The memoir of Mimi Alford, in which she details her affair as a White House intern with President John F. Kennedy, reopens an intriguing question about that president. I am one who thinks he was a talented president who would probably not have made the errors his successor did in Indochina.
President Kennedy, as Richard Nixon said at the time, did hand over Laos to "communism on the installment plan" in 1962 and confirm its status as the Ho Chi Minh Trail superhighway for the invasion of South Vietnam by the North. But having done so, and with his experience of the failings of judgment of the joint chiefs in the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961, he would probably have been more cautious than President Johnson was about plunging into that conflict.
President Kennedy showed superior intuition in the Cuba Missile Crisis of 1962, when he rightly suspected that U.S. intelligence did not have the whole story. Contrary to the relentlessly peddled fable of a strategic triumph achieved through a critical path of scientifically calibrated response, leading to the rubbish about the "Best and the Brightest," (who gave us Vietnam for an encore), Kennedy traded long-deployed NATO missiles in Greece and Turkey, against the wishes of those countries, for non-deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba and threw in a promise not to invade Cuba.
This was no great victory, but unknown to the CIA, there were 40,000 Russian troops in Cuba, battlefield nuclear weapons in place which could have hit invasion landing sights, and the warheads for the intermediate-range missiles that could have reached the southeastern U.S. were in-country and could be installed very quickly. An invasion of Cuba would have been a much more complicated and dangerous business than the hawks in the president's inner circle who advocated it imagined. Kennedy sensed this and acted prudently.
He was internationally popular, with leaders such as Charles de Gaulle, Harold MacMillan, and Konrad Adenauer, and with the vast public, from West Berlin to Mexico City. And though he came late to the virtues of civil rights and lower taxes, and needed his successor to get these measures through, still he came, and showed the way. They were the most successful public policy initiatives of the 60s. He was a man for his times, cruelly removed from them. In retrospect, the four presidencies of Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy, 1933-1963, look like something of a golden age of the presidency, like the adoptive Roman emperors of the second century, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius.
Kennedy was a charming, interesting, and capable president. The vagaries of his sex life don't have any bearing on his historic standing as a president, but they can raise the eyebrows even of the well-disposed. Americans are by now familiar with the phenomenon of a president being sexually intimate with a teenage female intern in the White House, and JFK's peccadilloes were long ago seen in their rightful dimensions as evidence of satyriasis.
Many of the presidents have had extra-marital arrangements, and some, such as Thomas Jefferson, siring seven children with his comely slave and intimate of 38 years, Sally Hemmings (and the author of the Declaration of Independence didn't get around to emancipating his slaves even in his will), are a good deal more controversial than JFK's antics. No one knows what goes on in someone else's marriage and it is not for others to judge. It is further to President Kennedy's credit that his paramours, allegedly including Marilyn Monroe, Angie Dickinson, Judith Campbell Exner (whom he shared with Mafia leader Sam Giancana), and many others, were closed-mouthed adults; all the players, including Ms. Alford and Mrs. Kennedy, behaved with commendable discretion.
But for the president of the U.S. to take this intern around with him, to hide her from view in his car as he went to meet the British prime minister, and to be titillated by inducing her to perform oral sex on one of his aides for his own viewing pleasure, is insalubrious and even neurotic. It is already well-known that he claimed to have headaches if he went without sexual intercourse for more than a day; that he regularly worked that activity into on-job visits, as with Marlene Dietrich (after she told him she had done it with his father); and prepared for the great debates with Richard Nixon in 1960 by being serviced by paid providers rounded up by his entourage a few hours before each debate, (while his diligent opponent poured through the dossiers one last time).
Though it is not optimal, I have no problem with any of this, and at an obvious, if slightly feral level, it is impressive. But telling an intern whose principal function was pleasuring the leader of the country to give head to an aide so the president could become the chief voyeur of the nation, gives me, a JFK admirer through all the years, pause.
