The martyr effect.

[BobPlumb]

Both JFK and Lincoln are considered to be great presidents. MLK is considered to have been a great civil rights leader. Using the word "great" to describe these men will seem like an understatement to many. All three were assassinated while still heavily active in their careers, but before historians could reflect an "write history" about these men.

Would the historical work of these men be viewed inn such a favorable light had they not been assassinated as they were? Every man has flaws. However, it's often considered bad taste to speak ill of the dead. So when someone is assassinated as these men were, their strengths an contributions are enhanced while their flaws and weaknesses are minimized.

Also, these men do not have any opportunity to screw up their legacies after the assassinations.

 

[Listening]

Yes, we like to build up our heros.

Kennedy was president about three years.

The Cuban missle crisis defined him for many.

 

[Amelia]

Yeah, who knows what would have happened to the Kennedy agenda if he had been responsible for getting it done. Johnson got a whole lot done in honor of Kennedy.

 

[BobPlumb]

Yeah, who knows what would have happened to the Kennedy agenda if he had been responsible for getting it done. Johnson got a whole lot done in honor of Kennedy.

If MLK were alive today, would he still be like history remembers him, or would he be more like Jessie and Al.

 

[Amelia]

That's an interesting question.

Maybe he wouldn't be thought of much at all. John Conyers isn't thought of that much. He took a more admirable path than Jackson or Sharpton.

Maybe God let King be martyred just so he would be remembered. I won't suggest that about JFK. JFK wasn't that important. But MLK really was that important. In my opinion.

 

[Listening]

Of course, nobody talks much about Bobby Kennedy.

And we all know who Mary Joe Kopechne is.

But again, time has a way of softening people's memories.

Reagan got thrashed while in office. He's thought of much more highly now...by many. Of course, we've had a pretty steady stream of losers since his time....I am sure that helps.

 

[Amelia]

In scifi stories people sometimes go back in time and save JFK, only to realize that it destroyed his legacy and he ended up in jail or something after his misdeeds were exposed. So they go back again to let him die in order to preserve the world's memory of the inspiring things about him.

In a Red Dwarf episode, they messed the timeline up so badly that Oswald wasn't able to successfully shoot JFK, so they had to take the shot from the grassy knoll. And JFK himself was the shooter on the knoll. He knew it had to be done.

 

[Listening]

In scifi stories people sometimes go back in time and save JFK, only to realize that it destroyed his legacy and he ended up in jail or something after his misdeeds were exposed. So they go back again to let him die in order to preserve the world's memory of the inspiring things about him.

In a Red Dwarf episode, they messed the timeline up so badly that Oswald wasn't able to successfully shoot JFK, so they had to take the shot from the grassy knoll. And JFK himself was the shooter on the knoll. He knew it had to be done.

It does get you thinking.

Even people's sins seem less if they come out after they die.

JFK was supposed to be quite the womanizer.....but nobody much cares about that (not that I want to sully his name...just pointing it out).

Of course, I'll sully his bother's name (Ted the Liar of the Senate) every chance I get.

 

[Mojo2]

Both JFK and Lincoln are considered to be great presidents. MLK is considered to have been a great civil rights leader. Using the word "great" to describe these men will seem like an understatement to many. All three were assassinated while still heavily active in their careers, but before historians could reflect an "write history" about these men.

Would the historical work of these men be viewed inn such a favorable light had they not been assassinated as they were? Every man has flaws. However, it's often considered bad taste to speak ill of the dead. So when someone is assassinated as these men were, their strengths an contributions are enhanced while their flaws and weaknesses are minimized.

Also, these men do not have any opportunity to screw up their legacies after the assassinations.

JFK actually discussed the possibility of his assassination with Jackie and identified the best time for an assassin to strike was right then after the Cuban Missile Crisis had turned out so well for him and America and for World peace.

President Kennedy, a student of history and President Lincoln, joked darkly after his triumph in the Cuban Missile Crisis that it might be a good night to go to the theater.

JFK was referring to Lincoln's assassination at Ford's Theater after being victorious in the Civil War at the height of his political reputation.

The remark is a footnote in the notes of the oral history that former first lady Jacqueline Kennedy recorded for posterity nearly 50 years ago, which have not been heard publicly until this week. For the first time, extended portions of the tapes will be aired in a two-hour Diane Sawyer special "Jacqueline Kennedy: In Her Own Words" on Tuesday, Sept. 13 at 9 p.m. ET/ 8 p.m. CT. They will also be included in the new book "Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy," edited by Caroline Kennedy.

Mrs. Kennedy said in her interviews with family friend and historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. just four months after her husband was killed that JFK once asked Princeton historian David Donald, "Would Lincoln have been as great a president if he'd lived?"

Donald reluctantly replied that it "was better for Lincoln that he died when he did," Mrs. Kennedy recalled, rather than having his reputation tarnished by having to deal with "this almost insoluble problem" of reconstructing the South.

"And then I remember Jack saying after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when it all turned (out) so fantastically, he said, 'Well, if anyone's ever going to shoot me, this would be the day they should do it,'" Jacqueline Kennedy said.

