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. — ssu

And this is key to the conspiracy theories. If Kennedy was going to make positive changes, then there was 'good reason' for vested groups to take him out. Personally, I have tended to think Oswald alone did it, but a government conspiracy is almost a faith-based position with some folk these days. Discussing the evidence can be like arguing with apologists.

Writer and political pundit, Gore Vidal, who was a close friend of Kennedy's and a progressive writes often about how Kennedy was a friend of the military industrial complex and was pretty keen to escalate Vietnam. Vidal thought that if Kennedy had lived it would be business as usual. But who knows?

My broader question was not about foreign affairs as much as culture — schopenhauer1

Agree, I think the myth of Kennedy as a secular saint, the youthful, good looking, dynamic president, whose tragic, spectacular and enigmatic death led to the premature fall of Camelot is a powerful myth from so many points of reference. And sometimes cultures pivot on such myths.

Writer and political pundit, Gore Vidal, who was a close friend of Kennedy's and a progressive writes often about how Kennedy was a friend of the military industrial complex and was pretty keen to escalate Vietnam. Vidal thought that if Kennedy had lived it would be business as usual. But who knows? — Tom Storm

I do love me some Gore Vidal. A great writer. And yes, he may have been right.

Agree, I think the myth of Kennedy as a secular saint, the youthful, good looking, dynamic president, whose tragic, spectacular and enigmatic death led to the premature fall of Camelot is a powerful myth from so many points of reference. And sometimes cultures pivot on such myths. — Tom Storm

Indeed, I think there is something to the idea that it is hard to see the fall of Camelot failed war in Vietnam. Instead of chants against LBJ, it would be Kennedy, and Kennedy would have been the face of the warmonger leading the youth to their deaths over a conflict that seemed unnecessary, not LBJ. But in many accounts, it seems like the narrative is to put Kennedy in the light of someone who slowly realizes over time, that the pro-military advisors are too hawkish and need to be reigned in. He seemed to be more a fan of building soft power (Peace Corps, Alliance for Progress in Latin America, advisors rather than full military, grand speeches, etc.).

But I am thinking the "radicalism", during a Kennedy tenure might have been a gradual, unitary approach (more about condemning the bigots and reactionaries), than an all out "break" of a generation of people. The business suits and martinis perhaps, would have continued. The beats and the folkies would have their place.. But the sex, drugs, and rock and roll, perhaps would have taken on a different form, the youth movements would have been a more moderate liberal progression rather than mass campus riots. Media would have still had their restrictions. Since there would be no Vietnam, no Watergate, the media would have also been more "cozy" with the politicians, not reporting on personal affairs, wheelings and dealings, and Washington insider information, but just the surface issues. It would have taken longer for us to get the kind of "anything goes" media we have now that has evolved even more since social media, and the echo chamber. Technology also has a huge influence of course. Movies and tv would have possibly continued to be a kind of restricted, less grit, sarcasm, violence, sex, realism perhaps. It would have been more gradual.

That's some lovely writing. Well put.

It would have taken longer for us to get the kind of "anything goes" media we have now that has evolved even more since social media, and the echo chamber. Technology also has a huge influence of course. Movies and tv would have possibly continued to be a kind of restricted, less grit, sarcasm, violence, sex, realism perhaps. It would have been more gradual. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I think a case can be made for this.

Has this thread been partly motivated by you asking yourself, how did we end up in the cesspit we have now?

Incidentally, have you ever seen the 1976 movie, Network? It kind of prefigures the mercenary media, reality TV, emotion driven, content free filth we are now awash in.

Yes, I think a case can be made for this.

Has this thread been partly motivated by you asking yourself, how did we end up in the cesspit we have now?

Incidentally, have you ever seen the 1976 movie, Network? It kind of prefigures the mercenary media, reality TV, emotion driven, content free filth we are now awash in. — Tom Storm

It was actually just that November 22nd was the anniversary of Kennedy's assassination and thought it was apropos. Always interested in history and its philosophical implications, and thought it a perfect tie in, and very relevant. Also, yes, that movie does predict where things would go. What used to be called Yellow Journalism just became Journalism.

I do think there was a strangely fast break in the 60s, and though that decade is definitely the focus of many documentaries, etc. I think that the rapid cultural shift that happened can't be overstated. It is fascinating and lends itself to philosophical questions as to how much impact an event can have in the broader culture. Is it more causation or more correlation? Without going too much into how much any event can be considered a "cause", I would propose that the Kennedy assassination at least correlated strongly with a radical cultural shift that came immediately after. That in itself is something interesting.

