Washington – It’s remembered as a day chilled by “a Siberian wind knifing down Pennsylvania Avenue” and illuminated by “the dazzling combination of bright sunshine and deep snow.”
On Jan. 20, 1961, John F. Kennedy began his presidency with a speech at once soaring and solemn. Fifty years on, we have not heard an inaugural address like it. Tethered to its time and place, it still challenges with its ambition to harness realism to idealism, patriotism to service, national interest to universal aspiration.
Theodore Sorensen, the speech’s principal architect, was always modest about his own role, less so about the inaugural itself. “It certainly was not as good as Lincoln’s second or FDR’s first,” Sorensen wrote in his memoir, adding that Kennedy thought it not as good as Jefferson’s first.
By acknowledging what their joint product was not, Kennedy and Sorensen defined the historical company it still keeps.
A great speech includes lines so memorable that pedestrian orators eventually transform them into cliches. “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” This muscular call for sacrifice has launched a thousand lesser speeches.
“Civility is not a sign of weakness” and “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate” — staple references whenever politics become particularly vicious.
“The torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans.” And the torch gets passed on again and again, whenever a younger politician is marking out generational territory.
It was a compact speech — at 1,355 words, it was less than twice the length of this column. Kennedy, wrote the historian Robert Dallek, insisted it be brief because “I don’t want people to think I’m a windbag.” He needn’t have worried.
Right and left still battle over Kennedy’s words. Were they a call for resolve before the communist threat (“we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty”) or were they a plea for negotiation as the answer to nuclear annihilation?
Probably both. The classic realist’s declaration that “only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed” was followed by this:
“But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course — both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind’s final war.
“So let us begin anew.”
And so have we remained a nation forever in search of new beginnings, invoking, by turns, Lincoln or Kennedy to bless our fresh starts.
All writers take heart: Kennedy and Sorensen wrote and rewrote, often accepting changes proposed by friends. One fortunate fix came from John Kenneth Galbraith. The final address read: “United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures.” The original draft referred to “joint ventures,” which Galbraith thought sounded like a mining company.
They also took columnist Walter Lippmann’s suggestion, changing “enemy” to “adversary.” The less hostile word fit better with the speech’s wish that “a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion” — a line the self-critical Sorensen saw as “a metaphorical stretch.”
And Kennedy advisers Harris Wofford and Louis Martin won the insertion of six words and helped change history.
In the original draft, Kennedy declared that the new generation for which he spoke was “unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today.”
To which Wofford and Martin got Kennedy to add, “at home and around the world,” thus marrying the struggle for freedom abroad with the cause of domestic civil rights. There would be no turning back.
Perhaps I should acknowledge that I fell in love with this speech when I was young, purchasing a long-playing record of Kennedy addresses for 99 cents at the supermarket and listening to it over and over after Kennedy’s assassination.
You might say that I still hear its trumpet summoning us again. And when Kennedy said, “I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation,” I knew — millions of others felt this way too — that he was speaking for me.
E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com.
(c) 2011, Washington Post Writers Group
Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn
Dear Truthout Community,
If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.
We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.
Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.
There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.
After the election, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?
It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.
We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.
We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.
Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy