You knew I'd take the bait!

Of course, the Kennedy Assassination was hugely important in that decade. It was like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 in that people remembered the context of hearing the news. The Kennedy Administration was culturally important too, especially compared to the 1950s / Eisenhower Administration. But then there is the larger governing context:

• The post-WWII economic expansion (which lasted until 1973)
• accelerated white suburbanization
• the Civil Rights Movement
• the 'Warren Court' 1953-1969 (the far-right wing deeply hated Chief Justice Earl Warren)
• greater access to college
• urban riots
• the Vietnam war and its opposition
• subsequent assassinations (Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, et al
• NASA's rocket science
• women's liberation
• black power
• gay liberation
• farm worker organizing
• and more.

Kennedy himself seems less important as time goes on. It's impossible (of course) to say how history would have unfolded had he completed two terms.

Some recent articles raise the question as to whether Kennedy's assassination, the subsequent investigations, and the enduring conspiracy thinking about it cracked public trust in the political system / government.

The assassination itself blew up presidential inviolability in our time, even though 3 previous presidents had been killed in office -- Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley -- and attempts have been made on others. It is significant that the assassination was very public. Shortly afterwards, Jack Ruby assassinated Lee Harvey Oswald on live television. All that was bad enough, but then there were the doubts that the whole story had come out.

I don't know whether the whole story came out or not. There might be more to the story that has not been heard, and if the conspirators were competent in their conspiracy, we never will. At any rate, I think the enduring conspiracy has been more damaging than the assassination itself. People moved on after his death, as people do. Conspiracy fans don't move on.

There is a parallel with Trump. I loath Trump, his presidency was incompetent, and his influence on the the Supreme Court is enduring. His voting fraud conspiracy is malignant. It has been proven baseless again and again, but it endures as a Republican brain rot. The regularly watered conspiracy is subversive. So are most conspiracy obsessions.

Another conspiracy, predating both Kennedy's election and assassination was a far-right conspiracy that communists and homosexuals had infiltrated critical departments in the government. (That's what the Army - McCarthy hearings were about.) The commie/queer infestation conspiracy lasted well into the 1960s. There was also the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, and a similar one in the Senate, another subversive operation, in that it tended to equate dissent with treason.

I tend to think Kennedy assassination as a cultural touchstone and source of mythmaking and generic anger at 'the system' has had more influence than the actual assassination had on political outcomes. It, with Watergate, helped reinforce a culture of conspiracy and mistrust in institutions which has now become rampant.

I have no idea what influence the assassination (JFK's departure) had on the culture more broadly and whether it shaped the 1960s and 1970's in any way. I'm sure it is not hard to find a way to argue in either direction. Whether Kennedy would have pulled out of Vietnam and dismantled the Cold War (a kind of classic Oliver Stone view) is one of those perennial history parlor games.

Am I overmining too much from the Kennedy Assassination? Do you think in some counterfactual history, if Kennedy lived, the course of the very radical changes in culture would have went differently? Would the traditionalist mores of post war America the post war 40s, 50s and early 60s have continued into the late 60s ups and on into today? — schopenhauer1

We Boomers were, in general, uniquely privileged in American history (with some obvious exceptions). I'm inclined to attribute most of the American "counterculture" (not including the Civil Rights movement, which I think was something different) to those of us who were especially spoiled by the favorable post WWII economic climate. Our parents endured that war and the Great Depression. Most of us were relatively well off, thanks to our parents. Vietnam caused some fear in us, but many were protected by exemptions. We were remarkably free to do as we pleased. We had the opportunity to experiment in new ways of thinking and acting others never had. Now, we simply want security. And money.

Look at us now. Indeed, look at us most any time since 1975. Where are the protestors, revolutionaries of the past? What "radical changes in culture" have taken place, through our efforts?

I doubt the myth of Kennedy and Camelot. JFK was a pragmatist (small "p"). He'd do what was necessary to get votes, though he might do it with more style and wit than other politicians. I don't think he'd have withdrawn from Vietnam.

