The assassination of President John F. Kennedy was indeed a turning point in American History. It was actually a turning point when he was elected, and with his departure, things in Washington were very different; this paper suggests that Lyndon Johnson's conduct regarding the U.S. military presence in Vietnam was likely not the same behavior as Kennedy would have followed. And other changes following Kennedy's demise were turning points, and are mentioned in this paper.
Assassination of President John Kennedy
Why was the assassination of President John Kennedy considered a turning point in history and not just another event?
In the first place, the election and inauguration of John F. Kennedy (JFK) was in itself a dramatic turning point in American history. Americans had never had a president who made such eloquent speeches, who was so young and handsome, and who had such a beautiful, classy wife and family. In Europe there were royal families but Americans had never had a family like the Kennedys, who created a kind of "Camelot" in the White House. JFK talked tough to the Soviets as to the Cold War and he also "…made [Americans] dream of walking on the moon and equal rights for all" (History Since 1945). In other words, the charming, well-spoken president brought a dramatic change in leadership style from President Eisenhower and Truman, who preceded him. "Ask not, what your country can do for you," Kennedy said during his inauguration, "…ask what you can do for your country"; this set a new tone, and was a turning point in politics.
Hence, when Kennedy was assassinated, after having set a new tone and having given the American people the confidence that a bright, intelligent, younger man was in charge, it was another major turning point in American history. Lyndon Johnson was gruff, pushy and his Texas drawl was in sharp contrast to Kennedy's East Coast, Boston-sounding accent. Their personalities were at opposite ends of the spectrum. This turning point brought into focus the fact that "…tragedy could strike in even seemingly perfect situations"; the assassination left Americans with a sense of "uncertainty" and sadness (History Since 1945).
Another way of looking at the turning point following Kennedy's demise is to note that Kennedy's specific brand of liberalism played well with Americans because "…20th century liberalism had tended to see history as a steady march of progress" (Lowry, 2007). After the assassination that march of progress was "interrupted by the country's own pathologies"; and the national sense of loss came "…to define the new liberalism" (Lowry, p. 1).
Why were events immediately preceding the turning point necessary and essential in preparing for the turning point?
I'm not sure what events "immediately preceding the turning point" are appropriate for this answer, but the Ambassador to the United Nations, Adlai Stevenson (appointed by Kennedy) had traveled to Texas for a speech on United Nations Day (Oct. 24, 1063) and was treated very rudely. In fact Stevenson was "…heckled, booed, spat upon and hit over the head with a cardboard sign" (Driscoll, 2007). After his treatment Stevenson said there was a "spirit of madness" in Texas, and Kennedy's staff recommended that he should not go to Texas. Certainly there were staff members who did not want him to ride in an open convertible; but meanwhile the terrible treatment of the U.S. Ambassador to the UN in Texas was an event before the turning point that can now be seen as a foreshadowing of what was to happen to the president in Texas.
What subsequent event or events were dependent on the action of the turning point; and what possible event or events became impossible because of the turning point?
You’re 71% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.