The keepers of the Kennedy flame weren't shocked at all. The release of that information was carefully engineered. It is a national SCANDAL how the material in the TAX SUPPORTED Kennedy library is being hoarded and kept away from serious historians.
opinionjournal.com
Stop the Worship
The Kennedy cult does a disservice to history.
BY THOMAS C. REEVES
Sunday, December 29, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST
With the stampede over revelations about John F. Kennedy's medical problems now a memory from several weeks ago, this veteran historian would like to make some sober observations. Many journalists seemed to be encountering this issue for the first time. JFK was sickly? He was dependent on drugs? This was news?!
In fact, historians have long known in some detail about Kennedy's poor health, and of the fact that he, his wife and several aides were routinely taking amphetamines administered by a quack physician. That the White House physician, Dr. Janet Travell, gave him injections of procaine for his pain is old news. So is the coverup by Kennedy aides, family members and sympathetic historians, who claimed that JFK was the embodiment of the vigor and action needed by the country after the allegedly sleepy and feeble Eisenhower administration.
However, I did not see a single story on the medication flap that linked the medical coverup with the sexual-escapade coverup, documented, among other places, in my "A Question of Character: A Life of John F. Kennedy," and by Seymour Hersh's highly revealing interviews with Secret Service agents in "The Dark Side of Camelot." The truth is that no other presidential administration can begin to compete with this record of recklessness and deceit. Bill Clinton, bad as he was, was no match for JFK.
The information published in The Atlantic Monthly was provided by Kennedy special counsel, ghostwriter, and hagiographer Ted Sorensen to Robert Dallek, a much-published historian who spent 30 years at UCLA and now teaches at Boston University. Why now? And why Mr. Dallek?
The tax-supported Kennedy Library is the only presidential library that has a system of "donor committees," permitting the Kennedy family and its minions to control information. Many historians have been denied access to the president's medical records, and a great many other records as well. Disinterested historians have long known that the library is, above all, a shrine. Mr. Dallek persuaded the powers that be, in this case apparently acting through Mr. Sorensen, that he is "safe." The former told me in a private conversation not long ago that he is "trusted." (In an Atlantic interview available on the Internet, however, he claims that "the passage of time" was responsible for his good fortune.) Thus he was permitted to be the first "outsider" to see, but not copy, the medical records long hidden from others. He is now writing a book on foreign relations and has been given access to untold thousands of other documents historians have not seen.
Why do the Kennedy defenders who control the papers trust Mr. Dallek? Mr. Sorensen has said publicly that the historian was chosen in part for "his tremendous reputation." In fact, for years, Mr. Dallek has been an outspoken family fan. I was astounded to hear his almost unqualified praises of JFK and the Kennedy family on the C-Span presidential series. (C-Span reluctantly gave me 20 minutes of the some two hours of programming to attempt to present the other side.) I do not question Mr. Dallek's sincerity or integrity. But the point must be made that he has been approved by the inner ring in control of the Kennedy papers. These partisans are apparently convinced that his book on JFK, the first of at least two, will follow the "Camelot" line established by Mr. Sorensen and historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
The thinking of the inner ring appears to have been that the controversial medical information hidden in the Kennedy Library might become available one day (the speculations about Kennedy's health were becoming stronger, and documents outside the library were emerging), so better that it be given to a trusted historian than, as Mr. Sorensen put it, "to any Tom, Dick or Harry" who might wish to exploit it. Moreover, a physician who studied the documents before Mr. Dallek was of the opinion that the materials would make JFK appear heroic. Indeed, in the right hands.
The thesis that has already emerged from Mr. Dallek, in his writing and in his Internet interview, is that Kennedy's illnesses and medication show determination and courage above all. He extols "the quiet stoicism of a [president] struggling to endure extraordinary pain. . . . Does this not also speak to his character, but in a more complex way?" He also contends that the already-documented promiscuity, which the most ardent Kennedy sycophants still deny, matters little if at all. The president, despite all, was brilliant, epic and tough. That's exactly, of course, what the Kennedys and their agents want to hear. In my judgment, this interpretation is far from the truth.
When I asked Mr. Dallek if others will have access to materials he has been and will be given, he replied, "No, not necessarily." So there will apparently be no way to check his footnotes or to study the presidential documents for alternative interpretations. I think this is scandalous. A way should be found, perhaps through the power of the purse, to force the Kennedy Library to open its vast holdings to all qualified scholars. The director of the Gerald Ford Library told me that nothing has been hidden in the institution he heads. Shouldn't that be the policy for all presidential libraries? I may be wrong about the Kennedys and Mr. Dallek may be right.
But would the best way to find out not be to open the files for all to see? Yes, even Tom, Dick and Harry.
Mr. Reeves is the author, most recently, of "America's Bishop: The Life and Times of Fulton J. Sheen" (Encounter, 2001). |