(That's what the Army - McCarthy hearings were about.) The commie/queer infestation conspiracy lasted well into the 1960s. — BC

Yes, and seems to been a bit more than projection from Roy Cohn and Joseph McCarthy. Interesting that Cohn is also tied up with Trump, as an early mentor on the New York scene in the 70s and 80s. It was Cohn, if I read this right, who most influenced Trump's unique talent to be able to lie, attack, and never admit fault. If you keep attacking and making even more brazen accusations and invective, you can get away with anything, and hide behind the ambiguities of the law. That is a huge aside but thought it was an interesting connection...

But there was a sense of unity in the post-war years that certainly seemed to completely crack at on November 22, 1963. The list you mentioned was certainly there, but would the slide into the hippies, and women and gay rights movements, and freedom of expression (more violence and sex in movies and media), have went down the way it would have? Would there not have been a more gradual change perhaps with a Jack Kennedy in power in 1967?

It, with Watergate, helped reinforce a culture of conspiracy and mistrust in institutions which has now become rampant. — Tom Storm

Oh for sure, Kennedy's assassination, the lies about Vietnam during LBJ and Nixon, Watergate, Ford pardon (though best in hindsight) seemed to rip any pro-American unity after WW2, but it wasn't just political it seems. The Free Speech movements, and the X rights movements, the libertine youth culture of the 60s and beyond to today, seemed to start very soon after his assassination...

Our parents endured that war and the Great Depression. Most of us were relatively well off, thanks to our parents. Vietnam caused some fear in us, but many were protected by exemptions. We were remarkably free to do as we pleased. We had the opportunity to experiment in new ways of thinking and acting others never had. Now, we simply want security. And money.

Look at us now. Indeed, look at us most any time since 1975. Where are the protestors, revolutionaries of the past? What "radical changes in culture" have taken place, through our efforts?

I doubt the myth of Kennedy and Camelot. JFK was a pragmatist (small "p"). He'd do what was necessary to get votes, though he might do it with more style and wit than other politicians. I don't think he'd have withdrawn from Vietnam. — Ciceronianus

But I guess my hypothesis I am proposing is that the cultural radicalism of the late 60s was precipitated more by his assassination. But that could be as I stated, "overmining" that idea. Perhaps it was minor in its contribution and it was going to go that way anyway... Certainly maybe no Vietnam, etc. So it's an interesting question. Would the late 60s look more like the early 60s without Kennedy's assassination?

And to this:

Look at us now. Indeed, look at us most any time since 1975. Where are the protestors, revolutionaries of the past? What "radical changes in culture" have taken place, through our efforts? — Ciceronianus

I think it is the same Baby Boomer generation that killed their own movements. When you have children you go from making All in the Family type shows about real social issues of the time, to Full House, and why did Uncle Jesse lose his cool. You go from the freedoms of your youth, the fears of your parents, and safety.. From Carter to Reagan.. From radical to Wall Street, and the rest. Look at Jerry Rubin.

But there was a sense of unity in the post-war years that certainly seemed to completely crack at on November 22, 1963 — schopenhauer1

To a non-American this seems a very weird idea. There was a schism between many young people of the 60's and their parents, but there were new bonds too: notably young white people supported Civil Rights in the USA, and in the UK young white people began to sing, play and modify black music. Young women were getting equal education in large numbers for the first time. And I remember a strong feeling of international connectedness, when as a young man I first left England to visit Europe in 1969, and the USA in 1970. We read Ginsberg, Kerouac, Saul Bellow, Sartre and Camus.

From across the sea I hated LBJ at the time for his rhetoric, and for carrying on the war till he didn't, but think in retrospect he was brilliant at what he achieved in domestic legislative change, whereas Kennedy seems like all front, looking back.

I think generalising about what 'baby boomers' in general subsequently did is a dangerous game. Over the course of a life, different sectors of a generation become important. The quiet people of the 60's became the Thatcherites and Reaganites of the 80's, while the previous radicals lost power - though the continued growth of feminism, gay rights and of advocacy by people of colour carried on in threads that didn't depend on who happened to be in power at the time.

