William Tyler
The Golden Boy: JFK

William Tyler | The Golden Boy JFK | 02.26.24 - Thank you very much, and welcome everyone to this talk, which is about JFK. I feel a bit of a fraud being British, talking about such an American icon as JFK. But as you’ll discover as I go through, JFK is not only an icon for America, but he was an icon for my generation here in Britain too. So let me begin by painting you a picture. There were two boys, age 17, one of them being me, sat in their study in a boarding school in deepest rural England. We’re working away, or at least appearing to be working away, when suddenly, our study doors thrown open, we were in a whole range, a row of studies, and one of our friends opened the door and said, he’d been illicitly listening to the radio, and said, “Have you heard the news?” “Well, of course we hadn’t heard the news. And what was the news?” “The news was that Kennedy had been assassinated in Dallas earlier that day.” And the news rippled through the school. It was late afternoon. And by dinner time in the school, everyone knew, and there was a sort of hush around the dining room, and we were not American. None of us were American, we were British. And yet to British teenagers, the assassination of Kennedy was a raw moment. And here in Britain, if you ask people where they were when they heard that Kennedy had been shot, 90% or more people will be able to tell you, as I have just done, exactly where they were, and the reaction was the same across Britain. It was almost like a member of our own family had been shot. Such was the charisma of this extraordinary man that teenagers in Britain, for us, Kennedy symbolised our world, the changing world of the 1960s. We had no one like Kennedy here. A month before Kennedy’s assassination, our prime minister, Harold Macmillan, had resigned through ill health in his 70th year. And Macmillan was the epitome of an Edwardian gentleman, whereas Kennedy epitomised for us our generation. Simon Sebag Montefiore, in his book, “Titans of History,” says this, “In the three short years of his presidency, Jack Kennedy gave America and the world a vision of a peaceful and prosperous future. His assassination in 1963 was met with grief across the globe.” So that is my excuse or my defence for being not in America but speaking about Kennedy because Kennedy was more than simply an American icon. As I said at the beginning, he is an icon for the Western world. He is a beacon of hope to a young generation. And why had this man born in the year that America entered the First World War, who had gained distinction during the Second World War? Why had he captured the imagination of those of us who were born after the Second World War? Well, he was young. Not only was he young, he only 33, the youngest, a man to ever enter the White House’s president, but he looked young. He didn’t look like the old politicians, whether American or British or wherever. He looked young. He looked different. He spoke differently. He spoke about the future, not the past. And he spoke about future with optimism, and that was something quite different. He had enormous charisma. I think we all feel we lack politicians today with that je ne sais quoi, that charisma, that extra pinch of something that makes them different. He was, of course, a brilliant speaker. His use of words is comparable, to me, to those of Churchill. That’s why I like talking about Churchill and Kennedy ‘cause you have an opportunity to read some of their speeches. And JFK’s speeches are certainly, well, I can only speak for myself, I find them moving every time I quote them. Moreover, to young men of 17, he had a glamorous wife, Jackie. It all looked to us in Britain as it looked to you in the States, and as it looked to people in other Western countries. But something had happened with the election of John F. Kennedy. I suppose you could say that his assassination in 1963 helped to cement his legend had he not been assassinated. The interesting question is, which I’ll pose later in this talk is, would we remember him with so much positivity today? Now, that is, by the way of, obviously, an introduction. And I think most of you listening to me would accept that introductory summary. But 60 years on from his death, inevitably, perhaps people challenge that bestowed centre on him. Was he really, we did like, do we not, in finding our heroes actually have feet of clay? But to reach a conclusion on JFK in 2024, we must take a biographical look at his life. And at the end of my talk, the decision is not mine to take on Kennedy’s legacy. It’s yours individually. Thus, if you are American, you may have a different slant than I have. If you are traditionally a Republican, you may have a different slant than if you are a Democrat. If you are a Canadian, you may have a different slant. If you are a German or French, you may have a different slant. So the judgement at the end of this talk is yours and yours alone. Kennedy’s legendary status, if I may call it that, began in America long before the world had heard of him. And it’s told by Simon Sebag Montefiore in that huge volume called “The World: A Family History.” I love Simon Sebag Montefiore because he manages report in such small measure, such great information, and he writes so beautifully. So Simon Sebag Montefiore writes, “In June, 1942, Yamamoto and the Japanese fleet, including four carriers, sailed to take Midway Island on the way to Hawaii, but instead the Americans aided by breaking Japanese codes, sank all four, losing only one of their own. In April, 1943, the Americans decrypted Yamamoto’s flight plan and shot down his plane. Now, the initiative passed the Americans who launched their first offensive across the vast Pacific distances far to the south of Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands, where at 2:27 in the morning on the 2nd of August, a patrol-torpedo boat, PT-109, commanded by Lieutenant Jack Kennedy, the 26-year-old son of the US Ambassador to Britain, Joe Kennedy, was ran by a Japanese destroyer. PT-109 exploded and sank, and two of Kennedy’s crew were killed instantly, 10 men survived, three of them badly burned. Kennedy asked them, 'Fight or surrender? You men have families, I’ve nothing to lose.’ They chose to fight. Kennedy had already endured much ill health, and the incident damaged his back. He, nonetheless, rescued two others, towing them to the nearest island. Then several times, swimming miles until Polynesian scouts finally arrived to rescue and feed the starving crew. Ambassador Joe Kennedy made sure that Jack’s heroism was celebrated. ‘Kennedy’s son,’ The New York Times announced, ‘is hero in the Pacific.’” So that is the first time that Jack Kennedy hit the news, and it does no harm in a nation at war to be hailed as a war hero. Sadly, the following year, Jack Kennedy’s elder brother, Joe Jr. was killed in action. We forget what an impact the war had on individual families. As I said, Jack was born in 1917, the year America entered the war. And as we’ve seen, he was the second son of Joe Kennedy, the ambassador to Britain. And certainly, from a British point of view, not a man that we take warmly to by any means with his Nazi sympathies. Their background, of course, was Irish, and as such, they were Roman Catholics. Indeed, Kennedy was the first Catholic to enter the White House. Yet when in 1947, after the war, Kennedy visited Ireland for the first time. The Irish ambassador in Washington was less convinced by this sudden finding of Irishness. And if I may read from Robert Dallek, the biographer of Kennedy, which still remains, I think, in my view, the best biography of Kennedy, “Kennedy” by Robert Dallek, D-A- L-L-E-K. And Dallek writes in this way, “In the August of 1947, John F. Kennedy travelled to Ireland. The trip was notable for several reasons. Kennedy was, first and foremost, a good New Englander and American,” so said the Irish ambassador to the United States. And that, I think, is a key to understanding Jack Kennedy. His father was very Irish and very anti-British, of course. But Jack is different. Jack is different. He is in the main street of New Englander politicians, of those who look to England as where they came from. Even though Kennedy came from Ireland and was Catholic, he, nevertheless, is, I think, and I see him in the tradition of those Protestant immigrants to America in the 17th century, and that certainly is what the Irish ambassador in 47 thought. He said, “He’s a good New Englander who had all but lost his connection to the old country. Indeed, recalling how often Jack Kennedy had visited England in the 1930s and early 40s without going to Ireland, the Irish ambassador to Washington actually described Kennedy as an English American. Many people made much of his Irish ancestry, one of Kennedy’s English friends said, but he, Kennedy, was a European, more English than Irish.” And I think that is an important thing to remember. Moreover, when he became president, the elderly prime minister in Britain, Harold Macmillan, he and Kennedy hit it off. It was often portrayed in Britain as a grandfather- grandson relationship, despite the fact that Kennedy had the power Macmillan didn’t. But there was a relationship between them, which as they say, blood is thicker than water. So the first thing to say about Kennedy is that he was not like his father, that he was different. He saw himself as a European man of the world. If you don’t like, if you’re American and don’t like me saying that, think of him as a New Englander man of the world because that’s what he was. And yet you might not have expected him to be that given his background. He had a privilege up being a member of an elite American cast, if you like, the Kennedys. This isn’t somebody from the slums making it big time. This is someone of the big time who made it. But he did have an appalling problem to overcome throughout his life. He was extraordinarily sickly as a child. He had scarlet fever at around the age of three and nearly died from it. But that was only the beginning of a whole series of childhood and adolescent illnesses, and indeed, illnesses into his adult years. Now, there is a terrible story which I will share with you, which is told by Dallek, whose book I’ve just dropped them, right. Here it is. Which is told by Robert Dallek of how his father regarded his son’s illnesses. I find this a very disturbing story. Dallek writes, “For all the love and attention, Joe Kennedy lavished on his second son, Jack. Joe resented the many medical problems that played Jack’s early life. ‘Jack was sick all the time,’ one of his friends recalled, ‘and the old man could be an asshole around his kids.’ In the late 1940s, during a visit to the Kennedy’s Palm Beach, Florida home, a friend, Jack, and a date bade Joe goodnight before going out to see a movie. Joe snidely told Jack’s girlfriend, ‘Why don’t you get a live one?’ What a dreadful thing to say a father to his son’s girlfriend, "Why don’t you get a live one?” It’s nearly as bad as what my mother said to my wife when we announced our engagement. Her words were, “You’re welcome to him.” Well, it’s much the same thing but, and I don’t think my mom made it as a joke, and I’d certainly, Joe Kennedy certainly didn’t make it as a joke. So what are these illnesses? Now, it is important, I think it’s vitally important that we know about the health, physical, and the health, mental, of those who rule us. And, of course, there’s been a lot of debate in the States at the moment about both Biden and Trump in that respect. This is an article which was published five years ago by the Public Broadcasting Association in America. And it goes like this, “To put it bluntly, long before he died at the age of 46, Jack Kennedy was a very sick man. Almost every day of his adult life, he experienced debilitating back pain, especially in the lumbar spine. Many times, his back was so stiff from pain and arthritis that he could not even bend over to tie his shoes. Few people who live free of this disability understand how badly it offends one’s life.” But Kennedy, I can’t say ignored it but overcame it. And where did this back problem come from? From the blowing up of his boat in the Second World War. Some medical historians have indicated that because he had a back brace when he was shot the first time, so not killed with the first shot, he couldn’t fall to the floor ‘cause he’d so rigid. And so the second shot, when he’s still there, he’s still a target. So partly did this disability, you could say, contributed to his death in 63. Added to all the problems he had in childhood and early manhood, he had Addison’s disease as an adult, diagnosed. This is the paragraph which is staggering. Given one of these illnesses, I doubt whether many of you listening to me tonight could have done the jobs you did do, let alone be the leader of the Free World, but Jack Kennedy did. During his presidency, Kennedy was treated with a slew of opiate painkillers, local anaesthetic shots for his back pain, tranquillisers, stimulants, thyroid hormones, barbiturate sleeping pills, as well as the steroid hormones he needed to keep his adrenal insufficiency at bay. According to The New York Times, during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October of 1962, the president was prescribed antispasmodics to control colitis, antibiotics for urinary infection, and increased the amount of hydrocortisone and testosterone along with salt tablets to control his adrenal insufficiency and boost his energy. I find Kennedy, as a man, incredible, quite incredible, that not only did he overcome that, but to the public at large, it was unseen. The youthful forward-thrusting Kennedy is, in fact, kept going by what did it say in The New York