Even Nixon... — schopenhauer1

Nixon was a natural-born target for loathing, but he was a reasonably competent crook chief executive, many of whose policies were OK. Nixon's rep also benefits from the descending quality of succeeding presidents, especially demented Reagan and Narcissico Trump.

It was the cover-up that did Nixon in more than anything else. Cover-ups are a sign of the sinner sinking ever deeper into sin, and prosecutors jump on on it. My advice: If crooked politics is your game, prepare to get caught and then confess and apologize early and often. Don't stiffen up and deny everything, unless you have buried all the witnesses and nobody knows where.

Nixon's rep also benefits from the descending quality of succeeding presidents, especially demented Reagan and Narcissico Trump. — BC

:lol:

It was the cover-up that did Nixon in more than anything else. Cover-ups are a sign of the sinner sinking ever deeper into sin, and prosecutors jump on on it. My advice: If crooked politics is your game, prepare to get caught and then confess and apologize early and often. Don't stiffen up and deny everything, unless you have buried all the witnesses and nobody knows where. — BC

It's funny cause with Trump, he brazenly says what he's going to do, does it, then knows that the ambiguities of the system will allow him to get away with it anyways.

See the difference between Nixon and say, a Trump was that at the time of Nixon there were at least SOME Republicans in the select committee, that when the White House tapes were obtained, finally had to admit that Nixon was indeed a crook and voted to move forward with an impeachment hearing. That would never happen today. The days of having the idea of fair play even if it is not your side are long gone.

...are long gone — schopenhauer1

True.

Was the Kennedy assassination the thing that most pushed the nascent radical change that occurred in the 60s? — schopenhauer1

No. From my perspective at the time, social movements were on their way.

I think of Lem's rebuttal of the Butterfly Theories of history; his Ergodic Theory of history tells us that, in the passages of civilizations, were we to travel back in time and change an incident that from our advanced perspective might well have changed a huge part of the way history evolved, we would be disappointed at how little would have been altered. No Hitler? Someone else would have popped up. JFK surviving assassination? Not much difference in how society developed.

( On the other hand I have a personal acquaintance with the butterfly notion: how a tiny act can affect how a certain future (millions) perform something they enjoy doing. )

No Hitler? Someone else would have popped up. JFK surviving assassination? Not much difference in how society developed. — jgill

Interesting yeah, this seems even more deterministic actually because there are enough background sameness to basically steer the trajectory a general way. But then can there ever be huge enough event to cause significant change? And conversely, how many little events add up to the kind of intransigent determinism you are proposing?

But then can there ever be huge enough event to cause significant change? And conversely, how many little events add up to the kind of intransigent determinism you are proposing? — schopenhauer1

Perhaps the rise of Alexander the Great, or the Atomic Age. I would speculate lots of instances.

Your second question is a good one. Actually, the Atomic Age and the resulting societal changes came about through incremental incidents over a period of time, one researcher at a time. Well, sort of.

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. — schopenhauer1

What President wouldn't have been disappointed after the Bay of Pigs disaster? Yet here I wouldn't go all 'Oliver Stone' and make the dichotomy of there being the hawks inside government and JFK.

Interestingly, McNamara and Kennedy moved away from "massive retaliation" and "first strike" to countering "liberation movements". — schopenhauer1

That basically nuclear weapons are only a deterrent and you cannot actually use them for anything else started to be quickly obvious from the 1950's. Nuclear strategy and counterinsurgency are simply two different areas. JFK was quite central in giving a boost to the Special Forces and actually authorized the use of green berets (by which the forces are now called). Now the Special Warfare Center and School is named after him.

This questions just how 'pacifist' JFK was again when the president takes notable personal interest in clandestine warfare.

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? — schopenhauer1

I think the Civil Rights movement and 60's cultural revolution would have happened with or without the assassination of the President. US presidents do get killed and many (like Reagan) have had these attempts on them. Yet that culture change happened also in France, in the UK and all around the Western world.

That said, I think the JFK assassination itself and especially the way it was handled was very important to the long process of the erosion of trust in their own government, which Americans have. The assassinations of the two Kennedy's and MLK are in the same category here, something reinforcing this idea that not all is well and there's a deep state lurking in the shadows. Erosion in the confidence of your government isn't anything new, actually, very famous event was the Dreyfus affair in France in the 1890's where the hold modern thought of 'the government is lying' and 'it shouldn't lie' resulting in the erosion of trust in the government. And let's remind ourselves that the notion of the "deep state" actually came from Turkey!

Americans I guess all the time have had doubts about Central government (and central banks, btw) and also before, against standing armies. That is quite American.