To a non-American this seems a very weird idea. There was a schism between many young people of the 60's and their parents, but there were new bonds too: notably young white people supported Civil Rights in the USA, and in the UK young white people began to sing, play and modify black music. Young women were getting equal education in large numbers for the first time. And I remember a strong feeling of international connectedness, when as a young man I first left England to visit Europe in 1969, and the USA in 1970. We read Ginsberg, Kerouac, Saul Bellow, Sartre and Camus.

From across the sea I hated LBJ at the time for his rhetoric, and for carrying on the war till he didn't, but think in retrospect he was brilliant at what he achieved in domestic legislative change, whereas Kennedy seems like all front, looking back.

I think generalising about what 'baby boomers' in general subsequently did is a dangerous game. Over the course of a life, different sectors of a generation become important. The quiet people of the 60's became the Thatcherites and Reaganites of the 80's, while the previous radicals lost power - though the continued growth of feminism, gay rights and of advocacy by people of colour carried on in threads that didn't depend on who happened to be in power at the time. — mcdoodle

That was another question. How far did those reverberations go? This is a philosophy forum.. How influential are events in one country in the ripple effect of others? Certainly Britain (and the Anglo-world in general and Western Europe too), seems connected to the events in the US in interconnected ways...The Beatles coming to America and Elvis before could certainly be contenders for stepping up the level of cultural progressivism that followed.. but there is something about Kennedy's assassination that does seem like a dividing point.

The Free Speech movements, and the X rights movements, the libertine youth culture of the 60s and beyond to today, seemed to start very soon after his assassination... — schopenhauer1

How would one draw a direct connection between the assassination and these events? I hear about the libertine youth culture of the 1960's, but I wonder how extensive this was. All the people I know who were young back then were too busy working to be libertine for more than a few hours a week. Likewise I hear about all the things the 1980's were meant to be and although I was young then, I had no awareness of, or participation in any of it. All I could see in the 1980's was an increase in collective greed and narcissism and the neo-liberal noose tightening.

How would one draw a direct connection between the assassination and these events? I hear about the libertine youth culture of the 1960's, but I wonder how extensive this was. All the people I know who were young back then were too busy working to be libertine for more than a few hours a week. I hear about all the things the 1980's were meant to be and although I was young then, I had no awareness of, or participation in any of it. All I could see in the 1980's was an increase in collective greed and narcissism and the neo-liberal noose tightening. — Tom Storm

I sort of tried to in the OP. Did this cursory attempt fail? Essentially, the distrust in government, the ramping of the draft, the free drugs and sex movement amongst the youth increased exponentially from 1964 onwards. Perhaps that was just inevitable based on the factors laid out in the OP and the ones that BC also mentioned...

As to today.. The drugs and sex use is around, but less of the activism. Perhaps this also addresses what @Ciceronianus mentioned about after 1975... The late 60s is felt in everything cultural since. The idealism however, has shifted as the forms of media and issues have changed, and technology in general. Isolated.. The 60s had enough and not enough technology to allow it to be what it was. Drugs, concerts, sit-ins, real life demonstrations and debates, not video games, social media, and philosophy forums perhaps.

Do you think that the 60s counterculture in America would have played out the way it did if Kennedy was not assassinated? — schopenhauer1

Yes.

60s counterculture was far more than just only in America, mind you, hence one political assassination in one country in the West hasn't that kind of impact.

Clearly there is a sharp cultural divide between the 60s prior to 1964 and after. — schopenhauer1

Vietnam war was more influential. Especially when the US still had the draft, not a volunteer force. Those who were drafter over 2,5 million saw service in Vietnam. I can imagine that for example the War on Terror would have had different effect on the young American males here on PF if they would have found themselves at an military outpost in some Iraqi town or in the mountains of Afghanistan.

If the US still would have had the draft and not a volunteer force, far more would have served in Afghanistan and in Iraq than served in the Vietnam war, actually.

Even in the UK, people remember where they were when the assassination was announced: I was watching an episode of the soap opera 'Coronation Street' and they suddenly stopped playing it and replaced it with classical music. I agree it seemed to symbolise a turning point, just as JFK seemed to symbolise a certain kind of hero (although it turned out he wasn't much of a hero at all).

I echo Tom Storm's comments about those public matters that are popularly believed to count. I visited 'Swinging London' when it was swinging, and I can tell you, it never swung for me.