Times? A slew of medical treatments. Having left the Navy at the end of the war, he entered politics. He served in Congress from 1946 to 1952 for the 11th District of Massachusetts. From 1952 to 1960, he served in the Senate for the same state of Massachusetts. In 1960, he defeated LBJ, who is to become both his vice president and successor to gain the Democratic nomination for the presidency. And in the presidential election campaign itself, he defeated the Republican, Richard Nixon, who, in the course of time, is to become president. My goodness, Kennedy and Nixon, makes you think. We know what happened to Nixon, Tricky Dicky, and we talk about that in a fortnight’s time. But on the other hand, Nixon had a lot of pluses. LBJ had a lot of pluses. What choices, what choices? And so having been elected, he had three rollercoaster years as president of the United States and as the leader of the Western world during the Cold War against Khrushchev’s Russia. Simon Sebag Montefiore, I think, gets to the very heart of this when he writes in this way, “Kennedy’s presidency was a glamorous one, full of youthful idealism in which the White House played host to many artists and cultural figures.” This is a difference. This is a major difference in American society and in Western society as a whole. We’ve not seen leaders like this. But there is another side of what was dubbed the Court of Camelot, King Arthur’s Camelot. That’s the glamorous bit, which Jackie, of course, was presiding over the Court of Camelot. But there’s a darker side to Kennedy. And Montefiore tells us, “Kennedy himself was an obsessional, indeed priapic lothario, having affairs with the film star, Marilyn Monroe.” Remember the “Happy Birthday, Mr. President” thing. “Society, women and mafia moles. He told British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan.” I can’t imagine Macmillan would’ve thought. “He told Prime Minister Harold Macmillan that if he did not have a woman every day, he suffered from headaches.” Well, given that Macmillan’s wife was cuckolding Harold at the time, goodness knows what Harold thought of in saying that. I should think he went as red as a beetroot. But none of it was known at the time. Well, let us put it this way, none of it was widely known. And so the reality that the media presented to America and to the world of this Court of Camelot, presided over by these two youthful, attractive figures of Jack and Jackie Kennedy was a gloss on the reality of their marriage and a gloss on Kennedy himself. Now, you must decide for yourselves whether you think it matters. We’re in Clinton territory here, well, actually, probably more than Clinton. Now, does it matter? Well, it certainly matters if the women that Kennedy slept with influence his decisions. There really isn’t, little evidence, if any, that they did so. It seemed to have been a purely physical necessity as he said to Macmillan, “I have to have a woman every day or else I’d had a headache.” Now, you must judge the morality of that. We live in a different world. Although he was living in the 1960s when many of us remember all the mores of society were shifting. Should we be worried about a leader that sleeps with lots of women? Well, we’ve certainly had our fair share in Britain, but, I don’t know. I think in the end, we may, I don’t know. You may wish to know, for example, before you make judgement , whether the women were willing partners. As far as we can see, they were. What matters in politicians is what they do politically. One’s personal life doesn’t matter or shouldn’t matter as long as their personal life doesn’t impinge on the public, but it’s your decision. Some of you may hold very strong moral views that Kennedy, this totally damages Kennedy’s reputation. Others of you may be more forgiving, understanding. I can’t answer for you. So let’s then turn to the politics of these extraordinary three years of Kennedy’s presidency from 1961 to 1963. We begin where everyone talking about Kennedy begins, or in my view, should begin with his incredible inaugural speech. Let me just give you two parts of that speech. “We dare not forget today,” say Kennedy, “that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans, born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage.” It’s always reassuring when politicians understand their country’s own history and relate it to the present. Here is Kennedy looking back to the revolution and the establishment of the republic in the 18th century. “Let the word go forth from this time and place.” These are biblical. This is biblical language. This is the language of the authorised version of the Bible, which the English brought to New England back in the 17th century. It’s extraordinarily powerful language. “The word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike.” This is very much 17th century English where you have something and something. For those of you who are not British or who are not Christian, it’s in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. You always get this relationship of two things. “The torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans.” The idea of a torch being handed down is a very Christian symbol. “Born in this century, tempered by war.” What a fantastic use of words. “Tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.” So speaks Kennedy, not on behalf of Americans only but on behalf of teenagers in deepest Somerset in Britain. “To which we are committed today at home and abroad.” He was ours as well as yours. “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill.” There you are again, well or ill. “That we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” That great word of the 17th century, liberty. “This much we pledge and more.” This is stirring language based in the history of America, based in the very roots of New England, but based also in the very roots of Old England. That’s why the British can respond to this in exactly the same way as Americans. He’s talking about our history as much as your history. Liberty, that’s the word. That was the word, the shining word of the 17th century. on both sides of the Atlantic, liberty. We fought a Civil War for liberty. Some of us sailed across the Atlantic in appalling conditions in the name of liberty. We established cities like Boston, a city set upon a hill as in the name of liberty. And this is what Kennedy is saying. And then he finished the speech. “And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for your country.” That is an amazing, an amazing set of words. “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” If you’re American and listening to this, have you ever heard Biden or Trump get anywhere near this language, let alone mean it? This is different. He is different. At one occasion, he said, he believed that what you should do as president was to do what was right, not as a