Logo

What Kennedy's inaugural means to a young American

Thursday, January 20, 2011
ShareThis

U.S. Catholic's high school intern, senior Steven Rojas of Chicago's Cristo Rey High School, wrote the following for an essay contest on why JFK's words still matter--a challenging and insightful message from a student two generations away from the first Catholic chief executive of the United States.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy and many other presidents have come and gone; each has given a speech on their inauguration, and all have given different messages to the world. Kennedy’s inaugural address stands out because he was a man with great potential whose life was cut short due to his assassination. Although most people only focus on the quote, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,” there are two other more significant ideas expressed in that speech.

Kennedy’s line, “Now the trumpet summons us again . . . not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need” is illustrative of his saber-rattling. That may have been warranted in 1961 (as the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 illustrates) but is indicative of his and his successors’ overreliance on military means. We do not need arms; we need arguments and agreements. Kennedy forecasts that he will resort to violence when the going gets tough through this statement. Worse, he did just that in Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs.

We need not resort to violence when the going gets tough because there are many other ways we can resolve an issue. Jesus, Mahatma Ghandi, Saul Alinsky, and Martin Luther King used the system against itself in order to beat the system; each said to do this with nonviolence, to point out the flaws of the system and use that to bring it down. Instead of resort to the rhetoric of violence, Kennedy could have done so much more. Ultimately, the Soviet Union (to whom he quietly pointed much of this rhetoric) fell without a bullet fired. Also, saying that we need arms is a sign of insecurity, a sign of being scared.

We do not need weapons to protect ourselves because there are other ways that we can protect ourselves. As I said before, weapons show weakness, and we can fight back using nonviolence; although it may be difficult at first we can still accomplish it. Kennedy undersold himself and his country by embracing the rhetoric of violence.

Now many people cherish this speech because of Kennedy’s most famous words: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Nice line but we should focus on another statement from his speech that is more important and more relevant to today’s world. Kennedy stated: “All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days; nor in the life of this Administration; nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.” There, President Kennedy points out a very crucial concept of today’s world and ideas. We always want actions to have an immediate effect but, unfortunately, that effect is not always immediately. Kennedy’s statement here is crucial because it points out the reality of things.

Today’s world is faced with many problems that it wants to solve. One that is highly debated on is immigration; the reason is because I can really relate to this topic and apply Kennedy’s words, although I can apply it to any other topic. Immigration has become a huge topic because the U.S. sees it as a problem. I am a strong proponent of immigrants and really wish that an amnesty or some proposal pass that gives immigrants residency since I also come from a family of immigrants. Now I have gone to debate competitions to debate about this specific problem and have continued to get involved in my community to solve or at least change this problem. Although my actions won’t make a change immediately, it is a start for something that can develop into something greater.

Although JFK is famous for the “ask” statement, the rest of his speech is more significant for its insights into both his wisdom and his limitations. His rhetoric of violence foreshadows his tragic flaw: Vietnam. Yet, when Kennedy says that action make take a long time to take effect, he points out a crucial fact that most people ignore, both then and now. We all want instant gratification and want our presidents to deliver precisely that. Here, however, a President had the courage (and the foresight) to tell the truth: we might not even see the effect “in our lifetime on this planet.” This is truly the best line and the best wisdom of that famous inaugural address. 

Posted in: In preview mode

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

General Thought

I have read and seen the many positive and negative comments. The following thoughts go towards the negative comment but can also be towards the positive. Now from what I have read, I have come to the conclusion that many of you think that violence and arms will go away overnight. This is not possible because, unfortunately, we live in a world that has become so dependent on weaponry that it can't be put down that easily. Also from the arguments that you have made in situations from the past I feel, and correct me if I am wrong, that you think that we should have just gone with open arms and say "Hey stop the fighting," although that is not the case. Some of those situations could have been solved by arguing and coming to an agreement, but some where to late when the U.S. got involved.
Now as I've said before, many of you, from my perspective, believe that leaving arms will happen overnight, but that is not the case. I wanna bring your attention back to the quote that I believe is the most important quote in Kennedy's speech: “All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days; nor in the life of this Administration; nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.” Now again, Kennedy points out that it might not happen in our lifetime but it can happen. We have to be realistic and see that it may not happen today or tomorrow, but we can have the hope that it will happen someday. it is a long process but I believe we will come to a time where no arms are needed.

Non-violence/we don't need weapons

First, an instance that may qualify as non-violence on a massive scale: the fall of communism in Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania. However, it may be argued that the non-violence was only the final campaign of the Cold War, which cost not only national treasure but cost us and others many casualties via the proxy wars fought by client states. These would include Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Angola, Middle East.

The writer's assertion that we don't need arms is simply naive. In a fallen world armies and police forces with weaponry is a necessity.

