Are You Studying Real History, Or Soap Opera? A Case Study
Did I forget to mention that I despise writing by historians and journalists that relies solely on Internet sources?
When we were in politics, we had opportunity to interact with Democratic Party "old timers" and insiders who regaled us with accounts of how the world of politics really works. Many of whom are names you would recognize immediately as personally involved in the following historical account, and were forthright with us about what they actually did.
So, you have this Salon article on JFK's "heroic" victory over anti-Catholic prejudice when he won the 1960 Democratic Primary over Hubert Humphrey in the overwhelmingly Protestant State of West Virginia. This article brings up 1960 as part of a "puff piece" on Senator Joe Manchin, and the irony of Manchin's being Catholic and obstructing America's second Catholic President, Joe Biden. Ok, so far so good, right?
I'll state right off that I am a huge admirer of JFK and his Presidency, short as it was. I have no axe to grind with him whatsoever. But this account of what happened in 1960 is a pile of romanticized crap, and the author has no idea what he was talking about.
Reality was that JFK's ethically challenged Father, Joseph P. Kennedy stole the West Virginia primary for his Son by buying votes. Literally he put out millions in what they euphemistically called "street money" to pay voters to vote JFK. This was in the days before the Federal Election Commission and government oversight which followed the Nixon/Watergate fiasco.
This is not meant to make anyone cynical about political campaigns, or imply that corruption and cheating is a pathway for doing the good. I will say however that the Democratic Party of FDR and JFK were the post war generation which had fought Fascism, and they properly recognized the GOP of Nixon and McCarthyism to be an American version of Fascism. JFK himself was a decorated WWII Veteran. Additionally, Nixon was known to be seriously mentally unstable, paranoid, vindictive and prone to rage fits. In a time when we stood at the brink of Nuclear War, we couldn't allow a President who himself was on a hair trigger. Therefore, in resisting an actual Fascist threat, they thought that politics itself should be governed by different rules.
How do I know this story to be true? Someone we worked with for more than three decades used to meet with Ted Kennedy from time to time, and Ted, being the Irish storyteller that he was, spilled on the whole thing as he was discussing the "good old days".
But, for those anal retentive "fact checkers" out there who demand a source, here's one, just to put you at ease. You can do your own digging to find more.
["HAMLIN, W.Va. (AP) _ According to political lore, just before John F. Kennedy’s momentous win in the 1960 West Virginia primary, the Democratic boss of Logan County asked the Kennedy campaign for ``35″ _ meaning $3,500 _ to buy votes for the presidential candidate. In an apparent misunderstanding, Kennedy’s people delivered $35,000 in cash in two briefcases.
West Virginia’s coal country has a long and rich history of vote-buying _ which explains why many folks in Lincoln County all but shrugged over the indictment last month of five people on federal charges they secured votes for liquor or a $20 bill or two.]
Right here, in this anecdotal story is what is important and superior in a certain way about the "old school" of journalism. It represents a clear cut example of the difference between Information and Knowlege.
Because the younger generation in politics has very little firsthand knowlege or experience in real political warfare, they tend toward the superficial view of things, and without realizing it are actively deconstructing history to fit their ideological square peg into a triangular hole.
The best view of history and politics is frequently that of those who are on the front lines shaping both, who have an unobstructed view. This is why the quality of journalism actually has deteriorated in far greater proportion relative to the amount of Information available. I believe this is the singlemost limiting factor in the effective political activism of the younger generation. They have access to virtually unlimited amounts of information through technology, but actually "know" very little. What they "know" are the nearly limitless factors affecting their own victimization. This is what they need to overcome if Democracy is going to survive.
Learn the lessons from Stacy Abrams and folks like her. You aren't going to make or change history with your keyboard. You have to get out there, engage and inspire the hearts and minds of real people.
Nobody makes an "App" for that. Take it from someone who is "old school".
