Customer Reviews

The Bystander: John F. Kennedy and the Struggle for Black Equality

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book is one of the more objective books about President Kennedy. It explores his seemingly lackadaisical attitude in re civil rights. He is described as being charismatic, yet lacking in personal depth. He was excellent at taking written material, courtesy of his speech/script writers and giving an outstanding performance.

This is not to discredit the man's obvious intelligence and ability to respond to the issues and questions of the day. His alliances with people who were known segregationists don't exactly point him in the direction of civil rights activists. His brother, then attorney general Robert Kennedy was the fire, the drive, the passion and commitment to civil rights.

While the civil rights/racial equality issue is the main focus of this book, other issues during the New Frontier are also explored. This is a well written book that will certainly maintain the interest of readers.

Most of Kennedy's biographers fall into two camps; hagiographers like Goodwin and Schlesinger and dozens of others, or much more honest examinations of the character of the man like Thomas Reeves very good book. The hags have outnumbered the wags by at least ten to one, but this book is a good addition to the latter camp.

This way-too-long book has many good examples of how JFK really did not have some burning commitment to civil rights (or much of anything else for that matter) and was really a fairly shallow man with good speech writers who could turn a phrase and have Kennedy deliver it with passion. His willingness to appoint segregationists such as William Cox to the federal bench and his friendships with Senate bigots such as Al Gore Sr. and Bill Clinton's hero, William Fulbright, shows him to be far less the advocate of civil rights than his hagiographers have made him out to be.

Much of this book is focused on the civil rights for blacks movement, but there are some good insights into other issues that were front and center at the time.

An interesting look at the junior JFK and how he shaped his view of the Black community and his understanding of how to move up in politics.

This is solid history. It is a fair and careful account of JFK's failure to pursue a civil rights agenda. It is the very opposite of a hatchet job: the author makes every attempt to look at events from President Kennedy's standpoint, but concludes that JFK dropped the ball. This should not be surprising: JFK was the sort of politician who once gave an empassioned speech to farmers in West Virginia and then said to an aide with a grin "FFN" (meaning "f*ck the farmers after November").

What's interesting about this book is the way the political Left has either ignored it or unfairly attacked it. Unable or unwilling to come to grips with its past, the Left provides no guidance for those who take up the torch. Enamored of their charismatic Presidents, Democrats make no demands on them, either while they are in office or afterwards, when they are of mere historical interest. The result is that they are willing to overlook the clay feet of their heroes and underrate the achievements of their Presidents with less charm but more substance.

The tragedy of the Democrats is that with every election, they get more frustrated at their lack of success (even when they win), but are absolutely clueless why that is so. Their idolization of JFK (and lack of respect for honest and accomplished books like this) ought to show them why, but never will.

This was not an easy book to complete over a short period, but there are numerous pages of detailed information that need not be read for memorization. The writer is meticulous in documenting examples and events to base his reasons for writing this book.

The writer's premise, as seen in the title of the book, is that President Kennedy did little to advance civil rights, or more fairly stated, he did far less than for what he is historically credited.

There are several problems with the author's thesis. First, the issue of Kennedy's civil rights record has been discussed by civil rights historians for decades. I remember it from college in the 1970's. Therefore, there is nothing new in this lengthy text.

Secondly, the author misrepresents Kennedy's civil rights record. In one of the more damning sections, the author discusses Kennedy's soft response to the murder of four school girls in Birmingham, Alabama on 15 September 1963.

The author notes that the president did issue a statement condemning the action, but believes that Kennedy should have more aggressively attacked the murder. It is true that one cannot be too severe in condemning one of the most heinous crimes of this era, but the author's accusation should be considered in the context of what Kennedy did do after this incident. For example, on 19 September 1963, Kennedy met with Dr. King and other civil rights leaders to discuss the Birmingham crisis. On the 23rd, he met with Birmingham civic leaders and clergy leaders.

In October, Kennedy obtained a renewal of the Civil Rights Commission. On another day, he met with Congressional leaders from both parties to agitate for an agreement on the Civil Rights Bill. The next day, he met with other legislative leaders to discuss civil rights legislation. On 29 October, he discusses civil rights legislation with his advisers. The next day, he addresses a Democratic Party Executive Committee Dinner in Philadelphia, with his primary topic is civil rights.

During this same time after the Birmingham murders, Kennedy successfully negotiated a ratification of the first nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviets; he begins the push for a major tax reduction bill; approves the withdrawal of 1,000 American advisors from Vietnam; and dealt with the coup of the South Vietnam president. Two months after Birmingham, Kennedy was dead. So where is the criticism?

The impatience for civil rights was and still is understandable. Kennedy did not enter office with this as his primary issue of domestic concern (tax cuts held this position) and he may have been pragmatic to a fault. The author, though, fails to appreciate other facts about the president. Even if Kennedy did not lead the way, his presence and comments about equality and justice in general did inspire many into civil rights action (e.g., James Meredith). This more than any of his many other civil rights accomplishments (and there are many to choose) earn him high honors.

I came to this book from the standpoint of an observer with a general interest in American politics and history rather than from a purely academic standpoint.

I have enjoyed it immensely having found it both detailed and informative reflecting exhaustive research. Nick Bryant gives a real insight into how civil rights fitted into the wider political ambitions of the Kennedy machine. Would Kennedy once in office be as true to the civil rights cause as his pre-election manoeuvrings suggested and if so, when, and what would be the catalyst? It is this question that made the book a real page-turner.