"I mean it's so strange, these things that come back," Mrs. Kennedy mused to Schlesinger. "Because he saw then that he would be -- you know, he said, it will never top this. Strange those things come back now."

A footnote in the oral history notes that at the conclusion of the missile crisis the president said to his brother Robert Kennedy, that it "might be the night to go to the theater," an obvious reference to Lincoln and Ford's Theater.

The remark was an expression of JFK's puckish humor as well as his recognition that his triumph in the nuclear-tipped showdown with Russia was of historical importance.

Jacqueline Kennedy Says JFK Joked About Assassination After Missile Crisis - ABC News

 

[Mojo2]

In scifi stories people sometimes go back in time and save JFK, only to realize that it destroyed his legacy and he ended up in jail or something after his misdeeds were exposed. So they go back again to let him die in order to preserve the world's memory of the inspiring things about him.

In a Red Dwarf episode, they messed the timeline up so badly that Oswald wasn't able to successfully shoot JFK, so they had to take the shot from the grassy knoll. And JFK himself was the shooter on the knoll. He knew it had to be done.

It does get you thinking.

Even people's sins seem less if they come out after they die.

JFK was supposed to be quite the womanizer.....but nobody much cares about that (not that I want to sully his name...just pointing it out).

Of course, I'll sully his bother's name (Ted the Liar of the Senate) every chance I get.

And in one of the spate of specials remembering the 50th observance of his shooting there was a show detailing how he and/or his Brothers and the rest of the family have affected this country in significant ways ever since then.

The Legacy of President John F. Kennedy ? 50 Years Later |

When they got to the mid 1970's until the Reagan election in 1980, I was surprised to see not only that Ted Kennedy detested Jimmy Carter, but that it seems he worked against Carter's re-election even after he'd dropped out of the race.

That suggests he REALLY had a difference of opinion on policies and/OR that he was a spiteful, small minded person.

IMO.

 

[Listening]

In scifi stories people sometimes go back in time and save JFK, only to realize that it destroyed his legacy and he ended up in jail or something after his misdeeds were exposed. So they go back again to let him die in order to preserve the world's memory of the inspiring things about him.

In a Red Dwarf episode, they messed the timeline up so badly that Oswald wasn't able to successfully shoot JFK, so they had to take the shot from the grassy knoll. And JFK himself was the shooter on the knoll. He knew it had to be done.

It does get you thinking.

Even people's sins seem less if they come out after they die.

JFK was supposed to be quite the womanizer.....but nobody much cares about that (not that I want to sully his name...just pointing it out).

Of course, I'll sully his bother's name (Ted the Liar of the Senate) every chance I get.

And in one of the spate of specials remembering the 50th observance of his shooting there was a show detailing how he and/or his Brothers and the rest of the family have affected this country in significant ways ever since then.

The Legacy of President John F. Kennedy ? 50 Years Later |

When they got to the mid 1970's until the Reagan election in 1980, I was surprised to see not only that Ted Kennedy detested Jimmy Carter, but that it seems he worked against Carter's re-election even after he'd dropped out of the race.

That suggests he REALLY had a difference of opinion on policies and/OR that he was a spiteful, small minded person.

IMO.

Ted made the 1980 demo convention a drama. It was disgusting. Mary Jo was still fresh in my memory and that asshole had nobody to blame but himself.

To bad he didn't get the nomination. It would have been fun to see his ass go down in flames.

 

[Listening]

To bad Harry Reid does not have a stroke right there on the Senate floor (or maybe he did...now that I think of it...that would explain a great deal).

 

[oldfart]

Both JFK and Lincoln are considered to be great presidents. MLK is considered to have been a great civil rights leader. Using the word "great" to describe these men will seem like an understatement to many. All three were assassinated while still heavily active in their careers, but before historians could reflect an "write history" about these men.

Would the historical work of these men be viewed inn such a favorable light had they not been assassinated as they were? Every man has flaws. However, it's often considered bad taste to speak ill of the dead. So when someone is assassinated as these men were, their strengths an contributions are enhanced while their flaws and weaknesses are minimized.

Also, these men do not have any opportunity to screw up their legacies after the assassinations.

I as somewhat surprised that no one had weighed in on Lincoln yet. There is a large literature in Lincoln historiography that addresses Lincoln the historical figure vs Lincoln the myth. Donald Davis famously stated in the forward of an anthology that each generation of American historians had to first "Get right with Lincoln". A derivative debate deals with what Lincolnian Reconstruction would have developed had he lived and how that would have altered his historical reputation. So from over fifty years of studying Lincoln and Lincoln historiography, here would be my answers.

Would the historical work of these men be viewed inn such a favorable light had they not been assassinated as they were? Every man has flaws. However, it's often considered bad taste to speak ill of the dead. So when someone is assassinated as these men were, their strengths an contributions are enhanced while their flaws and weaknesses are minimized.

We write separate histories of the figures themselves and of the myths. The are related and both are useful, for the history of a myth is the history of an idea, of a set of values.
What popular thought in succeeding generations thinks of Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Kennedy, Reagan, or King; no matter how based in the historical record these thoughts are, is important in and of itself.