Yet what if the assassination was only a hitjob from the mob and nobody in the government had nothing to do with it? The Cosa Nostra had back then still quite a lot of power and had only surfaced to being a country wide network only in the 1950's. It was only tackled decades later. Yet thinking about it this way, and you have all the actors like closet-gay Hoover and others looking quite different, just pathetic and simply botching up the intelligence.

For the conspiracy theories usually the most enjoyable are the ones that are the most sinister. And these overplay the abilities of the "deep state" and create this huge web where nothing happens by chance or accident. Yet now conspiracy theories have become mainstream and in elections they play a huge part. When visiting with my family Washington DC, I went to Capitol and listened for a while some Republican member of the house speaking what a threat the FBI is for the United States and it's citizens.
That brought it home to me how lunatic US politics is now.

Perhaps the rise of Alexander the Great, or the Atomic Age. I would speculate lots of instances.

Your second question is a good one. Actually, the Atomic Age and the resulting societal changes came about through incremental incidents over a period of time, one researcher at a time. Well, sort of. — jgill

I would say that those individuals who have started new monotheist religions have done huge societal change. We don't have this mush of having many gods around now in the West. And what they have specifically said and taught does matter.

One might argue that their emergence and success is because of structural reasons: for Christianity the size of the Roman Empire and the ability for people and thoughts to spread there was crucial and for Islam it was that just prior Byzantium and the Sassanids had fought a very bloody war where East Rome had finally crushed the Sassanid Empire. So both very in a weak state when a new force from the deserts of Arabia hit them.

Yet what is written in the Koran or the Bible do matter. Authors were important.

Obviously, if we're to believe the official story, we must also believe in X-men's Nightcrawler as the shooter. But the members of this forum seem to be okay with official stories — Vaskane

Humans arent as clever as conspiracy theorists think. Can you think of a single conspiracy that was able to keep their secret for 60 years?

I do think there was a strangely fast break in the 60s, and though that decade is definitely the focus of many documentaries, etc. I think that the rapid cultural shift that happened can't be overstated. It is fascinating and lends itself to philosophical questions as to how much impact an event can have in the broader culture. Is it more causation or more correlation? Without going too much into how much any event can be considered a "cause", I would propose that the Kennedy assassination at least correlated strongly with a radical cultural shift that came immediately after. — schopenhauer1

I think it was mainly the baby boomers driving that rapid change. I also think that the best way to chronicle the transformation is through the evolution of rock music, which dictated attitudes, fashion and politics. Between 1962 and 1969 rock music reinvented itself on a yearly basis. Given the fact that the oldest boomers were in their late teens when Kennedy was assassinated, it’s not surprising that 1964 seems to herald a sharp acceleration of musical and cultural change. After all, innovators like the Beatles and Bob Dylan were just starting out in 1962, and reached their creative peak around 1966. I think it’s pure coincidence that this seems to come on the heels of the assassination.

Interesting yeah, this seems even more deterministic actually because there are enough background sameness to basically steer the trajectory a general way. But then can there ever be huge enough event to cause significant change? And conversely, how many little events add up to the kind of intransigent determinism you are proposing? — schopenhauer1

One of the pitfalls when doing alternative history is that in retrospect, all events seem inevitable. That's just how the notion of causality works. It can be very difficult to get away from the position that sees actual events as the default that was always going to happen unless you introduce huge changes.

You only need to make relatively minor changes and the Nazi invasion of France fails and now World War 2 never happens in remotely the way it did.

How much do you need to nudge events in the Korean war to get nukes dropped on China? Perhaps all you need is a general being a bit more persuasive in some meeting. Then you have a nuclear US-China war in the 1950s.

Had Kennedy not been assassinated, I don't think we'd have seen some hugely different policies in the US. Nor does it seem likely that social trends in general would have been much altered. Certainly the appeal of conspiracy theories seems independent of any specific one.

On the other hand it might easily completely change the entire list of presidents from Kennedy onward. Elections are responsive enough to the moment to moment circumstances that all the results might markedly differ. And that could have let to different decisions in various crises.

What President wouldn't have been disappointed after the Bay of Pigs disaster? Yet here I wouldn't go all 'Oliver Stone' and make the dichotomy of there being the hawks inside government and JFK. — ssu

"all 'Oliver Stone'" :lol:

That basically nuclear weapons are only a deterrent and you cannot actually use them for anything else started to be quickly obvious from the 1950's. — ssu

I think of the downfall of Douglas MacArthur in Korea here :grimace:. But yes, 50s seemed to be quiet coups and Mutually Assured Deterrence (MAD). Kennedy was about countering the numerous communist liberation fronts. However, again, he seemed more interested in soft power. I consider "advisors" soft power as they are meant to build up the country's military internally. Like Eisenhower, he did not want to deal with hot wars. If anything, small commando-style teams would be the dominant military force.

