Chomskys faulty "there was no JFK assassination conspiracy" logic

[Albert Rossi]

Alexander Cockburn pretty much summed up his (and Chomsky's) attitude in this quote:

"The effect of 'JFK' is to make people think that America is a good country that produced a good President killed by bad elites...This is an infantile, inactivist prescription for politics, essentially inviting people to put their faith in another good President, whose inevitable foul-up can then be blamed on the same bad elites."

I wouldn't disagree with Cockburn's statement though.

Sorry, that was a hiccup. I've edited.

Let me start over. I may agree with Cockburn's analysis of the film. But that's Oliver Stone and Hollywood he is talking about. That's not the only thing Cockburn has written on JFK in the Nation. And most of it is garbage. It is easy to take the tack he does, because the US has a cult of the leader. It's true. But if he is going to deny the fact that JFK fought entrenched interests, and do it by distorting history, then he has lost me, much as I may believe in the activist spirit he supposedly is vouching for. I never thought of The Nation as a vehicle of revolution, however. Not when its readers are invited to take a Caribbean cruise with Victor Navasky.

Why focus on a Hollywood movie?

It is true, however, that 'JFK' has come to be associated with this view of Cockburn's. The film's music has been coopted for all kinds of associations with military heroism.

P.S., Just for the record. I follow David Swanson in emphasizing that the first two articles of the Constitution are about Congress, which is the heart of the representational system, not the executive. I believe that. I believe the executive branch of the government should never have arrived where it is today (largely because Congress abrogated its own authority). I don't believe we need another Kennedy to make everything right. Does that mean I should not try to understand what happened in 1963? Does that have nothing to do with the present state of affairs? Should I be accused of political infantilism?

Sorry, Victor, for mispelling your name.

[Steve Minnerly]

Alexander Cockburn pretty much summed up his (and Chomsky's) attitude in this quote:

"The effect of 'JFK' is to make people think that America is a good country that produced a good President killed by bad elites...This is an infantile, inactivist prescription for politics, essentially inviting people to put their faith in another good President, whose inevitable foul-up can then be blamed on the same bad elites."

Man people that believe america is a good country probably believe the lone nut fantasy. If there is one thing america is not its good. Cripes just look at the massacre of Iraq and thats only recent history.

Americas just another evil empire.

[Albert Rossi]

Alexander Cockburn pretty much summed up his (and Chomsky's) attitude in this quote:

"The effect of 'JFK' is to make people think that America is a good country that produced a good President killed by bad elites...This is an infantile, inactivist prescription for politics, essentially inviting people to put their faith in another good President, whose inevitable foul-up can then be blamed on the same bad elites."

Man people that believe america is a good country probably believe the lone nut fantasy. If there is one thing america is not its good. Cripes just look at the massacre of Iraq and thats only recent history.

Americas just another evil empire.

Yeah, Steve, I started off my post by saying something like studying the JFK administration makes it seem more and more like a fluke rather than representative of what Presidents do. One could just as easily come to the conclusion that it's not representative at all of "America" (whatever that ever meant). Look at how many people thought he was treasonous.

But since the quoted Cockburn statement is about the film, I decided to modify my initial post and admit there's some truth to his gripe about how cinematic vehicles like that movie can reinforce hero-worship. However, to be fair, Cockburn also ignores the fact that the Garrison character is made to end the final harangue with a call to activism -- to uncover the truth. "It's up to you." He doesn't seem to think that's very important. It just produced the ARRB.

[Steve Minnerly]

Hero worship is not bad albert. Hell thats the whole basis behind joseph campbell. And when you read campbell you understand hero worship is the basis of human culture and existance.

Its the oldest story.

[Albert Rossi]

Hero worship is not bad albert. Hell thats the whole basis behind joseph campbell. And when you read campbell you understand hero worship is the basis of human culture and existance.

Its the oldest story.

I would distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive when it comes to culture. There needs to be a dialectical process. Myth needs constantly to be subjected to criticism. That is not to deny its inexorable presence and function. It just cannot go unanalyzed. When it does, it may have dangerous consequences, particularly in the political realm. I need not point out where the cult of the leader took Europe in the 1920s and 1930s.

[Magda Hassan]

Hero worship is not bad albert. Hell thats the whole basis behind joseph campbell. And when you read campbell you understand hero worship is the basis of human culture and existance.

Its the oldest story.

I would distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive when it comes to culture. There needs to be a dialectical process. Myth needs constantly to be subjected to criticism. That is not to deny its inexorable presence and function. It just cannot go unanalyzed. When it does, it becomes dangerous. I need not point out where the cult of the leader took Europe in the 1920s and 1930s.

For cult of personality try J.C. and Mohommed. But yes, I agree.

[Steve Minnerly]

Well in terms of the hero myth the hero doesnt become a hero until hes made the great sacrifice for the ones that he loves ( that is the ones that he bestows the boon on ) .

Those two conditions pretty much establish him or her as a hero. A politician is not a hero until he has done those things. He might be admired by people and or elected by people and he might be the most famous person in the world but hes not a hero until he sacrifices.

Kennedys death was his sacrifice and his work to preserve peace was his boon. He pretty much meets the classic definition of hero.

[Albert Rossi]

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.

[Tracy Riddle]

What Cockburn didn't understand was that America may be an imperialist country run by mostly bad elites, but occasionally a good elite (or at least a not-so-bad one) can end up in power, and be removed by the bad ones. This is something we've seen throughout human history.

[Mitchell Severson]

"One of the few remaining Marxists, Noam Chomsky here undertakes to scold fellow leftists such as Oliver Stone for succumbing to the Camelot myth and asserting that JFK was assassinated by big business, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Mafia, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff (take your choice) because Kennedy intended to pull out of Vietnam. Chomsky rightly ridicules the notion of a Vietnam pullout but-typical of his past political assays-he sees dark, conspiratorial forces directing most actors on the public stage. In Chomsky's world view, presidents are puppets manipulated by America's economic managers (corporations and their lackeys in politics). Thus Kennedy had no freedom of choice but merely did as he was told." Stephen E. Ambrose Review of "Rethinking Camelot" in "Foreign Affairs"