Democrat or a Republican, but what was right. My goodness me, that sounds hollow today, but it sounds hollow in Britain today as well incidentally. “My fellow citizens of the world,” he went on to say. He’s spoken to American youth. Now, he’s speaking to us down in Somerset. “My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.” It was sensational stuff, sensational. “Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth, God’s work must truly be our own.” I defy anyone to hear those words and not respond in a positive manner. I don’t think it matters if he slept with Marilyn Monroe. I think what matters is he spoke for America and he spoke for the wider world of Western Europe during the Cold War years against Russia. He understood the world that he was in and he represented the zeitgeist of the day, but he also represents something eternal to those of us, and that’s everyone listening, who believes in democracy and of the need to preserve democracy and the need to preserve freedom of the individual and of the nation. And his words echo forcibly to us today. So let me now turn to foreign policy and the Cold War, which I’ve mentioned, he, of course, found himself having to deal with. Arguably, the Cold War was at its height during Kennedy’s three years of the presidency. In his inaugural speech, which I just quoted from, he also turned to the Cold War itself. And another part of his speech, he said this. Again, it’s extraordinarily moving. “So let us begin anew, remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.” Again, this 17th century language posing one thing, then the opposite. And that word, civility. Now, the word civility is an extraordinarily interesting word, coming from the Latin, civis, a citizen, giving us civilization and city and civility. Civility is a difficult word to define. There have been recent books about civility and the decline of civility in this post Enlightenment world in which we live. And so it’s interesting to re-read Kennedy inaugural address and see it there. Remembering on both sides, Russia and us, that civility is not a sign of weakness and sincerity is always subject to proof. If you were postgraduate students that I was teaching, I would ask you to unravel that paragraph in terms of today, “Remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.” You don’t have to overanalyze Kennedy, it’s there in front of you. He goes on to say, “Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belabouring those problems which divide us.” Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.“ You can take this as the beginning of the end of the USSR. "Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together, let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths and encourage the arts and commerce. Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah to undo the heavy burdens and let the oppressed go free.” It’s biblical language that Kennedy turns to and it’s the English of the 17th century that he turns to, and it has such force in the world of the 20th century, and I would suggest it has such force in the world of the 21st century. So that’s the grandiose statement about the Cold War, but of course, it doesn’t work out like that in practise. And Kennedy isn’t stupid, of course, he isn’t. And the first crisis was to come on America’s own doorstep. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 when Khrushchev’s Russia planned to place guided missiles on Castro’s Cuba aimed at the United States. One historian has written this, “In December, 1962, the world almost ended. At the height of the Cold War, the United States of America and the Soviet Union found themselves in a tent standoff over Russian medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles being stockpiled in bases in the rebellious Republic of Cuba. Over a worrying 13 days of two superpowers came to the brink of nuclear war, with a mutually assured destruction looking alarmingly possible. Mutually assured destruction known as mad. Do remember, if you’re as old as I am, the magazine, Mad, which teenagers love to get, Mad. It was American magazine, but we had it in Britain too. The crisis in Cuba had really started in 1959 when Fidel Castro became Marxist dictator of Cuba, a communist backed by the USSR by Khrushchev. This was followed by the disastrous Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba in support of his opponents by heavy American forces in 1961. The crisis that we all live through, not just in the States. Would we wake up the next morning or would we simply be incinerated in a nuclear holocaust? Well, it was diffused. Why, and why is worrying to us today? Why? Because both the American political elite and the Russian political elite realised that if it came to war, it would be MAD, mutual, assured, destruction. Neither country would survive. They backed down when America withdrew its missiles from Turkey aimed at Russia, and the world breathe a sigh of relief. But it was a strange moment in history, one of those what if moments. Why I say we should be worried today is because we are likely to have. We do have, in the Kremlin, a man who is not, well, he’s as belligerent. Khrushchev was, he was belligerent, and those are around him was belligerent, but they weren’t, can I use the word? They weren’t mad. Putin might actually do it. That’s the worry. And what happens if Trump becomes president in the States? And then outside of that, you’ve got North Korea and you’ve got China and you’ve got Iran. We are in a much less safe world today than we were at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. There are more players in the game and more unstable players in the game than there were when Kennedy and Khrushchev faced off. I find that more than a worrying thought. The Cold War itself now moved beyond our planet and into space. Situation, which historians call the space race between America and Russia. It began shortly prior to Kennedy taking office. In 1957, Russia launched Sputnik 1, and then quickly followed up with Sputnik 2, carrying the famous dog, Laika that died, we believe only minutes after takeoff. The next year, 1958, America launched Explorer 1 and established NASA. In Kennedy’s first year, Russia launched the first man into space, Yuri Gagarin, followed by the first American in space, Alan Shepard. Now, I guess Americans will know about Shepard and it will be ingrained in them. For me, it was the dog that hit the news when I was a teenager in 1958. Sorry, in 19, sorry, I’ll get there in a minute, in 1957 when the dog was sent into space. Trust the British to be concerned about a dog. And so the space race began, and the space race has taken off again in this century, but with many more players, many more players. And indeed, if we look at America, private enterprise. Where is this going to lead? Where is this surely please God? We are not