When studying legendary Americans, sometimes the famous legends tell more of the audience than of the subject itself. It speaks of the audience’s thoughts and values at the time. And looking at how the legend is portrayed over time can yield valuable information on how those views change over time as well. Such is the case of John F. Kennedy. From his time in office to the present, the criteria Americans have judged him by for his role in the Cold War has shifted from actions to result. And while the views of 1960 America may seem intolerant for questioning the concept of a Catholic President, historical context shows that it was more tolerant than its own past.  And the America today still seems to promote religious tolerance with Kennedy being used in civic texts like children’s books to promote equal rights regardless of religion. From these two trends, it is shown that the standards of judging past political figures have shifted to include results and also that there’s a rising religious tolerance throughout American history.

One conclusion that can be drawn from Kennedy’s image during the Cold War leader is this: In times of danger or crises concerning the nation, the American people will look for a leader to unite them. Kennedy’s crisis was the Cold War. The nation feared the spread of Communism, the antithesis of the American ideal. Furthermore, the worst case scenario was thought to be obliteration of the country in nuclear war. Even if the American were to win in that war, Kennedy remarked that fruits of victory would be like “ashes in the mouth” (Smith, 272). Kennedy received a lot of support from the American people whenever he confronted the Communist threat. For example, his approval ratings went up to around 74% after the dealings of the Cuban Missile Crises (Smith, 269). As far as the American public knew, he managed to stare down Khrushchev into submitting. But it didn’t matter if his plans were successful or not so long he was fighting Communism. For example, the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba ended up in disaster; yet Kennedy’s approval ratings rose to his highest of all times at 83% after the American public found out (to which Kennedy later remarked, “I hope I don’t have to keep doing stupid things….to remain popular”) (Tuzzleman). What we can draw from this analysis is that the American people under crises seek a leader to unite them and if he successfully does so, his results are less important than his actions. But the opposite is also true! In the Civil Rights movement in September of 1963, Kennedy’s approval rating sunk to the lowest of his term of 56% (Presidential). The protesters and the violence demonstrated disunity within the country, something Kennedy was to have remedied and so his approval ratings dropped for not fulfilling his “role”.

Now that the Cold War is over and Kennedy is gone, Kennedy’s role as of uniting the people is not as needed. Today, his acts of “doing something” is not enough and so results now play a bigger role in judging his image. This is exemplified with Kennedy being well remembered for his role in peacefully ending the Cuban Missile Crisis along with the signing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. But with more focus on results today, events like the Bay of Pigs has also lost support and is now regarded as a disaster and is ironically seen as a symbol of US fallibility (Weiner). Some might contest that the real reason why there is more focus on the results today is not the importance of unity back then but rather that time allowed society to observe results more carefully. Hindsight is 20/20 and more time before events allow for more thorough analysis. It could be possible that Americans did care for results but couldn’t clearly interpret them at the time. However, even a brief glimpse of Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs result would show America’s defeat with 100 out of 1500 killed and many captured (Weiner). There would be little reason for the event to boost Kennedy’s popularity at that time other than the fact he was acting against Communism. In addition to reversing the view of the past, the views may be exaggerated as well. Many quotes still exist today expressing the fear of nuclear war at the time. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara observed “I thought I might never see a Saturday night again.” A Soviet Chief of Operations commented “Nuclear catastrophe….was counted down by minutes.” (Smith, 265) However, a survey of the American people shows that there was little fear of a nuclear war even during the Cuban missile crises! During the weeks after Kennedy’s address only 12% of the poll stated the Cuban situation changed their daily life and only 4% of the population engaged in any safety activity. Furthermore, thoughts of death decreased by 8% and overall happiness increased 5% from the spring. (Smith, 272) It seems that over time, the American people have exaggerated the fear of nuclear war in the ‘60s. But why? It might be that exaggerating the dangers of the past would increase its perceived difference with the present, thus increasing the perceived result of Kennedy. Of course, there are other possibilities of why the fears were exaggerated. The public could possibly not have known of the gravity of the situation during the Cuban Missile Crisis and only have known the true danger they were in after the polls were taken. But it is unlikely that this is the case. The polls were taken after Kennedy’s public announcement of the missiles on October 22, 1962.