But I did experience a 60's sense of radical change, linked to music, and to university politics, and to soft drugs, and to clever women. When I came to Berkeley in 1970, though, People's Park was locked up and Nixon was running things! (but there was still music, drugs and clever women)

I can imagine that for example the War on Terror would have had different effect on the young American males here on PF if they would have found themselves at an military outpost in some Iraqi town or in the mountains of Afghanistan. — ssu

Absolutely. It's that there is NOT a citizen-army in foreign wars since Vietnam that you see the decrease in radicalism. Korea squeaked by being so close to WW2, but yet, is that the only reason Korea was not protested as much? There is an interesting counterexample. The Korean War also had a draft and also killed 10s of thousands of Americans...

But back to your main point.. Vietnam was a direct result of Kennedy not pulling American advisory forces that were already there. He died before he was (probably) going to do that. LBJ immediately escalated.. So the result can be seen as very directly.

If the US still would have had the draft and not a volunteer force, far more would have served in Afghanistan and in Iraq than served in the Vietnam war, actually. — ssu

Probably.

I sort of tried to in the OP. Did this cursory attempt fail? Essentially, the distrust in government, the ramping of the draft, the free drugs and sex movement amongst the youth increased exponentially from 1964 onwards — schopenhauer1

I don't think it failed. I just can't see a direct connection between the assassination of a politician (even if he was charming and represented some symbolic Camelot bullshit) and free drugs and sex. Are you saying that these developing social behaviors were propelled and energized by disillusionment or that this mid century expression of hedonism was born in the face of political bewilderment and disappointment? I'm interested in your thesis but I just need to connect the dots.

But I did experience a 60's sense of radical change, linked to music, and to university politics, and to soft drugs, and to clever women. When I came to Berkeley in 1970, though, People's Park was locked up and Nixon was running things! (but there was still music, drugs and clever women) — mcdoodle

Indeed. I really liked your account there :lol: . Would that have been that way in some counterhistory with a second term, alive JFK? Perhaps, perhaps not.

Are you saying that these developing social behaviors were propelled and energized by disillusionment or that this mid century expression of hedonism was born in the face of political bewilderment and disappointment? I'm interested in your thesis but I just need to connect the dots. — Tom Storm

Yes both. The disillusionment was there perhaps, but nascent. It was the assassination that pushed it, and accelerated its effects more than if he was not assassinated. Perhaps the "Mad Men" era 50s and early 60s would have went straight on into the late 60s and beyond, no real "crack" between youth culture and previous generation as it happened.

It was Cohn, if I read this right, who most influenced Trump's unique talent to be able to lie, attack, and never admit fault — schopenhauer1

One of the benefits of reading only slightly ancient history (which I think you do) is that we find junior men interacting say... 40 years ago, influencing one another, and learning how to get and use power and money, and going on to become important senior men in various fields--like DT.

What role did JFK play in the cultural bloom of the 1960s? He arrive too late to start it. I have to remind myself of precedents whenever I think about Stonewall in 1969. Women's lib, gay lib, civil rights--all sorts of social changes that became visible--had been percolating upwards for a couple of decades, and longer.

During WWII, the Army/Navy discharged quite a few (don't have a number, maybe 10-15k) gay men and women. The witch hunters weren't entirely wrong -- there were queers in the armed forces and government. They tended to discharge the perverts in one of three ports -- NYC, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Rather than go back to Omaha or Atlanta in disgrace, they stayed on, and greatly enlarged the local gay population. These three cities were the places Gay Lib took off first and fastest. The Mattachine Society was founded in 1950 in LA by a commie pinko fag (Harry Hay). The Beat Movement which started in the 1940s was the vanguard for the 1960s. Their poetry, for instance, was far out -- as the hippies would say.

"Beat" is allegedly derived from "beatitude".

would the SLIDE into the hippies, and women and gay rights movements, and freedom of expression (more violence and sex in movies and media), have went down the way it would have? Would there not have been a more gradual change perhaps with a Jack Kennedy in power in 1967? — schopenhauer1

Hey! it wasn't a slide -- it was an ascent.

