Had there been no Dallas, there would been no Camelot.You have to wonder if the relative places of Kennedy and Nixon in American mythology has to do with their respective SMVs. Remember how historians and people who are old enough to remember seeing their debate on television thought Kennedy won, and those who only listened to it on the radio thought Nixon won? If Nixon had been the good looking one and Kennedy the jowly policy wonk, then Nixon would not only have won the 1960 election by a comfortable margin, he'd be remembered as a good president.
There would have been no John F. Kennedy as brilliant statesman cut off in his prime, had it not been for those riveting days from Dealey Plaza to Arlington and the lighting of the Eternal Flame.
Along with the unsleeping labors of an idolatrous press and the propagandists who control America's popular culture, those four days created and sustained the Kennedy Myth.
But, over 50 years, the effect has begun to wear off.
The New York Times reports that in the ranking of presidents, Kennedy has fallen further and faster than any. Ronald Reagan has replaced him as No. 1, and JFK is a fading fourth.
Kennedy is increasingly perceived today as he was 50 years ago, before word came that shots had been fired in Dallas.
That he was popular, inspirational, charismatic, no one denied. But no one would then have called him great or near great. His report card had too many C's, F's and Incompletes.
Even though they are tools of the devil, you have to admire the power liberalism exerts on the culture. Kennedy was assassinated by a committed communist, yet the establishment quickly and vociferously blamed the assassination on "extremism," and as everyone knows only the Right is ever extremist. Liberals made it their goal to conquer the institutions and they've succeeded to such an extent that they pretty much own the field. Why can't us Trads do something similar?