Although Jesus instructed his disciples to turn the other cheek, he did not tell the centurion to quit the army, so saying that Jesus advocated non-violence is to read too much into it. MLK advocated non-violence but much of his following fell away because of MLK's insistence on non-violence. And Saul Alinsky is not in the same league with Jesus, Gandhi & MLK.

Could we have used arguments and come to agreement with the Nazis? The Japanese Empire? The Soviets? The North Koreans? Iran? Sadam Hussein? Osama bin Laden? Somali pirates? Drug cartels? I think not.

Saul Alinsky is in the same field with Jesus, Ghandi, and MLK

I would really like to know why you believe that Saul Alinsky is not in the same league with Jesus, MLK, and Ghandi. Obviously he isn't a saint and he isn't widely recognized by many, but he still did great things during his lifetime. Now you may be looking at how he acted, how he lived, his "holiness," but I am looking at his actions, the benefits he brought to people. Saul Alinsky helped many and he did this with non-violence. He went ahead and took action against the inequality, but he did it all without violence.

Not in the same league

Hey Steven,

I said that Saul Alinsky is not in the same league as Jesus, Gandhi and MLK as a proportional statement. If I were to consider myself a theologian and put myself in a list with Thomas Aquinas, Theresa of Avila and Kurt Peterson, readers might fairly ask 'who the heck is Kurt Peterson? Jesus, Gandhi and MLK are familiar names the world over; Saul Alinsky is not. Proportion is why I made that statement.
kp

Thanks

Kurt,

Thanks for the clarification and sorry for the misunderstanding. Now that I read it, it does make more sense.

Steven

John F. Kennedy was a fraud

Kennedy was a fraud, pure and simple, as I have discussed in an article entitled, "John F. Kennedy: The Most Despicable President In American History."

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/john-f-kennedy-the-most-desp...

The problem is that the Kennedy family members and sycophants have been burying the truth since his assassination, and it needs to be told. When he died, his “image” was frozen in time, but the truth is grotesque. To lionize him like his sycophants have done is a crime, and unconscionable.

The latest travesty is Caroline Kennedy's successful distortion of the truth by forcing the History Channel to drop its already-completed min-series about Kennedy and his wife, starring Katie Holmes and Greg Kinnear.

Timothy D. Naegele is a fraud

His comment is a cut and paste of his comment here.

http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/20/5886211-caroline-kennedy...

He doesn't even bother to type a new one. Maybe he will now. I doubt it.

I agree with this commentor from the above site who said of Mr. Naegele and another right-wing attacker of President Kennedy:

"As for Kathy-2..... and one Timothy D. Naegele (tea, anybody?), they come forth with inane and lame remarks (& she is most likely a paid-from-home troller), as well as accusations without facts and outright condemnation without an iota of reality, respectively. How lovely to intimate that the Kennedys were so horrible that they did themselves in, and no other parties were to blame ... of course, that makes it all quite simple, probably at about the level they both can handle –– way below the heights of beauty, truth, and dedication (exemplified by that entire family) that were so obvious. All of which would be mocked in today’s toxic political atmosphere, of course, but those ARE the reasons they still matter, and always will."

Time for a Holiday in North Korea

Try leading a non-violent protest in Pyongyang.

Try greeting SS troops with flowers.

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.

Bryan Cones's picture

I hardly thing the Bay of Pigs qualifies

And Gandhi did face down the racism and violence of the British, who were plenty bloody and dictatorial.

Besides, nonviolence has never been tried on the scale you suggest. I hardly think the death toll would have been worse if it had been.

Bryan, Ghandi makes my case

Ghandi and the British and MLK and the American South of the 1960's make my case.

In both instances the oppressors were sinning and sometimes non-violent protests were sometimes met with violence. However, in both cases the oppressors did have a moral code bigger than themselves (Christianity) which they were violating. MLK and Ghandi made their case using that moral code and a sufficient number of hearts were changed.

What moral code would a Chinese MLK use to appeal to to Chairman Mao? How do you appeal to Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot?

Reagan made the moral case that the Soviet Union was an evil empire. Reagan's and JP II's moral confrontation and the resistance of Polish Catholics (funded by secret U.S. aid) along with sustained economic warfare helped break up the Soviet Empire. However, we'd be living under Communist tyranny if the West disarmed after WW II.

The guy in China who stood up the the column of tanks was inspiring for a few days, but the terrible fate he suffered will never see the light of day.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

U.S. Catholic insists on a civil and respectful dialogue on our website, following our Comment policy. Comments should be charitable, on topic, and brief. U.S. Catholic reserves the right to delete comments deemed inappropriate. Links are not allowed and comments with them will be moderated or deleted. We encourage you to choose your words wisely.