going to export onto the moon and onto Mars the divisions we have here on Earth, but in the light of where the world is now, that looks quite possible. If we discover important reserves of water, for example, on the moon, there will be a large fight to get hold of it. If we discover minerals on Mars, again, a big fight to control them. So the space race beginning around the time of Kennedy’s presidency is with us still and costs so much money, and yet we cannot wash our hands of it because the consequences of washing our hands, and that means in the West’s case, basically America. If America washes its hands of space, then we’re handing it to the likes of China and North Korea and Russia, and we can’t do that. One of the problems of being politicians, maybe it’s one of the problems of being in charge of any organisation, whether a country or a firm or whatever it might be, is you can’t always do what you want to do because as Macmillan would’ve said, events get in the way, and you’ve got to deal with those events. Like for example, the problem of Ukraine’s defence today, the problems in the Middle East, and the problems of the space race. In the month of his death, November, 1963, JFK gave his tacit ascent to the assassination of President Diem in South Vietnam. And the blue touchpaper had been lit, which is to embroil America in the Vietnam War, a bitter inheritance for America’s new president after Kennedy’s assassination, LBJ, who was forced to say, in December, 1963, before you might say Kennedy’s body was cold, LBJ said this, "I am not going to lose Vietnam. I’m not going to be the president who saw Southeast Asia go the way China went.” What might Kennedy have done? I don’t think he would’ve done personally anything different than what Johnson did, but that’s my view. Your view may be very different. On the home front, Kennedy faced serious economic problems and a society badly divided in the States between rich and poor, and he started a New Frontier policy. Remember, long time ago, I talked about the whole concept of the Frontier as America moved from East to West, and we talked about the New Frontier of space. But the New Frontier was a phrase used by Kennedy in his war on poverty. Let me just share this with you. Kennedy intended to tackle poverty through a programme of reform, which he called the New Frontier. He passed legislation to improve the lives of the poor. One, the minimum wage was increased from $1 an hour to $1.25 for over 27 million workers. Around 4.4 million people received new or increased social security benefits. The Manpower and Training Act of 1962 gave unemployed people the opportunity to retrain. But, always a but, Congress opposed some of Kennedy’s plans to introduce affordable medical care and investment in education. This prevented the reform from going as far as Kennedy would’ve liked. Kennedy was a huge believer in the path of education. He was also hugely committed to redressing the wrongs in society, in relationship to the poor and to poverty. Had he lived, maybe he had a second term. Would he press on with that? Yes, he would. He isn’t the sort of person to have given up. Would he have succeeded? Well, that’s a different question altogether. Three short years. What might have been if Kennedy had lived, which we’ll never know. Would his place in history have been, I don’t know, burnished by further success, or would’ve been tarnished by future failure? We simply don’t know. Why? Because on the 23rd of November, 1963, during a motorcade through the town of the city of Dallas, in the words of Merriman Smith, a journalist, who was travelling in a press pool car behind that of the president, he wrote an account. And in that account, Smith writes this, “Suddenly, we heard three loud, almost painfully loud cracks. The first sounded as if might have been a large firecracker, but the second and the third blast were unmistakable, gunfire. The president’s car, possibly as much as 150 or 200 yards ahead of us, seemed to falter briefly. We saw a flurry of activity in the Secret Service follow up car behind Kennedy’s bubble top limousine. Our car stood still for probably only a few seconds, but it seemed like a lifetime. One sees history explode before one’s eyes. And for even the most trained observer, there is a limit to what one can comprehend. The president’s car vanished around a curve. When we cleared the same curve, we could see where we were heading, to Parkland Hospital. We spilled out of the pool car as it entered the hospital doorway. I ran to the side of the bubble top. The president was face down on the backseat. Mrs. Kennedy made a cradle of her arms around the president’s head, and bent over him as if she were whispering to him. Governor Connally was on his back on the floor of the car. His head and shoulders resting the arms of his wife, Nellie, who shook with dry sobs. Blood ooze from the front of the governor’s suit. I could not see the president’s wound, but I could see blood spattered around the interior of the rear seat and a dark stains spreading down the right side of the president’s dark grey suit. Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent in charge of the detail was signed to Mrs. Kennedy, was leaning over into the rear of the car. I asked, "How badly was he hit, Clint?” “He’s dead,” Hill replied curtly. He’s dead. The shots that rang round the world as though shots that Sarajevo had rang round the world so many decades before. Perhaps after such a hideous moment in time, it was inevitable that conspiracy theories should have proliferated. We think in Britain of the death of Princess Diana. Given anything like that, there’s always people to make a buck out of a conspiracy theory. Now, sometimes it is the obvious explanation, which is the correct one. And the Warren Commission reporting on the assassination in 1964 stated categorically that Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassin, acted alone. But since then, numerous conspiracy theories have hit the headlines, even Trump has got himself involved. I don’t buy the conspiracy. I’m against conspiracy theories, period. I would need strong, perfect, 100% evidence. No, none of the conspiracy theories have ever produced 100% evidence that their theory is correct, and many of them have simply been debunked by facts. It was Sherlock Holmes, the fictional detective of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle who once said, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth.” And I think the improbable here is a lone assassin, Harvey Lee Oswald. Some of you may have your own theories and views, but until we have a definitive alternative to the Warren Commission’s report, I stick by the Warren Commission of 1964. I can’t come to an end, and I’m going to read a piece from Marc Selverstone, professor of history at University of Virginia, who has written the following about