Erosion in the confidence of your government isn't anything new, actually, very famous event was the Dreyfus affair in France in the 1890's where the hold modern thought of 'the government is lying' and 'it shouldn't lie' resulting in the erosion of trust in the government. And let's remind ourselves that the notion of the "deep state" actually came from Turkey! — ssu

Good points. I like how you traced some of the history there. The Dreyfus Affair is a great example of a government hiding evidence (for real, not conspiratorially). What I find ironic about the American conspiracy theories of the deep state, is that the mistrust of the FBI and CIA used to be leftwing ideas. Now they are more associated with rightwing ideas. The Democrats have shifted to the more globalist party since Trumpism. This is more a call back to the 30s or maybe even the 1910s. Think here of a Woodrow Wilson or a Teddy Roosevelt (robust American power abroad), versus isolationists like Robert Taft and pseudo-fascists even with their America First Committees endorsed by people like Charles Lindbergh. Even more ironically, Joseph Kennedy, John's Kennedy's father, was avidly isolationist right up until the beginning of the war.

Americans I guess all the time have had doubts about Central government (and central banks, btw) and also before, against standing armies. That is quite American. — ssu

Indeed, the intractable 2nd Amendment for example, whatever you may think either way, is more a symbol of this suspicion than anything else.

Yet what if the assassination was only a hitjob from the mob and nobody in the government had nothing to do with it? The Cosa Nostra had back then still quite a lot of power and had only surfaced to being a country wide network only in the 1950's. It was only tackled decades later. Yet thinking about it this way, and you have all the actors like closet-gay Hoover and others looking quite different, just pathetic and simply botching up the intelligence. — ssu

Indeed, to conspiracy theorists, there was intent from everyone. It seemed the Mafia was involved in almost every version of the theory. It could be Mafia alone. It could be Mafia acting on behalf of the CIA, etc. Remember this too, Robert Kennedy was using the FBI to prosecute the Mafia during the JFK years, and this didn't sit well with them. There are some theories linking Mafia ties with the father Joseph and helping JFK win elections in Illinois. So Robert Kennedy's campaign against the Mafia, not a nice thank you gift...

For the conspiracy theories usually the most enjoyable are the ones that are the most sinister. And these overplay the abilities of the "deep state" and create this huge web where nothing happens by chance or accident. Yet now conspiracy theories have become mainstream and in elections they play a huge part. When visiting with my family Washington DC, I went to Capitol and listened for a while some Republican member of the house speaking what a threat the FBI is for the United States and it's citizens.
That brought it home to me how lunatic US politics is now. — ssu

Indeed. Conspiracy theories are part-and-parcel of Republican politics now. If all politicians are corrupt, if media cannot be trusted or always sourced from a "better" source, then nothing can be trusted.

I think it was mainly the baby boomers driving that rapid change. I also think that the best way to chronicle the transformation is through the evolution of rock music, which dictated attitudes, fashion and politics. Between 1962 and 1969 rock music reinvented itself on a yearly basis. Given the fact that the oldest boomers were in their late teens when Kennedy was assassinated, it’s not surprising that 1964 seems to herald a sharp acceleration of musical and cultural change. After all, innovators like the Beatles and Bob Dylan were just starting out in 1962, and reached their creative peak around 1966. I think it’s pure coincidence that this seems to come on the heels of the assassination. — Joshs

Indeed. Bob Dylan and the Beatles are good places to start as to the shift in culture. Certainly, Dylan was already writing more sophisticated songs about government and the inner psychological sphere. It pushed the folkie sound beyond either traditionalist songs or political rallying songs (Pete Seeger comes to mind for example). Now some people might say the Beatles creative peak was a year or two later :wink:.

Yes, there were certainly social and generational factors already in place. Perhaps the distrust factor though, would have been less sharp, however.

How much do you need to nudge events in the Korean war to get nukes dropped on China? Perhaps all you need is a general being a bit more persuasive in some meeting. Then you have a nuclear US-China war in the 1950s. — Echarmion

Yeah, perhaps if General MacArthur got his way...

Had Kennedy not been assassinated, I don't think we'd have seen some hugely different policies in the US. Nor does it seem likely that social trends in general would have been much altered. Certainly the appeal of conspiracy theories seems independent of any specific one.

