19-08-2013, 02:13 PM
You know, Tracy's post reminding of what Cockburn wrote about 'JFK' started me thinking again about something that has always bothered me in this line of anti-conspiracy rhetoric.
Why does exposing the fact that JFK was murdered by entrenched interests necessarily lead to the idea that Cockburn seems to claim it leads to (apart focusing on the Stone film)?
If anything, the real "moral" of the JFK story is that no one person can change the power structure. Kennedy thought he could. But he couldn't.
I've always wondered why there is such an obtuseness, especially on the Left, toward the revolutionary potential of this narrative. It is a narrative which does shatter the myths Americans are usually fed.
Now there are many reasons why this narrative never gets translated into "activism". But those reasons have little to do with a supposed belief that only another President could solve the problem. When you really come down to it, Cockburn's argument is pure sophistry.
Why does exposing the fact that JFK was murdered by entrenched interests necessarily lead to the idea that Cockburn seems to claim it leads to (apart focusing on the Stone film)?
If anything, the real "moral" of the JFK story is that no one person can change the power structure. Kennedy thought he could. But he couldn't.
I've always wondered why there is such an obtuseness, especially on the Left, toward the revolutionary potential of this narrative. It is a narrative which does shatter the myths Americans are usually fed.
Now there are many reasons why this narrative never gets translated into "activism". But those reasons have little to do with a supposed belief that only another President could solve the problem. When you really come down to it, Cockburn's argument is pure sophistry.