Am back to reading Nigel Hamilton's book, "JFK- Reckless Youth," and have been struck again and again by how different JFK was from the rest of us. Of course, that may be the writer's bias - although he uses dozens of quotes from JFK acquaintances, girlfriends and friends. And there is the knowledge that all of them had that he DID become president, and a particularly famous one at that. Still, in light of considering other presidents and people of exception, it does seem that there is something fundamentally different about those who become "Big." One difference I think they all share is an unwavering fascination with their specialty - this includes politicians and saints alike. Another, though, would be more particular to men (people) of power and that seems to be: detachment.
This detachment has been noted, to the best of my memory, of nearly every famous president of the 20th and 21st century, including Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Kennedy, Nixon, Carter (if he can be called famous), Reagan, W. Bush and now, particularly, Obama. With JFK fresh in mind, the author notes again and again his lack of deep involvement with others - including, especially and notoriously, his lovers. Said one woman who was in love with him while he went to Stanford (before US involvement in WWII), "I felt that he would choose a woman to be his wife based not on affection, but in how she would fit in with his larger designs" (paraphrase). And although he was loyal to male friends, most were aware that they were there to help him have fun or reach certain goals, not for emotional attachment. On religion, he thought most of it was nonsense, although he knew that a facade of Catholicism could help him win elections.
In short, he, like so many other big name politicians, was a user, perhaps even somewhat sociopathological. But can we really say that all of them suffered from some sort of pathology? Among mystics, for instance, it is always recognized that the personality complex that we call "ourselves" is extremely superficial and reactionary - almost animal-like in its trajectory, moving from one sense of need fulfillment to another without deeper thought. Could it be that some power "greats" are really that much deeper than the rest of us? That by easily seeing through the facade of personality, they can grasp these elementary motives and thus easily manipulate people - from individuals to the masses - for their own ends? And while this may seem a matter of sociopathology on a genius scale, what if the motives were actually for the good? What if the man of power were really operating from a deeper level for the betterment of human kind? A sort of power-saint?
It does seem possible and even probable. The trouble is, these "power saints" are often so flawed. They more often than not hurt people on their way to the top, and then continue hurting people - and using them (JFK was a great example of this regarding women). But does a flaw undermine the overall greatness of the man and his calling? Is hurting or using others a sign of evil, or simply a sign that the power-saint has not yet arrived at beatification (that is, he is on the right path, but still is marred by human flaws)?
We also have to add to this the uncertainty of the path itself; was, for instance, FDR's great changes to American political power, and eventually to American society itself a good thing? Were these changes even made with an idea for the good, flawed as they may have been, or were other things, such as power itself, in greater consideration (that is, were changes made primarily to give government greater power, whether or not it would help in the long run)?
Beyond all of these considerations, when one reads about a man like Kennedy, his destiny, admittedly in hindsight, seems striking, almost a certain thing. There are practical reasons for this, but, above and beyond, are we given certain leaders? We may not always get the leaders we deserve, but in a democracy we generally do - but still, there is a magic to the process. Do the leaders we get reflect our own flaws, or is there something more in them? Was there something more to Kennedy, for instance, than a need for women and power? Was he called to use the great power of the US for a destiny that few can see, but that was planned from a much higher source? And for what purpose: to eventually humble the nation that reaches for power, like the Third Reich, or to elevate it to a greatness that serves a higher purpose? Or are one or the other solely determined by what is in the collective hearts of the masses, the leader an unwitting sacrifice to a self-made fate?
For me, it seems a combination of the two: that our leaders reflect our greatness and flaws, but also are given for a certain destiny, one that might take time to accomplish. This is impossible to prove, but I think we can move from our own lives in particular to the general. In our personal lives, there is a design, but we may refuse to accept it. In social life, there is a design, and we are going to get it: the collective, like any herd, can only move in one direction without chaos. And so, yes, our national lives are directed, but as a collective with millions of lives, the goal may not be realized for many, many generations. Thus our leaders may be leading us to a greater life, or the disaster necessary to bring about this greater life. And this may only come to be known by the fruits of the seeds that have been sown. FK
This detachment has been noted, to the best of my memory, of nearly every famous president of the 20th and 21st century, including Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Kennedy, Nixon, Carter (if he can be called famous), Reagan, W. Bush and now, particularly, Obama. With JFK fresh in mind, the author notes again and again his lack of deep involvement with others - including, especially and notoriously, his lovers. Said one woman who was in love with him while he went to Stanford (before US involvement in WWII), "I felt that he would choose a woman to be his wife based not on affection, but in how she would fit in with his larger designs" (paraphrase). And although he was loyal to male friends, most were aware that they were there to help him have fun or reach certain goals, not for emotional attachment. On religion, he thought most of it was nonsense, although he knew that a facade of Catholicism could help him win elections.
In short, he, like so many other big name politicians, was a user, perhaps even somewhat sociopathological. But can we really say that all of them suffered from some sort of pathology? Among mystics, for instance, it is always recognized that the personality complex that we call "ourselves" is extremely superficial and reactionary - almost animal-like in its trajectory, moving from one sense of need fulfillment to another without deeper thought. Could it be that some power "greats" are really that much deeper than the rest of us? That by easily seeing through the facade of personality, they can grasp these elementary motives and thus easily manipulate people - from individuals to the masses - for their own ends? And while this may seem a matter of sociopathology on a genius scale, what if the motives were actually for the good? What if the man of power were really operating from a deeper level for the betterment of human kind? A sort of power-saint?
It does seem possible and even probable. The trouble is, these "power saints" are often so flawed. They more often than not hurt people on their way to the top, and then continue hurting people - and using them (JFK was a great example of this regarding women). But does a flaw undermine the overall greatness of the man and his calling? Is hurting or using others a sign of evil, or simply a sign that the power-saint has not yet arrived at beatification (that is, he is on the right path, but still is marred by human flaws)?
We also have to add to this the uncertainty of the path itself; was, for instance, FDR's great changes to American political power, and eventually to American society itself a good thing? Were these changes even made with an idea for the good, flawed as they may have been, or were other things, such as power itself, in greater consideration (that is, were changes made primarily to give government greater power, whether or not it would help in the long run)?
Beyond all of these considerations, when one reads about a man like Kennedy, his destiny, admittedly in hindsight, seems striking, almost a certain thing. There are practical reasons for this, but, above and beyond, are we given certain leaders? We may not always get the leaders we deserve, but in a democracy we generally do - but still, there is a magic to the process. Do the leaders we get reflect our own flaws, or is there something more in them? Was there something more to Kennedy, for instance, than a need for women and power? Was he called to use the great power of the US for a destiny that few can see, but that was planned from a much higher source? And for what purpose: to eventually humble the nation that reaches for power, like the Third Reich, or to elevate it to a greatness that serves a higher purpose? Or are one or the other solely determined by what is in the collective hearts of the masses, the leader an unwitting sacrifice to a self-made fate?
For me, it seems a combination of the two: that our leaders reflect our greatness and flaws, but also are given for a certain destiny, one that might take time to accomplish. This is impossible to prove, but I think we can move from our own lives in particular to the general. In our personal lives, there is a design, but we may refuse to accept it. In social life, there is a design, and we are going to get it: the collective, like any herd, can only move in one direction without chaos. And so, yes, our national lives are directed, but as a collective with millions of lives, the goal may not be realized for many, many generations. Thus our leaders may be leading us to a greater life, or the disaster necessary to bring about this greater life. And this may only come to be known by the fruits of the seeds that have been sown. FK
RSS Feed