Kennedy, “John F. Kennedy have promised much but never had the opportunity to see his programme through. It was in the words of one notable biographer, an unfinished life. For that reason, assessments of the Kennedy presidency remain mixed.” He goes on to say, “Serious issues remained. Throughout the summer and fall of 1963, the situation in South Vietnam deteriorated. By the end of Kennedy’s presidency, 16,000 US military advisors had been dispatched to the country. More importantly, the administration apparently had no realistic plan to resolve the conflict. In the area of civil rights, some progress had been achieved, but these successes had mostly come in spite of, not because of the White House. Bloody conflict was becoming more prevalent on American streets and racial injustice remained rampant. Assessments of Kennedy’s presidency have spanned a wide spectrum. Early studies, the most influential, which were written by New Frontiersman close to Kennedy, were openly admiring. They built upon the collective grief from Kennedy’s public slain, the quintessential national trauma. Later, many historians focused on the seedier side of Kennedy family dealings and John Kennedy’s questionable personal morals. More recent works have tried to find a middle ground. In nation’s popular memory, Kennedy still commands fascination as a compelling charismatic leader during a period of immense challenge to the American body politics. For me, I remain on the positive view of Kennedy. For me, Kennedy provided America and the wider Western world with hope, hope of a better future. He himself had boundless optimism. I don’t see political leadership wherever you look in the Western world that offers hope for a better future. I wrote when I was preparing this, all these characteristics of hope, a better future, boundless optimism are lacking in the world of today. An American journalist writing in the Christian Science Monitor wrote this, "Finally, Kennedy’s ultimate untimely end may play a part in his popularity. He’s become enshrined as a martyr, particularly in democratic households. But William McKinley was another popular energetic president cut down by an assassin’s bullet. He quickly faded from the popular mind in a way that JFK has not. Maybe it’s because Kennedy even now, so embodies that era’s palpable sense of freshness and promise. The youngest man elected to the presidency, Kennedy smiles brightly in those photos from Dallas from before his fateful turn near the Texas School Book Depository. On the morning of November the 22nd, the day before the assassination, 1963, Americans were upbeat about him and about the nation.” Points out Andrew Kohut, founding director of Pew Research Centre. “Fully 82% thought America’s power would increase in 1963. 64% said business conditions were good. The mood of America then had few parallels with the modern era,” said the Pew Research Centre. “Today, we yearn for that time before Lee Harvey Oswald’s rifle took America’s innocence.” Some of that is baby boomer nostalgia for their past youth. But Pew showed those too young to remember JFK’s assassination view him almost as positively as do their elders. And I think that’s true in Britain as well as America. “We will always see Jack and Jackie in the majestic black presidential limousine, smiling, waiting, bathed in adulation and glorious sunshine,” concludes Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political scientist, an author of “Kennedy Half- Century.” So I have to end, and I thought, “How do I end?” And there’s only one way really to end any talk about Kennedy, and that’s with Kennedy’s own words. Like Churchill, you can’t better them. And Kennedy said in a speech before the Massachusetts state legislature in January of 1961, and he’s quoting back to the Englishman Winthrop who said the same as they sailed from persecution in England to freedom in the States. And Kennedy said, “We shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us.” “We shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us.” If I had to interview Biden or Trump for a British radio or television channel, I will quote them those words of Winthrop reused by Kennedy, and say, “Do you think you are doing what Kennedy asked of you? We shall be a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.” For in this world, not Kennedy’s, for in this world, the future of Western civilization in the face of Russian aggression, in the face of Iranian aggression, in the face of potential Chinese aggression, it is America that stands with shield and sword in the defence of civility and tolerance and freedom. Thank you ever so much for listening. I’m sure we’ve got lots of questions. Oh, hang on. For some reason rather, my questions have gone down to the bottom this time. Let me find where the questions are. Here we are. I have to read that. Q&A and Comments From Anna and Bob, “We’re listening to you after just leaving Antarctica on our way to the Falkland Islands.” Oh, well thank you for that. And then people go on asking about the trip to the Falkland. Jean says, “I was in high school in South Africa and it was early morning that I collected the newspaper from our delivery driveway and read that Kennedy had been shot. I remember it clearly and felt the bottom have fallen out of our world.” Exactly, Jean, that is absolutely what we all felt. Jacob says, “JFK was 43, not 33 when he was elected.” Sorry, well, I said it wrong. Barry, “I have to reinforce your opening remarks about how JFK was an icon here in UK. I was 16 in January 61, and his magnificent inaugural speech was the most inspiration I had heard from a current politician, and that was a view shared by all my school friends.” Yeah, thanks. Yeah, I get it, I misspoke. I said 33 when I should have said 43, sorry. He’s 46 when he died. “I never heard the word charisma until JFK,” says Judith. Jean, “In South Africa, we didn’t have TV, so we didn’t really know his charisma, but he and the USA were a beacon of hope for us.” Shelly, “Teddy Roosevelt was younger than JFK when he became president, 42 to 43.” Neil, “Succeeded to the presidency after McKinley was assassinated.” Dennis, “Small correction, JFK was the youngest man to be elected president. But when Teddy Roosevelt entered the White House, not elected as president but succeeding the assassinated McKinley, he was younger than Kennedy.” Right, you’ve cleared all that up. “The assassination,” says Carol, “of JFK hit Canadians the same way. The whole world stopped, glued to the TV and Walter Cronkite.” “My brother, a political science student at University of Toronto, came to breakfast one morning, raving about a handsome young senator from Boston who had spoken at Hart House. Not long after JFK was elected US President, Canada elected a young charismatic prime minister, Pierre Trudeau. I was just old enough to proudly cast my vote for