On the other hand it might easily completely change the entire list of presidents from Kennedy onward. Elections are responsive enough to the moment to moment circumstances that all the results might markedly differ. And that could have let to different decisions in various crises. — Echarmion

Yes, for sure it's almost impossible to see where counterfactuals would have led with the web of causality involved. The polarization you see in politics however, seems to be a reality of the political landscape. Certainly the 60s shaped this.

Indeed. Conspiracy theories are part-and-parcel of Republican politics now. If all politicians are corrupt, if media cannot be trusted or always sourced from a "better" source, then nothing can be trusted. — schopenhauer1

Also it's worth mentioning that the biggest taboo in a democracy is politicians killing each other to gain power. If it happens, if you get leaders that have murdered their way to the top, there's not much left democracy in the first place however active the voters participate on elections. Hence the most popular conspiracies put politicians (even LBJ) as the culprits.

And if political violence does happen, we often simply look away and just sideline it, because those kind of things happen in Third World countries and "Banana Republics", not established Western democracies. Yet there is no guarantee that political violence couldn't or wouldn't happen: in Norway it took only one very dedicated terrorist to create huge carnage.

(77 Deaths and over 300 wounded in Norway, just by one lunatic.)


And there has been political violence in the US, with both Democrat and Republican politicians have been attacked. And with an abundant number of people having semi-automatic firearms, Americans have been lucky that unfortunate incidents haven't happened yet. All it takes is two panicky gun carrying activists on opposing sides in a riot and the mess will be awful.

I think the 2 biggest causes of the 1960s counter culture were the Viet Nam War and Civil Rights.

It's debatable about whether or not Kennedy would have jumped into the war to the extent Johnson did. He was not Johnson, but McNamara was there either way.

Civil Rights legislation may not have passed. Getting them passed was Johnson's primary positive legacy, and he utilized Kennedy's death to help push it. History would have been different..No telling how things might have evolved.

I think the 2 biggest causes of the 1960s counter culture were the Viet Nam War and Civil Rights. — Relativist

The civil rights movement was the only substantive thing about the 1960s counterculture. Everything else was fluff. We are a far cry from all the drugs, wars and politicians of the 6070s, but the civil rights are here to stay.

I think the 2 biggest causes of the 1960s counter culture were the Viet Nam War and Civil Rights — Relativist

A central element of the counter culture was the rise of the hippies. The epicenter of the hippie counterculture in the U.S. was San Francisco’s Haight-Ashbury neighborhood, and to a lesser extent NYC’s East Village. The hippies were generally apolitical and weren’t protesters. So while the Vietnam war and the civil rights movement helped to draw people to the hippies, their origins have to do more with a combining of the Beat philosophy of the 1950’s and the inspiration of lsd and other psychedelic drugs, along with rock and roll.

The civil rights movement was the only substantive thing about the 1960s counterculture. Everything else was fluff. We are a far cry from all the drugs, wars and politicians of the 6070s, but the civil rights are here to stay. — Merkwurdichliebe

To me the politics was the least interesting aspect of the counterculture. What fascinated me were the new philosophical, spiritual, social and sexual attitudes it spawned.

To me the politics was the least interesting aspect of the counterculture. What fascinated me were the new philosophical, spiritual, social and sexual attitudes it spawned. — Joshs

First contraceptive pills came to the market in 1960.

That was a medical advance that had an impact of it's own, even if other societal changes did matter (as for example condoms have been around for quite a long time).

First contraceptive pills came to the market in 1960.

That was a medical advance that had an impact of it's own, even if other societal changes did matter (as for example condoms have been around for quite a long time) — ssu

It certainly did. On the other hand, what sort of pill do you think influenced this song lyric from the band The Byrds?

"Oh, how is it that I could come out to you,
And be still floatin',
And never hit bottom but keep falling through,
Just relaxed and paying attention?

All my two-dimensional boundaries were gone,
I had lost to them badly,
I saw that world crumble and thought I was dead,
But I found my senses still working.

And as I continued to drop through the hole,
I found all surrounding,
To show me that joy innocently is,
Just be quiet and feel it around you.

And I opened my heart to the whole universe,
And I found it was loving,
And I saw the great blunder my teachers had made,
Scientific delirium madness.

I will keep falling as long as I live,
Ah, without ending,
And I will remember the place that is now,
That has ended before the beginning ...

Oh, how is it that I could come out to you,
And be still floatin',
And never hit bottom but keep falling through,
Just relaxed and paying attention?"

Great points.

To me the politics was the least interesting aspect of the counterculture. What fascinated me were the new philosophical, spiritual, social and sexual attitudes it spawned. — Joshs

I can agree. The internet would never have been tolerated as it is if not for that.