Safe Mode: On
JFK's definition of Liberal

This was his acceptance speech for runnin for prezzy.


September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.

Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education for their children and for the children's development. They went to night schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb.

Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war hangs over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in the minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so doesn't make it so. More will be needed than goodwill missions or talking back to Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will be needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads.

In Winston Churchill's words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist."

And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not only our defense but our image abroad as a friend.

This is an important election -- in many ways as important as any this century -- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party here in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States, should be associated with us in this great effort. The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.

I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time. Our national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the history of the great Republic.

Some pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all over again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time to move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond the new frontiers of the 1960s.


Click to view image: '223144-JFK1.gif'

Added: Sep-6-2008 
By: bro77dog
In:
Other
Tags: JFK, liberal
Views: 6399 | Comments: 34 | Votes: 1 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 1 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • JFK's definition of "liberal" "was spot on. Unfortunately that definition died with him.

    Posted Sep-7-2008 By 

    (7) | Report

  • he was a great man, and i try to live by his definition of liberal. he is one of my idols

    Posted Sep-7-2008 By 

    (1) | Report

  • JFK was a cheating piece of shit, and his family got there millions off the sweat of the poor. that's how he can relate to the poor. liberals were marxists then and they are communist fucks now. i am glad to see he and his whole family is cursed. and can't wait till that peice of shits last family members die.

    Posted Sep-7-2008 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Good comments. I hardly post anything, because I like everyone's posts. I'm more of an idea processor than a propagandist with some agenda on LL, but I thought that JFK's acceptance speech is parallel and poignant.

    Posted Sep-7-2008 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Republicans of today are also not what they used to be. Domestically speaking, both parties are the same.Spending spending and more spending. Of course Repub's will talk a big game of cutting spending and use the rhetoric of the past true Republican value system. But when it comes to implementing policy,there is little difference between the parties.

    We do find differences when it comes to foreign policy, however, these are superficial differences. Both parties share the same main goals on fo More..

    Posted Sep-7-2008 By 

    (0) | Report

  • If you read his statements, this was how "populists" turned liberals into marxists. 9.7 trillion dollar debt, 72.% of every tax dollar goes toward SS/Medicare/servicing the debt.

    Posted Sep-7-2008 By 

    (-1) | Report

  • after 9/11, 2001, the US news media generally went hard right and the word "liberal" became a pejorative

    i think it's because a lot of leftists started calling for "evidence" when the administration said we should go to war with Iraq. and every time the administration presented a 'fact' the leftists wanted "corroboration" -- independent verification.

    i remember people being surprised or thinking i was sympathetic to bin laden whenever i waged those arguments abou More..

    Posted Sep-7-2008 By 

    (-2) | Report

  • And Real Republicans killed his Ass .

    Posted Sep-7-2008 By 

    (-4) | Report

  • "David Sanchez Morales: Career of a CIA Assassin"
    'Morales says, at some point in that study of his career, that JFK deserved what he got because of the Bay of Pigs incident (Morales trained the Cuban exiles who invaded Cuba and blamed their capture and execution on JFK)'
    www.liveleak.com/view?i=c6b_1195859656

    ***

    I think some members of the CIA killed JFK.

    Jack Ruby, who shot Oswald, was connected to the mafia.

    Posted Sep-7-2008 By 

    (-4) | Report

    • ruby's connection to the mafia was tenous at best. thats an old therory long disproven.
      oswald killed kennedy alon, it was more than possible and proven repeatedly.
      not everyone in the CIA supported the bay of pigs operation. and while the kennedies actions were reprehensable, not enough to cause their assisnation.

      Posted Sep-7-2008 By 

      (0) | Report

    • "Jack Ruby and the mafia

      The Warren Commission claimed that Jack Ruby was not "part of any conspiracy, domestic or foreign, to assassinate President Kennedy." It also stated that there was no "significant link between Ruby and organized crime". Critics of the Warren Report have claimed that this was not true.

      In his book, Crime of the Century, Michael Kurtz points out: "In the month prior to the assassination, Ruby telephoned Irwin Weiner, a "frontman for or More..

      Posted Sep-7-2008 By 

      (-3) | Report

    • Links Where There Are None

      Kaiser has a penchant%u2013one fatal to serious history%u2013for the most unreliable evidence and the most implausible scenarios.

      Take, for example, his attempt to link Oswald%u2019s murderer, Jack Ruby, to the Mafia in a way that might implicate Ruby in a conspiracy to kill JFK. Kaiser claims that in 1959, Ruby visited Santos Trafficante in Trescornia prison in Cuba not long after Castro%u2019s overthrow of the Batista dictatorship. If true, the encounter would More..

      Posted Sep-7-2008 By 

      (0) | Report

    • dorothy kilgallen died from a drug and alchohal overdose. both her husband and her freinds attested to the fact that she had been increasingly dependant on barbituates and alchohal do to her high stress job as a reporter and her increasing trouble meeting dealines. the corinor reported that She had a blood alcohol level of 0.15, and barbiturate level that says "UV - 2.4 in the liver.

      Posted Sep-7-2008 By 

      (0) | Report

    • hank killams relationship with ruby was almost non existant. his wife was a stripper that worked for ruby two years before the assisnation. he was also a drunk and a parniod. he died in florida when his he got into a fight with an unknown assailent, and his throat was cut after being shoved throught a glass window front.

      Posted Sep-7-2008 By 

      (0) | Report