him.” Right, well, I’m simply not going on with the age thing. It’s a bit boring, really. I’m sorry, I misspoke, but I don’t want to get involved in who was, what ages people were. Abigail, I love, oh, sorry. Oh, fine. Jacob, “If Kennedy were alive today with the same policies of his presidency, he will be kicked out of the Democrat party. As president, he lowered taxes and was for a strong national defence.” Monty, I can’t comment. I’m not going to comment on American politics as it were because lots of you’ve got different views, and if I go through the list of comments, we’ll get to other views. Monty, “Kennedy Sr. wanted to groom his eldest son to become president. This then shifted to JFK.” Correct. “JFK suffered from severe pain because of his war injuries and spent the rest of his life on painkillers, which could cause addiction.” Yes, but he also, oops, but he also had other problems as well as those, which I think I probably, I know I mentioned. Corrine, “As a young teacher in Vancouver, British Columbia, I remember that I was in the school office when news came of Kennedy being shot, and was so upset by the news that when I returned to my classroom, I wasn’t able to continue with the lesson. Schools were closed on the day of his funeral.” Shelly, “Even though I’m not a Republican, the 1960 election may have been corrupt, which Chicago mayor, Richard Dailey doing some vote-stealing in Illinois to give JFK the victory in Illinois and the victory of the presidency.” Shelly, one of the things that worries those of us who study British politics are worried about when we look at America is the corruption. Well, we’ve also seen corruption in more modern times here. Why was John known as Jack? Rita, Jack is a very commonly used nickname for John. Absolutely, yup. Jacob, “Memorably, in 1962, JFK invited 42 Nobel Prize winners for White House for dinner. In his remarks, Kennedy made this comment, 'This is the most talent gathered at a single time in the White House since the last time that Thomas Jefferson dined alone.’ Isn’t that brilliant?” That’s brilliant. I didn’t know that story. Thank you, that’s wonderful. Q: Can you say no to the president? A: I assume you are talking about sex. Well, I don’t know. You’d have to ask the ladies present. Yes, of course, you can say no. Would you have taken, no, no, I don’t want to go down there. Q: Would the media today give a pass to a president or candidate who was so sick and such as lothario? A: Well, I don’t know. They gave a pass to Clinton over the Lewinsky affair, and they’ve given a pass to Biden when he’s totally sick, and clearly, and not just physically sick, he’s mentally sick. He clearly has dementia, probably Alzheimer’s. No, I think we do, and that is what is deeply worrying. Why we shouldn’t be doing it? Rita said, “Highly unlikely.” Oh, sorry. Michael, “This may sound contradictory. Even though I’m extremely conservative, I still feel that the leaders peccadilloes need not affect his leadership abilities as long as they’re far removed from his actions as a leader.” Michael, I am 100% behind that view. Neil, “JFK had a great speech writer.” Yes, and of course, Churchill didn’t. Churchill wrote his own. I didn’t really want to say that, but that is the truth of the matter. None of the politicians today speak their own words. That is also worrying. Mrs. Thatcher, for example, used to have jokes written for her, but she was so, she had such a lack of humour that she never realised they were jokes. So she never ever got them out as jokes. It just seemed nonsense when she said them. Mark, no, not. Gloria, “A week ago last Saturday in synagogue, spoke about the writings in the,” oh, dear. I’m sorry, Gloria, if I get the word wrong, “in the Haftara Kennedy took those words in his speech a little different but almost plagiarism.” Faith, “I’m a confirmed Democrat, but I must say, as long as elegant speech is more important than leadership, decision-making results, Kennedy will shine, and a much more complex president, Joe Biden, in a more problematic time will be questioned.” Ah, well, I think, Faith, we’re part company on that, because I really don’t think Biden should be in office now, however much, he was okay at the beginning. He clearly is suffering, and I do not understand why he’s kept in office. And I’d speak, I think for the majority of British people, he clearly has Alzheimer’s, both in his walk, his speech, everything about him, he clearly. The question is who is running the country if he isn’t? So I’m sorry to be negative, Faith, about your comment. And I don’t think, I wouldn’t put Biden in the same breath as Kennedy. Carol, oh yeah, we’ve done that. I’ve said about Churchill. Yeah, we. Ah, sorry, we come to an interesting point here from Sally. Q: “Would Adlai Stevenson have been a better president than Kennedy? I remember going to his speeches in 56 with my American friends, who was very impressed. He was a very, very impressive man.” A: I can’t answer that question. All I can do is agree with you, Sally, that he was a very impressive political leader. Oh, well, Sue, that’s a very nice, I appreciate that comment. Monty, “Harold Macmillan made the famous "Winds of Change” speech about the African continent.“ Not as famous. I’m not sure what you mean by that, Monty. I’m not sure what you mean. It’s perfectly famous in Britain, the "Winds of Change” speech, but not across the world. If that’s the point you’re making, if I not misunderstood. Gloria, “I received a thank you note from Jackie after the president was assassinated. I took the letter to the framers who stole my letter.” Oh, no, how awful. A lot more about Kennedy’s speech writers. Miriam says, “Mad magazine was also available in South Africa in the 60s.” Heather says, “And in Canada too, I collected them.” Well, we were all reading Mad and we didn’t know each other at the time. Who would ever have thought we’d be linked by Zoom in 2024? All of those who read Mad magazine. What a strange world we’ve grown up in. Muriel, “Perhaps credit should be given to the speech writers.” Yeah, I think, I’ve done speech writing, Mickey. Barry, “I was 15 years old when Kennedy was assassinated and living in Rhodesia. To me and many of my friends, America was the promised land.” Yeah, true. Neil, “Nixon and JFK were actually good friends. They entered the House at the same time. They had offices close to each other in the Senate. Nixon personally hand wrote a condolence letter to Jackie on the death of JFK.” Yeah, I mean, Nixon has sadly, well, we’ll come to Nixon. I mean, his successes and his character and everything were completely blotted out. Nicholas, “Yuri Gagarin came to London, was driven along in an open top car. My school was emptied out to wave at him as he passed.” Nerme, “I was a tour guide at the UN in Geneva and always had to mention the Yuri Gagarin sculpture in the grounds.” Dennis, “I remember Time reported the dog in space under the heading, How the Mighty Laika Rose.” “JFK,” says Monique and Danny, “remove the American forces component to the Bay of Pigs Invasion, leaving only Cuban-exiles and CIA. The result was a day backed of the America and the Cold War. This opened the door to the Cuban Missile Crisis. In a book by Graham Allison, "Essence of Decision,” the deliberate decision of the American Navy not to conform to the rules of the blockade of Cuba as set forth by the JFK administration. The blockade was conducted further from Cuba and more aggressively.