So I don't know how it would have turned out if JFK had remained president for 2 terms. Johnson was able to accomplish major new programs as president because he was a political "insider" par excellence. Kennedy may have been an insider in New England\, but not in Washington, seems to me. Jack's history is a lot more interesting if combined with the history of his father, Joe Kennedy. And less glorious.

Vietnam was a direct result of Kennedy not pulling American advisory forces that were already there. He died before he was (probably) going to do that. LBJ immediately escalated.. So the result can be seen as very directly. — schopenhauer1

I like to think JFK, had he been president in 1964 would have taken a more thoughtful and nuanced approach to the Gulf of Tonkin incidents. I suspect he would not have accelerated USA involvement in Vietnam like his successor did.

What role did JFK play in the cultural bloom of the 1960s? — BC

I voted for him. And in 1961 he extended my tour of duty in the USAF for a year because of the construction of the Berlin Wall. This delayed my entrance to grad school but I wasn't really distressed. My impression of the early 1960s is the glamour of the inhabitants of the White House had a substantial effect on American society. But so much else was happening. My wife and I sang Kumbaya with Joan Baez at Stillman College in Alabama and attended civil rights demonstrations. And I watched Lee Harvey be assassinated live on TV. And around the campfires in the Climbers Campground in the Tetons drugs appeared and occasionally things got out of control. I resigned my commission as captain in the Reserves, preferring to focus on family and future rather than the insanity of Vietnam. I can't forget Huntley-Brinkley each evening giving the numbers of Americans killed or wounded that day.

So, are there any members of this forum who fought in that conflict?

Hey! it wasn't a slide -- it was an ascent. — BC

Ha, funny, hopefully you also saw it in the positive sense that there was less "resistance" to change, rather than a more intractable slog.

It might have been the biggest cultural transformation that took place in history in the shortest amount of time between the years of 1963-1969. I'm trying to think of a time where more change could have occurred in that short amount of time in terms of social mores, economic and social legislation, and forms of dress and speech. Perhaps the 20s comes close.

I was not old enough to vote for him, but I would have.

In retrospect the Kennedy's were classier than their immediate predecessors and successors. Jacqueline delivered high style, something that Mamie and Ladybird decidedly didn't. The Kennedy clan had élan. Money helps, of course. Haute couture and 50¢ wouldn't get me a cup of coffee, but on the right shoulders it's influential. So I've heard.

It might have been the biggest cultural transformation from 1963-1969. — schopenhauer1

The pill. Mustn't forget the pill. And then later, the Roe vs Wade decision.

There were people who hated Roosevelt and New Deal programs like Social Security. There were people who hated Johnson and Medicare. There were people who hated the pill and Roe vs. Wade. These troglodytes don't seem to get over their hates, and now they have successfully gotten rid of Roe. There are recurrent proposals to privatize SS.

Point is, these were big cultural transformations as you say, and there are people who hated it, and haven't gotten over it. There's nothing that can be protected by law that can't be unprotected later on.

I expect there will be more reactionary moves in the coming years. They might fail (let us hope) but they will be tried.

Just a guess out of left field: No Kennedy Assassination in '63 ... no Nixon in '69 ... no Reagan in '80 ... ultimately no Dubya - Obama - Trump from 2000 to 2016. Things that followed could have been worse or better than 'our timeline', we'll never know. Even traveling back in time and preventing the assassination in Dallas, I suspect, would only have branched-off an alternative timeline that itself would have no downstream effects on this one (i.e. our present). Perhaps in the far future it will be possible to observe (all) alternative, possible past events (i.e. counterpart worlds); by then, however, Kennedy will probably be nothing more than a footnote of a footnote of a footnote.

Happy Pilgrims Unfortunately Saved From Starvation By Natives Day, folks! :yum: :party:

He died before he was (probably) going to do that. LBJ immediately escalated.. So the result can be seen as very directly. — schopenhauer1

Yes. Here history shows clearly that social science aren't anything remotely like natural sciences. Decisions in the end of few important people do matter.

