fell short in the tangible and finite; at least to the degree in which Kennedy could fall short at public speaking.

President Kennedy was in a particularly unfortunate dilemma when he inherited the growing turmoil that was the biproduct of the First Indochina Wars. Kennedy was highly aware of the public’s sentiments regarding any foreign conflict. Following the unspoken embarrassment that was the Korean War, which was a consequence of the intense pride brought forth by the conclusion of World War II, there were very few Americans that would be in support of additional participation in a country split in two by communism. Conversely, Kennedy was also cognizant of anti-communist sentiment that was still radiated throughout the nation; even after the ceasing of the communist inquisition of the 1950’s. Arguably, it is this zero-sum situation that was the cause of Kennedy’s equivalent of fumbling around questions regarding the sending of troops to Vietnam . It should be noted that history generally does not look favorably on these types of press interviews as a consequence of being provided the context and outcome that was impossible for the parties at the time to possess. That being said, given that Kennedy was already involved in covert operations with the CIA in the past (note the Bay of Pigs) one must wonder if the sentiments that Kennedy was providing towards the prospect of conflict at the time was simply a façade in an attempt to dispense responsibility.

Although Kennedy was placed in a seemingly situation seemingly void of victory, he was placed in a historical position marked by such tragedy that all else was overshadowed. A common sentiment that surrounds the Kennedy administration is the sense that we are essentially deprived of a conclusion. All consequences of his actions were received by his predecessors and a course of action that would have truly been his will never be known. When it comes to answer the question of the ways in which his relationship with Vietnam impacted his legacy, there is not much that can be said. John F. Kennedy will not be remembered by the 16,200 troops stationed in the tumultuous nation, nor by the 82 U.S. soldiers’ lives that were lost. Unfortunately, that will be a legacy that will fall onto the should of Kennedy’s successor.