I was reading The Kennedys: America's Emerald Kings: A Five-Generation History of the Ultimate Irish

[hedgehog]

and was stunned at the level of anti-Catholic/anti-immigrant feeling JFK faced. We look back and condemn him for not doing enough for African-American civil rights and fail to remember that just by being President, he was advancing civil rights. I think we also are failing to understand how much of his political capital he'd expended just getting himself elected. That is, having advanced the cause of non-Anglo, non-Protestant, non-Establishment whites, he was limited in what he could do for blacks.

The reason I bring this up is that when we demand that Obama resolve all the issues facing our GBLT siblings right now, I think we are forgetting how much of a tight rope he is walking just because he is only the second outsider President (JFK being the first.) His power to bring change is limited.

We must be the change we wish to see instead of loading it all on him.

[zipplewrath]

1. I'm dubious of your premise

"That is, having advanced the cause of non-Anglo, non-Protestant, non-Establishment whites, he was limited in what he could do for blacks."

I find your assertion fairly weak. Yes, he was the first Roman Catholic president, and he faced a fair amount of resistance to that, especially in certain areas of the south. But also remember that there was a fairly large (and still is) Roman Catholic constituency in the US. Between Italian and Irish decent, not to mention some German, French, and Spanish thrown in, he had advantages in electoral politics that Obama does not enjoy. The Roman Catholic Church enjoyed, and to some extent still does enjoy, a fair amount of political clout in the US.

I don't see how this translated into a particular problem for JFK on the larger issue of civil rights. He had a southern problem with, or without, his faith because the democratic party in general was facing resistance in the south. He lost EC votes to Strom Thurmond of the Dixiecrat party over the issue of segregation, much of it over the force integration of the party itself. There were huge floor fights at the conventions back then over this issue. If anything he was positioned to move against the southern Dixiecrats and Jim Crow because he had won without them. LBJ was giving him this very advice, and in fact picked up the cause upon JFK's assassination. He was in Dallas that day because he was worried about losing TEXAS, not Alabama.

Obama's situation with respect to LGBT community is as flawed as JFK's was on civil rights. He has nothing to lose buy pushing for equality here. The strong opponents aren't going to vote for him anyway. He's not making any friends by going slow here, and in fact is appearing weak by doing so. He appears to be getting pushed around by the DoD on a couple of fronts, whether that is true or not. And the majority of America will support him, even ones who may not end up voting for him.

[hedgehog]

3. According to the author, Kennedy squeaked into office over virulent

opposition from many Protestant leaders. The vote form fellow Catholics barely made the difference.

I agree that Obama will only strengthen his position with supporters if he went all out on GBLT rights. However, he has to deal with a Congress scared shitless by the Tea Party.

I think we may see a different Obama after the mid-terms, more willing to go fro broke and do what is right rather than follow the cautious counsel of the professionals.

[zipplewrath]

4. That ignores entirely the dixiecrats

The south was very angry at democrats, and put up their own candidates under a third party banner. That, combined with a southern bias against catholics in the first place, were his core problems. But again, all that points to is that he wasn't going to "win" by trying to be nice to them. That's what LBJ was trying to lay out for him. Those folks were never going to vote for him, whether he helped with civil rights or not. A lesson Obama needs to learn on many issues.

And I have no idea why you think we'll see a different Obama. His staff has already revealed that it is their intent to avoid congress altogether in the next 2 years and accomplish what they can through regulation. This is "no Drama Obama" and there's been nothing to indicate it will change.

[craigmatic]

2. It's different for Obama than JFK. Kennedy was really the 1st President to try to handle the

civil rights question. Also JFK barely got in office and therefore had no mandate to change anything. He was also an internationalist rather than being focused on domestic issues. Kennedy had no standing with Congress even though he served with both houses. He had no real ties or power over them. Obama on the otherhand has sway over the democratic congress and relatively good relations with the speaker and majority leader. Obama won in a landslide and has a mandate to govern and change domestic policy. The only thing that you could argue that could slow Obama down on the LBGT rights fight is the economy because that took alot of thewind out of his sails along with the health care fight. BOth preseident did as much using solely executive power as they could for both minority groups though. It's going to take another landslide to win LBGT rights now just like LBJ in 64.

[a kennedy]

5. What was the makeup of the house and senate during JFK's time???

who was in power in congress???