THERE IS A SIMPLER EXPLANATION. David Talbot's
Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years returns to the possibility that President John and Attorney General Robert Kennedy had enemies sufficiently displeased as to arrange their deaths. The author, a sixteen-year-old campaign volunteer in 1968, writes from the perspective of a true believer frustrated by the murders and by other events. The tone becomes clear early on. Consider this passage from page 36.
John Kennedy, however, was no Adlai Stevenson. The party's liberal wing -- regally presided over by the sainted widow of the Democrats' gloried past, Eleanor Roosevelt, hated him for it, scorning Kennedy as slick and vague -- "a gutless wonder," in Harry Truman's bitter formulation. Mrs. Roosevelt wondered, with reason, how the author of Profiles in Courage, a book extolling political leaders who put principle ahead of expediency, could have avoided taking a stand against McCarthyism, the greatest threat to American democracy of the day. ...
But the Kennedy family had no interest in being beautiful losers like Adlai Stevenson, whose inevitable defeats were embraced by liberals as confirmation of their own natural superiority. ...
In his 1960 presidential race, John Kennedy faced the most cunning and dirty politician on postwar America's national stage, Richard Nixon. JFK beat him by playing every bit as dirty -- and more important, by grabbing the war club that Republicans like Nixon used to beat Democratic contenders, and using it against "Tricky Dick" instead. Kennedy stunned Nixon by thumping his chest louder than his opponent on the nuclear arms race and on Cuba.
That's where the troubles began. Mr Talbot never makes a case for who arranged the Kennedy murders, but the usual stew of strict anti-communists in the Central Intelligence Agency, disaffected mobsters deprived of their casino revenues, and hangers-on in the military industrial complex is on the stove. That stew has long been a popular dish at the cafes where left-wing paranoia feeds, and there's even a metaphor for the faction fight within the ruling class, with the "Cowboys" (
noveau riche business interests in Texas pulling the strings of inter alia Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and George H. W. Bush) dueling with the "Yankees" (the old Eastern Establishment) for very high stakes. In some versions, the Kennedy murders and Watergate are
skirmishes within that war.
According to Mr Talbot, the murders put a "curse" on the United States.
Years would go by, and no new leader would appear to take the country to the same heights.
"We've been on an endless cycle of retreat ever since the Kennedys," [presidential speechwriter Richard] Goodwin remarked. "A retreat not just from liberal ideals, but from that sense of excited involvement in the country. I was asked by a magazine once what I thought John Kennedy's greatest contribution was, and I said, 'He made us feel that we were better than we thought we were.' That was the big loss. There's so much a president can do to inspire a nation -- it's hard to even remember that nowadays. I mean JFK just liberated an enormous energy in the country. And Bobby would have done even more, I think."
I take the stance that "activist president" can be a force for great harm as well as the great good Mr Goodwin claims, and that a president really ought to stick to the job description. This
Book Review No. 22 will thus be somewhat unsympathetic to the message. One need look no further than Lyndon Johnson, who at one time was touted by academic historians as the greatest domestic president of the 20th century, for achieving in civil rights and public assistance legislation John Kennedy would never have aspired to while continuing Cuba and Vietnam policies Mr Talbot asserts he would have changed, for an example of a failed activist president.
The book provides evidence of a truly scary inner circle, with people far more unbalanced than the poseurs who populate
Boomsday. (I can sometimes
arrange reviews to set the stage for reviews.) We meet ABC reporter Lisa Howard, who obtains an exclusive interview with Fidel Castro and seduces or is seduced by him. She later becomes politically active campaigning
against Robert Kennedy when he sought the Senate seat from New York, for which ABC fired her (the main press taking a stand against partisan reporters, forsooth) and then takes a fatal dose of sleeping pills. We also meet Mary Pinchot Meyer, presidential cushion as well as sister-in-law to Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post and former wife of CIA heavy Cord Meyer. We learn that the Kennedy brothers suggested some of their Hollywood friends make a
movie of
Seven Days in May so as to help the White House obtain some leverage against forces within the military-industrial complex for whom no expenditure against the Red Menace is excessive. I suspect the more I learn about any presidential inner circle, Democratic or Republican, Ivy League or Big Ten, the more convinced I will be of the necessity of holding any president to those Constitutionally defined duties.
The book suggests both Kennedy brothers were more open to a rapprochement with Cuba than their public pronouncements during 1960-1963 suggest, although additional documentation would be helpful. Ditto for any references to a change in Vietnam policy.
What, then, about the murders. The Cold Spring Shops position is that
Lee Oswald did the shooting in Dallas. Mr Talbot is not quite capable of refuting that claim. He notes,
[Kennedy confidantes Ken] O'Donnell and [Dave] Powers, both World War II veterans, distinctly heard at least two shots come from the grassy knoll area in front of the motorcycle. But when they later told this to the FBI, they were informed that they must be wrong.
Without more disclosure of the advisors' war records, Mr Talbot has not made the case that they were sufficiently conversant with urban fighting as to be able to identify the source of the shot, rather than of an echo. That his book mentions General Edwin Walker as a white-supremacist agitator quite active in raising opposition to integration, in order to support his case that the Kennedy brothers feared a military coup, but fails to mention the shot Lee Oswald fired at General Walker's house with the same rifle later used to kill President Kennedy suggests a cherry-picking of evidence.
What, then, of Robert? The afternoon of November 22, he muses that "they" might have wanted him dead, but not Jack, presumably because "they" had more reason to be rid of an aggressive Attorney General, or perhaps of a keeper of unpleasant secrets, than of a president. The simplest explanation is that on November 22, there was no "they," only Lee Oswald.
Robert's murder, however, is more complicated. On a book talk with
Milt Rosenberg, Mr Talbot noted that he and Warren Commission counsel Gerald Posner get along quite well, despite Mr Posner's
Case Closed providing the most convincing published demolition of the various November 22 conspiracy theories. Mr Talbot went on to note that Mr Posner favors further investigation of Robert's murder. In Brothers, he mentions that more bullets were recovered from Robert than Sirhan Sirhan's gun held. On the one hand, that raises the possibility of a second gunman. On the other, Robert Kennedy left the Ambassador ballroom through the kitchen rather than through the announced exit route. Another target of opportunity?