Just a guess out of left field: No Kennedy Assassination in '63 ... no Nixon in '69 ... no Reagan in '80 ... ultimately no Dubya - Obama - Trump from 2000 to 2016. Things that followed could have been worse or better than 'our timeline', we'll never know. — 180 Proof

Think again here, @180 Proof, there are only a limited number of key politicians on the top of the two ruling parties. Sooner or later the voters would have had enough of the democrats, hence the Republicans would at some time win the elections. Who there for them than Nixon if Goldwater isn't elected? The situation with the issues at hand might be somewhat different, the actors not.


Besides, your current President is perfect proof of this: just how long Joe Biden has been around?

Longer than people think.

The fact is that the top echelon of politicians is and has stayed very small. If you take from both parties 100 most powerful, most influential politicians, it's likely that those 200 people will be found in any administration holding prominent positions and responsible for, well, quite a lot. The occasional Trump doesn't "drain the swamp" as people believe in their dreams. Naturally many will fall for the populist lies.



Does this refute what I said to @schopenhauer1 above? Of course not: history is of both 'chance' and the affects of even one individual and also the Longue duree, changes in institutions and structures and transformations where you can do away with individuals affecting the events.

If you says so ...

I expect there will be more reactionary moves in the coming years. They might fail (let us hope) but they will be tried. — BC

Certainly this Supreme Court is far more conservative compared to the Warren, Burger, and even Rehnquist courts.

US Congress looks like a cage match...

predecessors and successors — BC

Eisenhower increased the nuke count, used the CIA fairly frequently, and if there was anything like a "deep state", then it would be here with multiple levels of FBI headed by Hoover, John Foster and Allen Dulles taking care of Department of State and Director of CIA.

But Kennedy, in a way, represented a continuation of Cold War policies of Eisenhower, at the beginning at least. Even if he did privately discuss breaking up the CIA, he did not want to get into a hot war, even in "vulnerable" targets like Vietnam or South America. He was more about idealist visions, peace, etc. But he maintained a strong military stance when needed. He often pointed to a "nuclear gap" between Soviets and the US in the debates with Nixon, but when he became president he signed a nuclear test ban treaty.

Conspiracy theorists would say there is something of the "deep state" involved with Kennedy. They did not like his turning away from their apparatus built under the last two presidents. Ironically, it is this "deep state" as well that is invoked by Trump as trying to get rid of him for "disrupting" the system. What system does he propose he is "disrupting"? As @ssu proposed, he is simply one of them, not apart from. It is just that he doesn't hide his intentions well because of his inbuilt narcissism. That, and his inability to talk in a mature, professional way makes him an "outsider" :roll:. Is an immature narcissist without any real convictions in any ideology less dangerous than a golden tongued, seemingly do-gooder ideologue? I would say they are both bad but different beasts. Trump will use his power to exact revenge in the name of himself (and couch it poorly in some vague cause). He is transparently transactional. Quite the opposite of Kennedy's approach to being president. A long long way off. Both used their "star power" in different ways. Even Nixon, as paranoid, and dirty as he was in his campaigning, was immensely well-read and articulate on foreign policy matters. He had depth and knowledge of the position, even if his character was deeply flawed.

Do you think that the 60s counterculture in America would have played out the way it did if Kennedy was not assassinated? Clearly there is a sharp cultural divide between the 60s prior to 1964 and after. The mid and then precipitously in the late 60s, the counterculture became more prominent. This went surely hand-in-hand with the evolution of various things- Civil Rights Movement, the beatniks (or just the "Beats" were existential writers like Kerouac, Ginsberg, Burroughs, and can perhaps be associated with 20s writers like Hesse, Elliot, etc.). — schopenhauer1

It might have been the biggest cultural transformation that took place in history in the shortest amount of time between the years of 1963-1969. I'm trying to think of a time where more change could have occurred in that short amount of time in terms of social mores, economic and social legislation, and forms of dress and speech. Perhaps the 20s comes close. — schopenhauer1

Perhaps the Kennedy assassination was as much a symptom as a cause of the rapid changes that went down in the 1960’s. A feeling of impending unhingedness was in the air already in 1960, hinted at in popular entertainment via movies like Psycho, and 1962’s Manchurian Candidate. The Twilight Zone was an interesting example. Its power to disturb depended on conformist assumptions carried over from the 1950’s of a single reality. To venture into the terrain of alternate realties, to be a freak, was to descend into terrifying chaos. 10 years later this clinging to the one true reality had been defeated. The counterculture motto was to proudly let one’s freak flag fly.

