Revising the History of Camelot: The JFK Legacy Re-Examined
As a 1972-born Canadian, I don’t have an ideological dog in this fight. However, I can say after reading the book cover-to-cover that Mr. Pierson’s analysis rings true. There’s not a single person of my generation I’ve spoken to who believes Oswald was a communist activist acting out of solidarity with Castro – and yet, Pierson makes it clear that there’s no evidence that it was anything else but that.
Mr. Sterngold, bringing Nixon into the equation is a red herring, and a deflection from the issues at hand. I believe Mr. Pierson’s point is that the Kennedy assasination helped radicalize liberalism and spread an attitude of anti-Americanism and anti-Capitalism in the Democratic Party. Nixon was simply the beneficiary of this radicalization, because it mainstream America rejected it. Nixon’s actions regarding Communism are simply Nixon’s, an enigmatic figure if there ever was one.
The broader point that Pierson makes is absolutely accurate. Liberalism did crack up, and never has recovered. Ask any “progressive” what the meaning of the Kennedy assassination was, and they’ll tell you it was either proof of out-of-control guns and violence, or proof of a shadowy right-wing conspiracy designed to ensure escalation of the Vietnam War and prevent Civil Rights legislation.
