14 / COMMENT
@EdJournal / journal-online.co.uk
The Journal Wednesday 21 November 2012
The return of the American dynasties First there were the Kennedys, now it seems like the return of the Bushes and Clintons may be on the horizon Michael Mawdsley
Forty-nine years ago, on 22 November, at around 12.30pm, three shots rang out in downtown Dallas. After 1,036 days, the presidency of John Fitzgerald Kennedy came to a violent end, as he was gunned down by Lee-Harvey Oswald as he began his re-election campaign. It all occurred in full-technicolour before the eyes of the American nation. Immortalized in both film and literature, the assassination itself remains a hotbed of controversy, the truth of which will probably never be known. Two weeks ago in the American election, after a brief respite, “Camelot” has returned to the United States again. Joseph P. Kennedy III, great nephew of JFK, has been elected to the House of Representatives. He continues a sixty-four-year trend of a Kennedy being involved in the Senate or Congress in Massachusetts. His grandfather, Senator Robert F. “Bobby” Kennedy, was also killed in tragic circumstances during a campaign. Having just won the Democratic Primary in California minutes previously, he was murdered by a Palestinian extremist in Los Angeles in June 1968. However beyond the details and motives of both acts themselves, the question stands almost fifty years on; is there any significance still to be drawn in the 21st century from the murder of a President and his brother cut down in their prime? The facts are tantamount. JFK was a historically ineffective president. He failed in his ambitions in terms of domestic policy, in particular civil rights. The Alabama University fiasco represents this superbly. Secondly, his ventures into foreign policy were a disaster. His admin-
istration’s vindictive persecution of Fidel Castro and Cuba, both economic through an embargo that continues to today and militarily, centrally the Bay of Pigs in 1962, created the Cuban Missile Crisis and almost nuclear war. His relations with Premier Khrushchev were risqué in terms of a Berlin settlement, and his continuation of containment policy towards communism would eventually, although inadvertently, lead to the Vietnam War. “Camelot”, a term used by Noam Chomsky to describe the 1960-1963 administration, was filled with numerous advisors who confounded the Presidents decision-making, leaving a legacy that is negative. But this is ignored, because those shots in Dallas and Los Angeles helped created an icon for a democratic figure, “American-style”, and everything it believes in. A Kennedy to the American public represents a talismanic, youthful and charismatic leader. They represent hope, prosperity, and vision. There is no coincidence that that is exactly the image portrayed by RFK and JFK at the moment of their untimely ends. President Obama courted the family extensively in the run up to 2008, in particular Caroline Kennedy, JFK’s daughter. That relationship has since turned sour, with allegations of back-stabbing on both sides. He also evoked a spirit Irish ancestry, as has almost every American presidency since J.F.K. Both serve as prominent examples of the current president’s original attempt to invoke his longdead predecessors and the stake and power of a name. Dallas, and latterly L.A., it can be argued, helped to cement the politically active community’s undoubted love of dynasties, personified in the Kennedys, the Bushes and the Clintons.
The dynastical legacy that has begun to steadily increase its hegemony over American politics is something which bears increasing significance. Had either brother or one survived, it is probable that the face of American politics would be vastly different. It is even possible that the current President would not be the first black man or woman in the White House. Bobby ran on a very significant Civil Rights programme, and was also exceedingly keen on withdrawal from Vietnam. In their stead Edward Kennedy, the younger brother of both, ran for the Democratic nomination in 1980 on name and name alone. Political theorists place Jimmy Carter’s success in the election process as being due to his ability, via an intelligent press strategy of keeping the name out of the headlines. But 1980 represents the rise of the alternative dynasty. In response to the Kennedy dynasty in the Republican Party in 1980s, there was the rise of the Bushes. Although their patriarch in political terms of the family, Prescott Sheldon Bush, was an advisor in the Trumann regime of the 1950s, it was his son, former President and VicePresident George H.W. Bush Snr, and grandson, former President George W. Bush Jnr, who represent this success. In terms of approach, both have defined the Republican party’s thought process and actions since the 1980s. Bush and Reagan recused America from economic crisis in the 1980s, and George W. Bush almost dragged it back into despair in 2008. Both engaged in wars in the Middle East, one legitimately, the other not, and both extensively engage in expanding America’s imperialist legacy that had been dismembered in Indochina. While one accidently undermined the other, the fact is America as it is today is largely
due to this family’s presidencies. And although we have just seen the triumphant re-election of Barack Obama, there is one final chapter in the dynastical story that stretches back to 1963. Already as the dust settles from Mitt Romney’s defeat, there is talk in both the capital and the national press of another dynastical clash, this time between Hillary Clinton, current secretary of state, and Governor Jeb Bush of Florida. The Clintons themselves represent a combination of both. As the first President to be born after the end of the Second World War, and the third youngest after JFK and Teddy Roosevelt, he invoked the spirit of JFK in his campaign; whilst post-presidency his wife has sought to establish herself eminently. As a young man he had met Kennedy
in 1963, and although not directly referencing the assassinated president in his campaign he was a youthful, vibrant candidate representing all the metaphors of the 1960 campaign. He defeated an incumbent elderly president by demolishing his policies. There is no undoubting the legacy of JFK in the man who saw his presidency almost demolished by allegations of adultery. Hillary ran as Senator for New York in 2000, and ran against Obama in 2008 as a leading contender. Having settled for Secretary of State, her political ambitions have been left unfilled. Although she will be 65 by 2016, she is the forerunner in terms of the nomination. Jeb Bush, liberal by Republican terms, may too be offered the opportunity to redeem the family name, although there is a long road left to run. The dynasties shall rise again.
McAshing-in EUSA boss puts a cat among the nationalist pigeons
Edinburgh Anonymous EUSA president James McAsh chose not to attend the University of Edinburgh’s Remembrance Day service earlier this month, on account of the nationalist and imperialist agenda of our armed forces overseas. The decision to do so was, of course, deliberated over for some time before McAsh decided instead to appoint one of his vice-presidents to attend the event. This was criticised by some as a false representation of the views of the students of Edinburgh, many of whom saw beyond McAsh’s narrow view of Remembrance Day being about forces currently deployed overseas, and more about remembering the many, military and civilian, throughout history who have died at war. The decision not to attend was described as ‘vile’ by some students, and while some EUSA officers leapt to the president’s defence, the stunt has nonetheless been seen by some in the student body as misguided, offensive and irresponsible. The statement on the president’s personal Facebook page created more anger. But despite a belated apology it is still a powerful statement from the president of one of the biggest student bodies in the
country, and risks projecting upon the students an opinion they didn’t know they had - and perhaps didn’t want to have. One can only assume that this kind of stand will become a permanent fixture in the year ahead. After all, the capitalist hordes will once again be descending on Princes Street to throw their hard-earned money at ever more wealthy fatcats all in the name of festive goodwill and charity. Of course our dear leader couldn’t possibly be seen indulging in such decadent shenanigans. He shall, of course give out presents, but will under absolutely no circumstances accept any gifts from well-wishers; not even socks. Find another way to show your appreciation. This is the kind of selfless and allencompassing system our president likes to run. Don’t worry, though: EUSA embodies your beliefs, so much so as to not ask your opinion on important matters like a day of huge national service. Therefore, it has been henceforth decreed that Pancake Day will hereby be boycotted by Edinburgh students. The god-awful batter all over the kitchen, not to mention the huge numbers of Israeli Jaffa oranges which are used to flavour what can only be described as the most abhorrent manifestations of globalised capitalism and imperialism. And why stop there? Let’s ban Easter while we’re at it.