I would not underestimate the role of lsd in catalyzing and accelerating this shift in mindset from conformity to the embrace of weirdness. Lsd was legal until 1966, and in the the early ‘60’s was given to many volunteers on the West Coast as part of CIA mind control research. The writer Ken Kesey was one of these volunteers, and it changed his life. Tom Wollfe’s The Electric Kool-aid Acid Test chronicled how the relatively small 1950’s beatnik counterculture was ‘mass produced’ for a generation of baby boomers through the formation of the hippie counterculture centered around San Francisco’s Haight Ashbury and Kesey’s merry pranksters . The perfect vehicle for spreading the gospel of lsd was rock music. The acids tests, one of the origins of the modern rock concert, were wild gatherings replete with a giant vat of Kool- aid laced with lsd (unbeknownst to some attendees). Psychedelic bands like the Grateful Dead cut their teeth on these events and spread the gospel to the hinterlands through AM radio. Many prominent figures claimed that lsd changed their entire way of looking at the world. Among those was Harvard psychologist Timothy Leary, who was convinced that dosing all of the world’s political leaders would end war. The worldviews of John Lennon and George Harrison were so radically transformed by the drug that they feared they could no longer relate to Paul McCartney, which induced him to try it.
The documentary Berkeley in the 60’s has a scene in which it becomes apparent that the old school political activists at Berkeley have suddenly become ‘psychedelicized’. A narrator recounts how they went from singing ‘We Shall Overcome’ to ‘We All Live in a Yellow Submarine’, marking the rise of a hybrid of activist and hippie, the Yippies, a melding of Berkeley politics and Haight Ashbury counterculture.

I don’t think lsd in itself was responsible for the profound changes in ways of thinking that happened in that decade. Rather , it acted as a source of inspiration for some of those who were already headed in that direction. The Berkeley documentary articulates this well. It was a generation looking to find themselves, and over the course of that decade they became self-consciously aware. For instance, initially, the goals of campus activists were restricted to narrow changes within the system. They saw themselves as connected linearly with previous generations of leftists. But over time they realized that what they were onto was a sweeping rethinking of all values, political, aesthetic, social , sexual and spiritual, touching on all aspects of life. Lsd can help loosen attachments to old ways of thinking, but only if one is already wanting to go there.
It’s ironic that younger generations now associate baby boomers with right wing thinking, which reflects the fact that only a small percentage of baby boomers at gatherings like Woodstock were really committed to countercultural ideals.

10 years later this clinging to the one true reality had been defeated. The counterculture motto was to proudly let one’s freak flag fly. — Joshs

Indeed.

Lsd was legal until 1966, and in the the early ‘60’s was given to many volunteers on the West Coast as part of CIA mind control research. — Joshs

Funny how the CIA keeps popping up. Not to stoke any conspiracies.. But this one is just pure cause and effect. Soon after its invention by scientist in Sweden, it is tested in CIA around the Bay Area in California, and soon becomes an underground "hit" (no pun). Then, it explodes into the broader youth culture by 66-67. Even more so after its federal illegal status.

A narrator recounts how they went from singing ‘We Shall Overcome’ to ‘We All Live in a Yellow Submarine’, marking the rise of a hybrid of activist and hippie, the Yippies, a melding of Berkeley politics and Haight Ashbury counterculture. — Joshs

:lol:

I don’t think lsd in itself was responsible for the profound changes in ways of thinking that happened in that decade. Rather , it acted as a source of inspiration for some of those who were already headed in that direction. The Berkeley documentary articulates this well. It was a generation looking to find themselves, and over the course of that decade they became self-consciously aware. For instance, initially, the goals of campus activists were restricted to narrow changes within the system. They saw themselves as connected linearly with previous generations of leftists. But over time they realized that what they were onto was a sweeping rethinking of all values, political, aesthetic, social , sexual and spiritual, touching on all aspects of life. Lsd can help loosen attachments to old ways of thinking, but only if one is already wanting to go there.
It’s ironic that younger generations now associate baby boomers with right wing thinking, which reflects the fact that only a small percentage of baby boomers at gatherings like Woodstock were really committed to countercultural ideals. — Joshs