Lincoln stands alone for a number of reasons. Of all Americans, he was the pre-eminent orator and writer about what fundamentally America was about. His speeches stand up well 150 years after delivery. It is not one speech. The House Divided speech, both Inaugural Addresses, the Cooper Union speech, and the Gettysburg Address all rank in the top dozen of American political rhetoric. Who today remembers the speeches of Henry Clay, John C Calhoun, or Woodrow Wilson, the most renowned speechmakers of their day? In rhetoric, the term "Lincolnian" is reserved for only the pinnacle of such endeavors, and decades can pass with no effort justifying the accolade.

This talent was used for declared purposes, the largest issues of a half century. The roots and branches extend for more than a century in both directions and to virtually every corner of the world. This gives a resonance to Lincoln's thought that ebbs and flows, but never fades. And there lies the importance of the myth.

Washington and FDR confronted crises of comparable dimensions. IMHO Washington while acquitting himself well as the first president, was not a thinker of the level of Lincoln or Jefferson and Madison for that matter. His legacy as a military leader overshadows that of a political leader. FDR confronted great challenges, but I think as time moves him further out of popular experience, his reputation will recede a bit.

Kennedy and King are far more important as symbols of ideas than as actors on the stage of history. Had they not died from assassins' bullets, I am not sure of their places in history.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Oldfart your excellent post only showcases the mediocrity of the present political class and the shallowness of their purposes.

 

[Publius1787]

Both JFK and Lincoln are considered to be great presidents. MLK is considered to have been a great civil rights leader. Using the word "great" to describe these men will seem like an understatement to many. All three were assassinated while still heavily active in their careers, but before historians could reflect an "write history" about these men.

Would the historical work of these men be viewed inn such a favorable light had they not been assassinated as they were? Every man has flaws. However, it's often considered bad taste to speak ill of the dead. So when someone is assassinated as these men were, their strengths an contributions are enhanced while their flaws and weaknesses are minimized.

Also, these men do not have any opportunity to screw up their legacies after the assassinations.

Trust me, if MLK were alive today he would be race peddling with Jackson and Sharpton. As for achievements, even the most biased historian could tell you that JFK accomplished little to nothing. Lincoln likewise got an out. You are correct, all three of these men owe much to the martyrdom effect.

 

[oldfart]

Oldfart your excellent post only showcases the mediocrity of the present political class and the shallowness of their purposes.

Thanks for the plug. My other undergraduate major was history. Some people believe that great figures emerge only in times of great challenges, but I believe that great challenges are always present. Some are just not as obvious as others. 9-11, Katrina and Sandy, and a world economic collapse are surely great enough challenges to cover in glory any leader who would have dealt effectively with them; but none did. You are right, I believe, to blame this on the political system as a whole (single-member districts, winner take all elections, two party system, divided government, and the rising use of economic power to dominate political power) as I do not believe that a nation of over 300 millions cannot produce effective leaders. We just cannot produce a system that puts them in power with the tools to achieve what most citizens want done.

 

[Listening]

And the larger the group gets, the less effective they are.

But people like RightWinger want to wipe their asses with the Bill of Rights (specifically the 10th amendment) where states (smaller entities) would do much for their respective citizens.

California has produced a string of loser governors (with one notable exception) because it is so large.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Both JFK and Lincoln are considered to be great presidents. MLK is considered to have been a great civil rights leader. Using the word "great" to describe these men will seem like an understatement to many. All three were assassinated while still heavily active in their careers, but before historians could reflect an "write history" about these men.

Would the historical work of these men be viewed inn such a favorable light had they not been assassinated as they were? Every man has flaws. However, it's often considered bad taste to speak ill of the dead. So when someone is assassinated as these men were, their strengths an contributions are enhanced while their flaws and weaknesses are minimized.

Also, these men do not have any opportunity to screw up their legacies after the assassinations.

Red Dwarf at least had an episode where they depicted what may have happened if President Kennedy hadn't been assassinated. Because of his affairs he was blackmailed and then impeached and imprisoned. So I think when someone is gunned down, the imperfections are laid aside and just the good things are remembered and venerated.

 

[Intense]

Yeah, who knows what would have happened to the Kennedy agenda if he had been responsible for getting it done. Johnson got a whole lot done in honor of Kennedy.

If MLK were alive today, would he still be like history remembers him, or would he be more like Jessie and Al.

He was more rooted in Thoreau and John Locke. Way ahead of Jessie and Al.

 

[Steven_R]

And the larger the group gets, the less effective they are.

But people like RightWinger want to wipe their asses with the Bill of Rights (specifically the 10th amendment) where states (smaller entities) would do much for their respective citizens.

California has produced a string of loser governors (with one notable exception) because it is so large.

It's an interesting conundrum. If we have fewer legislators to keep the size manageable, then the legislators end up farther and farther away from contact with average citizens. If we increase the number so citizens can have more contact, then the number of legislators approaches a point where the individual legislator is pretty much ineffective.