Another point of interest of Kennedy’s legacy is that his religion, Catholicism, broke a tradition of Protestant presidents. Kennedy Catholicism shows an increased religious tolerance among Americans in historical context along with a respect for intellectual achievements and wealth. During the 60’s there was some concern over a Catholic becoming President. One issue was the possibility of the head of state becoming a subordinate of the Catholic state and Pope. It could possibly dictate the policy from education to abortion (Burns, 248). In a survey of 1956, over 20% of the polls stated that they wouldn’t vote for a Catholic President even if he were well qualified. However, the objections of the 1960s to a Catholic President were less than its predecessors in the 1920s. In the 1920s, the Catholics were still primarily immigrants and thus had little entry into politics. The last Catholic presidential candidate was Al Smith of 1928. So what was the difference between Kennedy and Al?  Al was a provincial New York candidate and mostly relied on the local vote. But Kennedy had crossed all boundaries of his immigrant past, save for religion. He had wealth, Harvard education and intellectual achievements. Furthermore, the Catholics made social advances in the realm of politics between the 1920’s and 1960s. “By 1958, Catholics had been elected governor or United States senator in states where catholic voters were a minority, including California, Ohio Pennsylvania and even Minnesota.” (Burns, 252-253)  When Kennedy won 61% of the vote in the West Virginia Primary against Hubert Humphrey, it was clear that Kennedy had overcome any anti-Catholic sentiment at the time to claim the Democratic nomination (Burner, 49). What this shows is that the Americans in the ‘60s had enough religious tolerance to nominate and elect a Catholic President. It also reveals that Americans are concerned with other image factors other than religion such as education and wealth, reasons of why the image of Kennedy was more appealing than that of Al Smith.  Some might point out that it may be too hasty to draw that conclusion because Al Smith and Kennedy ran at different times. And it is possible that had Al Smith ran in an environment similar to that of1960 America, he probably would have faced less opposition concerning his religion. However, it is highly unlikely that the nation as a whole in any time period would have preferred the “provincial, salty, wisecracking New Yorker” over the” wealthy, Brahmin accented” Kennedy (Burns, 252).

Today, Kennedy being a Catholic is used as an example of the freedom of religion America. Civic texts like a children’s book states that Kennedy stood up for his rights to be President.” Nobody asked me if I was a Catholic when I joined the United States Navy,” it quotes from Kennedy (Sutcliffe, 24). It shows that Americans still treasure the idea of religious tolerance enough that they will use Kennedy as a way to imprint tolerance on the young minds of American futures.

Some of Kennedy’s legacies are of his Cold War events and his Catholicism. However, by looking at how these legacies are viewed over time, we may learn more about the American people. In terms of the Cold War, action against the spread of Communism drew approval of the Americans in the ‘60s because they sought unity and fighting against Communism was something many could unite under. But in the present, Kennedy’s accomplishments have been exaggerated or even reversed. This is an effect caused by current Americans now judging the past based on results rather than the act of simply acting. His religion was met with oppositions from some Americans but it was less in magnitude compared to the ‘20s and shows an increase in religious tolerance since then. The fact that his election as a Catholic is part of civic texts shows that Americans still appreciate religious tolerance and want to maintain it by teaching it to future generations.

WORKS CITED

• Burner, David. John F, Kennedy and a New Generation. Boston: Little Brown, 1988. 47-49. Print.
• Burns, James. John Kennedy A Political Profile. New York: Harcourt, Brace &Company, 236-252. Print
• “Presidential Approval Ratings.” Gallup. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Dec 2011. <http://www.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ratings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx>
• Smith, Tom. Public Quarterly. 67. Oxford University Press, 2004. 265-275. Web. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3521635?seq=1>
• Sutcliffe, Jane. John F, Kennedy. 24. Print.
• Tuzzleman, Alex. “From the Archive: In the Carribean Storm.” History Today. N.p., 2011. Web. 6 Dec 2011. <http://www.historytoday.com/alex-von-tunzelmann/archive-caribbean-storm>.
• Weiner, Jared. “Bay of Pigs.” Exploring the Culture of Little Havana. N.p., 14 Oct. 1998. Web. 25 Nov. 2011. <http://www.education.miami.edu/ep/littlehavana/Monuments/Virgin1/The_Virgin_Mary/Bay_of_Pigs/bay_of_pigs.html>.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 14th, 2011 at 3:53 pm and is filed under Peter. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.