The "Next" JFK

Obama Barack has been hailed as the next JFK by no less personages than Kennedy's daughter and brother. What the heck does that mean?

Is Obama proposing a legislative agenda similar to Kennedy's? This is a trick question. A recent Doonsbury strip had two college students talking about the Kennedy legacy. Since they were born 20 years after Kennedy's death they decided that they would have to Google to find out his legislative legacy. The punchline (such as it is, and you have to already know it or look it up) is that Kennedy didn't get any substantial legislation passed. This is a point of similarity with Obama who hasn't proposed anything but its not much of a campaign platform.

Obama's big claim to the presidency is his judgment. He says that he was always against the war and that this proves how intuitive he is. Actually, he is against war in general. If one goes poorly then he looks smart, if it goes well then he looks bad. Contrast this with Kennedy. Kennedy was a cold warrior. He actually ran to the right of Nixon in 1960. He claimed that the Republicans had allowed a missile gap (the Russians had more missiles than we did). It wasn't true but it got him into the White House. Once there, he allowed the Bay of Pigs to proceed. He also stationed missiles in Turkey which caused the Russians to place some in Cuba. The resulting confrontation brought the world as close to a total nuclear exchange as it is likely to get. There is no way that Obama will run as an anti-communist (or anti-anything else) hawk.

Kennedy's most lasting achievement was the space race but this was an offshoot of the cold war. We only went to the Moon because the Russians had beaten us to orbit. Obama is not proposing any lofty goals nor any competition with rivals.

On taxes, Kennedy proposed tax cuts (these actually passed under LBJ). Obama wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts, effectively raising taxes. He had talked about other tax plans.

In fact, on almost every issue of policy, Kennedy had a different position than Obama. Kennedy didn't even call himself a liberal. It was after his death that his brothers moved to the far left. Obama is actively courting the left (using the code term "progressive") and has an immaculate voting record on partisan issues.

So why do we remember Kennedy so fondly and why would Obama want to be thought of the same way?

Kennedy was the first media president. He was young, rich, hansom, and married to a lovely wife. He had a distinguished war record and a Pulitzer Prize. He was popular the same way that Brad Pitt is popular. His assassination increased his appeal as did comparisons to Johnson and Nixon, neither of whom had charisma.

This is where Obama is comparable. He is running for the presidency on little more than his personal charisma. He is under qualified and inexperienced but he is asking people to overlook this on the basis of his personality (and an opinion on other candidates' voting record). Like Kennedy, he has the potential to be popular but ineffective.

For years Democrats have wondered how they could lose when they run candidates who are right on all of the issues. The answer is that a) your issues are not the voting public's issues, and b) people realize that a President has to deal with more than a handful of partisan issues so they vote for the better leader. In Obama, the Democrats have a different candidate - one whose record isn't as important as the candidate himself.

Of course, Obama still has to beat Hillary Clinton and the established Democratic machine then beat McCain who has some personal charisma of his own as well as a whole lot more experience and a less partisan appeal.

In the end, it is better to be the next Reagan - personally popular and effective.