“ Monique and Danny, it was said that JFK did not want to pursue a war in Vietnam. Cuba had been lost, and the chance to regain it was lost in 1961, the lack of American forces invading Cuba. Myrna, "Education used to be the huge unwashed. Now, it’s a huge uneducated, a sorry state for a population that’s getting ready to elect the next president and maybe only maybe the leader of a so-called Free World.” Hmm. Monique, “You will never see 100% evidence of a conspiracy theory that involves a high corridors of power. The Lincoln assassination archives have never been fully revealed and won’t be so long as the United States of America stands.” Yeah, I just simply don’t believe in the conspiracy theories. Thank you, Judith. That’s nice of you. Oh, did I give the wrong date for the, did I? What was I doing then, giving the wrong date. If I gave the wrong date, I apologise. Didi says, “Since Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination, we haven’t had hope here.” Hope is something that politicians should give their people. I don’t know that we’ve had hope for a long time in Britain. Alison, “I was nine years old, and I remember the moment when JFK died, I was emotional and very sad.” Q: Mark, “Why didn’t you mention his Berlin speech?” A: Because, Mark, I can’t mention everything, and I could have mentioned it, but you will have noticed that I went three minutes over my allotted time as it was. So, I apologise for that. But we did Germany. Many of us, many of you were with me when we did Germany, and we covered that in Germany. But that’s not an excuse. My only excuse is I have to make a patent. And the patent I chose, there was one of you very kindly sent me a note about his speech to the American University in Washington and asked me to comment on that. And I’m sorry, I couldn’t do that either. There is a limit. I’m sorry. Ruth says, “I remember that fateful day.” Q: Esther, “How many times do you think Jackie has turned over in her grave after it’s, after Trump’s fast-food dinner?” A: Oh, God knows. Josie, “As AFS exchange students, we shook hands with JFK under the cherry blossoms at the White House in 1962.” What a fantastic memory. Jacqueline Kennedy, in her first post- assassination interview to Life magazine, summed up the late husband’s administration the following words, “Don’t let it be forgot that once there was a spot for one brief shining moment that was known as Camelot. There’ll be great precedents again that will never be another Camelot.” Camelot associated with the rule of truth, justice, harmony, bravery, loyalty, and ultimate utopia. There was such a magical moment in South Africa for a short while. Now, there is a wave of Trumpism in the US along with worldwide under the waves. I remain a radical optimist. There will be leadership to do better and to inspire us this ability, responsibility, tolerance, and freedom once again.“ Yeah. Thanks, Peter. I didn’t have time, sorry about. Cedric, brilliant, thank you. But why didn’t you mention Ted Sorenson who wrote? Well, I think everybody else has mentioned it, so I didn’t need to. "Isn’t there evidence to suggest,” says Vivian, “that JFK’s popularity to go on the way and that he wouldn’t have found reelection particularly straightforward,” said David, sorry. I think, yeah, I’m not going to argue against that. I think he might well have found re- election difficult. Biden does not have dementia. Well, if he doesn’t have dementia, Joe, I don’t know what he does, but he certainly isn’t functioning on all sense. Trump might, yeah, but Trump’s mad. That’s a slightly different thing, I think. No, I’m sorry, but Biden certainly has dementia, and he has all the symptoms of Alzheimer’s, and it’s really, oh, somebody else wants to offend Biden. I’m sorry, but if you look at him, he walks like Alzheimer’s victims. He says the wrong words. He gets people wrong. He stops in mid-speech. He clearly isn’t fit to do it. And now, I shouldn’t get so hot under the collar, but I’ve made a bit of a study as a gerontologist into some of these forms of ageing. And I have to say, Biden is not fit to be, in my view, Preston. In your view, that’s fine. And certainly, Trump is absolutely not fit. And for those of us not American, the idea of either men becoming president is frightening, is absolutely frightening. And I need to say that. Here in Britain, it is frightening that either man could become president because we have no say, and yet they could do, I just dread to think what they might do. We are very nervous about America’s attachment to NATO, for example, and of them being able to continue to fund Ukraine. So forgive me for being a little bit outspoken. I apologise to those of you who are going to vote for Biden and feel happy about doing so. This is a democracy. You are perfectly capable to say. If I was American, I would spoil my ballot paper ‘cause I wouldn’t vote for either of them. And indeed, I may spoil my ballot paper in our election later this year. I haven’t made my mind up about that, but I’m equally worried. Not that I think either of our candidates is mentally challenged, but I don’t, I’m not convinced about their policies. - [Host] Well then, if that’s all right. - Oh, I’ve got, Howard said, “I’m a physician, and your comment re Biden Alzheimer’s is off base.” Well, I’m sorry you think that, but the view of many gerontologists in Britain is that he does. If he hasn’t got Alzheimer’s, Howard, you must explain what he has got. And it may be that he has a different form of dementia, but everything ticks a box as far as I can see, Alzheimer’s. So we’re going to have to agree to disagree, Howard, and that’s the glory of adult’s education. We don’t have to agree. And it’s wonderful for the tutor to be put down because that means that you don’t accept everything I say, and you shouldn’t do. But I hope, nevertheless, having introduced the topic of JFK, that some of you might, particularly if you’re not American, read some more about him and enjoy what you read. Next week, we’re doing something internally different. We’re talking about the American dream, and I’m going to be talking about LBJ and his view about a new society. So please join me next week. You can be equally critical next week, and I look forward to being taken down a peg or two next week. See you all then. Bye.