Indeed, and again, this "gap" (both intergenerational and intra-generationally as you point out with the conservative Baby Boomers), perhaps widened due to the assassination. Within a few years it went from business suits, and martinis, to folkies and sit-ins, to full on hippie sexual and drug rebellion. That rebellion died down but the exploitive, explicit aspects remain. In 1963, you could not say fart on TV. By 1970 you had George Carlin 7 words you can't say on tv, mocking everything about the the mores of the seemingly "repressed" 1950s- early 1960s mentality. And no, I do not discount Lenny Bruce who paved the way in the 1950s and literally died for his cause for free speech. However, when he was repeatedly arrested, it seemed a matter of course because he was so transgressive. George Carlin, was sort of riding the wave that was already ripe for it by 1970. And though uppers and downers were around, as well as marijuana and cocaine, these were usually either taken as supplements, and doctor recommended, or were more confined to circles of musicians and entertainers. By the end of the 60s, it was part of being of a generation. Heroin, cocaine, crack, and such became popular in the 70s and 80s, and continue on. Then you have the opioid crisis. And you have the War on Drugs, and such.. So all of these things remained, but the "experimental" mentality of the LSD era, and linking it (however tenuously) to spirituality, gave way to just finding the next fix.

A very good comment.

Especially with the assassination of JFK, there is this underlying idea that if JFK wouldn't have been assassinated, then everything would have been better. The confidence of Americans in their own government would be higher, there wouldn't have been what we now know as the (US) Vietnam war. And the US would be a happier place. Here the "everything" part is debatable.

But then we are in the fairy-tale land of "what if" -alternative realities. Would the post-Houston JFK been like that? Would he have withdrawn from Vietnam and let South Vietnam fall? Cold War had it's own logic to go. Politics is still teamwork, and there were many on the LBJ team that had been on the JFK team, starting from people like Robert McNamara.

The idea that the alternative universe without JFK assassination would be totally different from our reality now seems to me to be unlikely. A lot of things would be the same. Yet to be consistent to myself, we of course cannot know.

Here the "everything" part is debatable. — ssu

Yes, not everything can be so reducible.

But then we are in the fairy-tale land of "what if" -alternative realities. Would the post-Houston JFK been like that? Would he have withdrawn from Vietnam and let South Vietnam fall? Cold War had it's own logic to go. Politics is still teamwork, and there were many on the LBJ team that had been on the JFK team, starting from people like Robert McNamara.

The idea of a totally different alternative universe without JFK assassination unlikely, but to be consistent to myself, we of course cannot know. — ssu

Yeah, probably giving Kennedy too much credit here, but his few years in office were supposed to be looked at fondly because of his instincts against pro-war advisors, though he did respect McNamara. McNamara was for supporting Diem, and Kennedy reluctantly was for the coup due to Diem's authoritarian policies. Conspiracy theorists might even consider that to be the basis for the "coup" against him from the powers within. You don't need the conspiracy part though. He did make a lot of enemies. He mainly trusted his brother more than any other. Cabinet and lower-ranked agencies in the executive branch probably loved Eisenhower's "hands-off" approach. He made the final decisions, but he let his advisors have much more free reign. He ran it more like a military. Kennedy was much more involved in each decision it seems, and had his own ideas.

Interestingly, McNamara and Kennedy moved away from "massive retaliation" and "first strike" to countering "liberation movements". This meant equipping the army with counterinsurgency tactics and thus developed the Special Forces like the Green Berets.

My broader question was not about foreign affairs as much as culture. Was the Kennedy assassination the thing that most pushed the nascent radical change that occurred in the 60s? Possibly. Kennedy seemed to an idealist approach and used the power of the podium. LBJ was much better at internal politics. He knew when to intimidate, call in a favor, things like this. He knew the internal workings of the Senate more than anyone. He took the heat for the major legislation that Kennedy died before enacting.