As the granddaughter of Irish Catholic immigrants, and the daughter of a proud member of the AFL-CIO, I grew up in a household awash with Kennedy admiration. No member of that family was less than wonderful, all the way from Rose to John-John. And the most wonderful of all was JFK: The President. The one whose photograph graced our living room right next to that of Pope John XXIII. I don’t honestly recall any discussion of the man as a president. I’m sure such discussions occurred, especially when my aunts and uncles were visiting, but they never included the children. We wouldn’t have understood, and didn’t much care. I was vaguely aware of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but I was much more interested in my new baby brother than anything on the nightly news.

When I was old enough to vote, I registered as a Democrat, and didn’t give politics much thought for over a decade. I dutifully voted in presidential elections, sometimes even in primaries, but was as apolitical as a person could possibly be. At some point, I honestly can’t say when, but it may have been during the Carter years, I started thinking about what I was voting for, rather than who. I started looking at values and principles rather than personalities and charisma. After several cycles of rejecting Democrat candidates, I eventually leapt into the breach and changed party affiliation.

I abandoned JFK.

Not surprisingly, modern Democrats hold him up as an icon. When challenged, especially in presidential debates, they invoke “the party of Kennedy.” Insinuating, if not actually saying, that if you disagree with them, you (gasp!) disagree with JFK. So, I did a little research.

In 1962, in a speech to the N.Y. Economic Club, Kennedy explained his economic policy: “This administration pledged itself last summer to an acrossthe board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963. I am not talking about a quickie or a temporary tax cut which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm to ease some temporary complaint. The federal government’s most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities of private expenditures.” (Italics added) He also identified three courses of action: Improvement of education, expansion of civilian research and technology, and increased incentives for private expenditures.

Today’s party advocates Common Core, the redistribution of private wealth, tax funded dependency, and the use of public money to fund private industries that support liberal ideals, such as solar and wind energy, subsidies for ethanol, and bail-outs for bankrupt Union retirement plans, banks and mismanaged cities. (Coincidentally, Democrat run for decades.)

When it comes to the Second Amendment, there is no doubt where the Party of Kennedy stands. Every gun-related tragedy since the assassination attempt of Ronald Regan has resulted in frantic cries for legislation, restriction and banning of firearms. So eager are they for control, even the memorial services of victims are deemed an appropriate place and time for anti-gun rhetoric.

Kennedy had a different take on it. In a 1960 article for Guns Magazine, titled “Know Your Lawmakers,” then Senator Kennedy said: “By calling attention to ‘a well-regulated militia,’ the ‘security’ of the nation, and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the Second Amendment, will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”

Last, we have social justice. Personally, I’m never sure what is meant by that phrase. It sounds good. Almost anything with the word “justice” in it feels right, but what does it MEAN? It seems to be a big basket where the left can toss its leftover bumper stickers to be pulled out and thrown at detractors. Out of the basket they haul the labels: White privilege, greedy capitalists, anti-immigrant. Almost anything that shuts down opposing opinion or can force one group to pay higher taxes to support the goals of another group gets tossed in the basket. It also helps a lot if Jesse Jackson can write a snarky couplet.

But, Kennedy saw it differently: “No American is ever made better off by pulling a fellow American down, and every American is made better off whenever any one of us is made better off. A rising tide raises all boats.”

I could go on, there is still foreign policy, national security and a host of other topics, but by now it should be clear to the reader that Kennedy wouldn’t stand a chance as a Democrat in today’s environment. He might even be labeled a Tea-Partier for his tax stance, a terrorist for his Second Amendment support, or a racist, misogynist homophobe for his ideas on social justice.

So, maybe I didn’t abandon JFK after all. Maybe his party abandoned us both.

———

Another View is contributed by a group of concerned citizens that meet each week to discuss events of public interest.