A Comparative Retrospect: J.F.K and Jimmy Carter vs. Obama

Peter Kim
Ms. Lauren Matthews
English 101: Political Rhetoric
28 November 2008

Some may like to think that 1960, 1976, and 2008 all share a certain peculiar political spirit due to the great extent of similarity between each of the era’s Presidents. More importantly however is the significance of such similarity. A comparative analysis between John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Barrack Obama with respect to their political weaknesses and campaign tactics can forecast the potential circumstances of an “Obama Presidency”.The political weaknesses of John F. Kennedy and Jimmy Carter share significant similarities with that of Barrack Obama. In 1960, Kennedy was initially a risky contender for the Democratic nomination. Like Obama, he was very young, politically inexperienced, and seemingly impractical. Also while Obama has had to deal with the political circumstances of being black, Kennedy had to endure being Catholic in breaking the Protestant exclusivity of the White House. “Kennedy was judged “an ambitious but superficial playboy” by his liberal peers…He never said a word of importance in the Senate and he never did a thing,” (Rich) Likewise, although Obama started his campaign with high hopes, he too found criticism with respect to his lack of experience and logistical substance. The similarities between Kennedy and Obama’s political weaknesses run to the same extent as those between that of Jimmy Carter and Obama. Carter, just like Kennedy and Obama, was seemingly inexperienced, impractical, and superficial:
At the Vail strategy session, the Ford team zeroed in on the chief vulnerabilities of their Democratic opponent, Jimmy Carter: His lack of experience, his lack of accomplishments, and his lack of specificity on the issues. These had to be exploited mercilessly. (Kornacki)
As a result, John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Barrack Obama all resorted to the same peculiar means of appeal that is well explained by Kennedy’s former speechwriter, Richard Goodwin:
Kennedy’s main task was to prove his political viability. He had to persuade his part that he was not a wealthy dilettante and not “too young, too inexperienced and, above all, too Catholic” to be president… [In order to prove these criticisms wrong] He had to touch the secret fears and ambivalent longings of the American heart, divine and speak to the desires of a swiftly changing nation- his message grounded on its own intuition of some vague and spreading desire for national renewal. (Rich)
In layman’s terms, Kennedy required two fundamental things- 1) poetry and 2) a country with some desire for change. These two particular factors are essentially the same that Obama utilized in order to overcome his weaknesses and reach victory. “The rap on Mr. Obama remains that he preaches the audacity of Kumbaya. He is all lofty poetry and no action, so obsessed with transcending partisanship that he can be easily rolled.” (Rich) And just like Obama, Carter based his appeal on his ability to arouse emotions rather than the specifics of his policies on crucial issues. While during this campaign season Obama tactically themed his campaign around the word hope, Carter coined the word trust as the theme for his campaign back in 1976:
Like Obama, Carter’s resume included service in a state Legislature (rare for a president), and only a very brief stint in high-profile office, his single term as Georgia’s governor from 1970 to 1974. Obama, of course, has only been in the U.S. Senate since 2005, after an eight-year run in the Illinois state Senate. (Kornacki)
“I'll never lie to you,” Carter famously told American voters in 1976. His smile was all embracing. Carter seldom got angry. He talked about his evangelical Christian faith often. Carter promised change and hope. He told us that the mean and cynical government that we had come to expect from Washington was a thing of the past… Carter was "magic" because he was the first nominee from the Deep South, the first nominee who talked a great deal about his religion. Obama is "magic" because he is the first black candidate and because he speaks very well. Carter was all smiles and civility, just like Obama is all niceness and calm. Pointedly, neither man speaks about political philosophy much at all. (Walker)
The significance of these similarities is that they represent those particular leaders that are elected through winning people’s hearts instead of their minds. Kennedy, Carter, and Obama all represent this “emotion-particular” kind of leader. While the supposedly conventional President is one who capitalizes on logistical appeals, a President who invests more attention in emotional appeals is thus susceptible to certain inevitable circumstances regarding his or her potential logistic shortcomings. These circumstances include critical scrutiny by the people and a high level of accountability. Therefore, while Kennedy found his death, that is not to say that Obama will to:A poetically gifted president might be able to bring about change without relying on fistfighting as his primary modus operandi. Mr. Obama argues that if he can bring some Republicans along, he can achieve changes larger than the microinitiatives that have been a hallmark of Clintonism. (Rich)Still, the lack of strength usually tied with such leaders who talk more than walk can diminish Obama’s ability to initiate change. After running an eloquent campaign that stirred many emotions but not enough practical thinking, Obama may not be “tough enough to stand up to those in Washington who oppose real reform, whether [it be] Republicans or special-interest advocates…” (Rich) And just as Carter’s emotionally crafted gild proved useless when struck with actual issues such as the Iranian-embassy incident, Obama may not be equipped with enough practical policy in order to effectively and genuinely implement order and change:
Carter supported on "human rights" grounds the overthrow of the Shah of Iran (our friend) and its replacement by the Islamic theocracy which still rules Iran to this day (our enemy.) He pursed domestic policies which called for privation instead of growth. Carter lied about the firing of U.S. Attorney David Marston, who had been investigating corrupt Pennsylvania Democrat congressmen… Carter, after the Soviets assassinated our ambassador in Afghanistan and then invaded that nation, was "surprised" that Communism was aggressive and malignant. His response was to try to exert diplomatic pressure on the Soviets as well as trade sanctions. Jimmy Carter, well into the middle of his presidency, seriously seems to have considered that Marxist-Leninist regimes were somehow like another form of socialist democracy, that Moscow was no threat to America, and that the proliferation of virulently anti-American dictators around the globe was in our long term best interest. (Walker)
Obama critics are just as negatively enthusiastic when predicting the consequences of his Presidency. “His critics argue back that he is a naïve wuss who will give away the store. They have mocked him for offering to hold health-care negotiations so transparent (and presumably feckless) that they can be broadcast on C-Span.” (Rich)
Ultimately, it is significant to note the large extent of similarity between John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Barrack Obama in terms of their personal narratives and campaign tactics. Phenomenally, such similarities consequent to certain inevitably potential circumstances that include qualms typically associated with orthodox liberals. These qualms, which include lack of vigor, lack of practicality, and lack of accountability, are all factors which can hurt Obama’s ability to accomplish his idealistic and radical goals.