In reading the book, Nixon and Kennedy, The Rivalry that Shaped Post War America, I learned the unexpected. That is, I expected the author to point out dramatic differences between these two formidable politicians on substantive political issues. Interestingly enough, while these men contested bitterly over the 1960 presidential election, they agreed on many substantive issues and had friendly relations for most of their political careers. Thus, I finished the book feeling while the two men evoke dramatically different images primarily though media descriptions, their visions for America both at home and abroad overlapped.

From a personal standpoint, Kennedy and Nixon were initially friends. Their initial friendship was forged because their congressional offices had been in close proximity. Over time, they lunched together, and John Kennedy’s office had even distributed the political donations of Joseph Kennedy to Nixon. Kennedy invited Nixon to his wedding, and the men occasionally had drinks or meals together in their early Congressional days. In fact, Kennedy had to move from the right to the center to win the Democratic Primary. Eleanor Roosevelt’s disdain for Jack Kennedy reflected his political actions as a conservative senator from Massachusetts not just because of her dislike for Joseph Kennedy.

 

Both Kennedy and Nixon were cold warriors who wooed their supporters through assertions of taking tough stands not only against the Soviet Union, but also brow beat their political opponents for being “soft on communism.” Nixon leveled the pink charge against Helen Douglas in a Senate Race and Kennedy leveled similar accusations against Henry Lodge. Interestingly enough, John Kennedy was noticeably absent when the Senate censured Joe McCarthy. His father Joseph Kennedy had been a financial backer of Joe McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy worked on Joe McCarthy’s staff. 

 

The 1960 election was a very narrow one, where literally every vote counted whether cast legally or illegally. Specifically, Kennedy’s margin of victory in Illinois might have been the handiwork of political boss Richard Daily of Chicago. Kennedy edged out Nixon on the anti-communist issue. That is, Kennedy claimed “erroneously” that America suffered from a missile gap versus the Soviet Union in the 1960 election. 

 

On civil rights, both men cautiously embraced reform and gradualism. That is, they did not fully appreciate the impatience of Blacks with the status quo. Stated differently, both Kennedy and Nixon tempered their personal philosophy in the context of the political clout of Dixie.

 

Both Nixon and Kennedy could employ dirty tactics against their political opponents. While the Nixon Watergate transgressions are well documented, John Kennedy could also go over the line. For example, political payoffs paved his victory over Hubert Humphrey in the West Virginia primary. Kennedy used the internal revenue service to brow beat steel executives during his dispute with the steel industry over proposed cost hikes and against Republican critics. In retrospect, I find it interesting that Kennedy could even joke with reporters about the use of IRS agents during the steel impasse. That is, today such actions would prompt much more negative media attention.

 

Also, John Kennedy orchestrated the coup against President Diem of Vietnam. While JFK might not have known that Diem would have been killed, he certainly never reprehended the men involved. In fact, he acceded to a cover up of the American role, including the dragging out of Diem from a mass service.  I might add that assassinating foreign political leaders was a measure selectively employed during the cold war during the administrations of both of our political parties.

Lastly, Kennedy has always evoked a Camelot image, in part from his charismatic personality but also in part from the efforts of Jacqueline Kennedy to provide a lasting image for her martyred husband. That is, following JFK’s assassination, Jackie persuaded the columnist Ted White to write an article about Jack that exaggerated his fascination with the Camelot story. Close associates of Jack including his press secretary Pierre Salinger said that Jack would have ridiculed this romantic image. On the contrary, Jack and Bobby were tough political realists who carefully measured their actions.

 

In conclusion, I found this book interesting but disheartening. For most of my adult life, I felt that the victory of Kennedy over Nixon was a clear victory of light versus darkness. After reading this book, I have a more balanced portrait of both men. That is, neither man enjoys the status of pantheon of heroes.