Again, this seems not to have affected his performance as president and it is all of a piece of what we know of this strange marriage. (Late on election night, 1960, as the result was uncertain, Jackie drifted into the room and after watching for a couple of minutes, detachedly asked, as if inquiring whether he would be sailing the next day: "Bunny, does this mean that you're the president?")
Dwight Eisenhower's war-time companion, his driver, Kay Summersby, wrote after Ike had died that in their relations, he was practically impotent, a point with which the general's son, John Eisenhower, self-interestedly took issue. There has been intense but unsatisfiable curiosity about the extent of Franklin D. Roosevelt's sexual activity with women other than Eleanor (who was relieved to be done with it) after the onset of his polio in 1921, though the medical record of his continuing sexual capacity is unambiguous. No one will ever know, though his great love, Lucy Mercer Rutherfurd, claimed to be satisfied after he died that she was the only woman with whom he had had extra-marital sex.
While the glamorous congresswoman and actress Helen Gahagan Douglas, was being pilloried by Congressman Richard Nixon, (after she called him "Tricky Dick"), as "pink down to her underwear" (going with dexterity for the Red Scare and mens' locker room votes in the same swinging stroke), she was living with Senator Lyndon Johnson (the man who would know if Nixon's charge was correct).
The takeaway message is that most of what has been known historically as "the character issue" about presidents and presidential candidates is irrelevant, unless it is a disposition to discard the Constitution and try to rule dictatorially, which no president has attempted. That was the only failing that seriously concerned the principal authors of the Constitution. The attempted impeachments of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton should never have occurred, inept, neurotic, and tawdry, respectively, though the conduct objected to was.
It doesn't matter what the president's sex-life is and public concerns on the subject are rubbish. Nelson Rockefeller was almost defeated running for a third term as governor of New York in 1966 because he had had a divorce and remarried. If Monica Lewinsky had been as discreet as Ms. Alford, Mr. and Mrs. Clinton's and the nation's life would have been simpler and more serene. If Ms. Alford had gone public with JFK's antics and had the corroborative equivalent of the blue dress, she could have ruined his career. The behaviour of our leaders won't become more virtuous, but perhaps the country is becoming more worldly.
And if American public sensibilities are now less fragile on the subject of oral sex, it is a small step forward for the opponents of priggishness and hypocrisy, as most people of age enjoy it, and it is much less complicated, politically and otherwise, than the real thing.
Gina Barreca: Book Details President Lincoln Intern Scandal
Nancy Wurtzel: Grandma, Tell Me About the Time You Slept With the President
Myra Chanin: Mimi Alford's Hymen Sacrificed on the Altar of History
Mimi Alford, JFK Affair: Six Other Alleged Mistresses
Chris Matthews On Mimi Alford JFK Affair: 'I Really Believe Her Story ...
Mimi Alford tells of her secret affair with JFK - Telegraph
Mimi Alford: The day JFK took my virginity in his wife's White House ...
If a man will lie to his wife, I don't believe he'll hesitate to lie to the citizens of this country... and while cheating is bad enough, I really can't tolerate a liar.
The problem with our political system is that in order to get to be president of this country, you have to talk to every faction of voters - and that often requires one to 'bend' the actual truth a bit, in attempt to keep everyone happy, so I guess that truth is never really going to be something to expect from a president.
There have been several really truthful guys running for president over the years, but to the best of my memory I can't remember any president named Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul. I may not agree that much with either of those guys, but they gave me the impression that they were not liars. Unfortunately, they were also not electable.
Or have a wife that accepts the philandering. Is that so hard for you to consider that you overlook it?
Cheers
That being said, in comparison, Clinton's impeachment was frivolous and a waste of money and time. The truth is, the Republicans had been on a witch hunt regarding Clinton since well before he took office, and unfortunately, he stepped in it. He did what most people do when they are caught in an act of sexual indiscretion. He lied about it, and that technically may have been perjury. However, the act itself didn't mean squat about his effectiveness as a president, nor did it with JFK. I pretty much don't give a damn what the President does in private, I care about what kind of quality job he does in office, and JFK and Clinton (while not perfect in presidential decisions) were very good presidents, and that is that.
In the same vein, (Oh, God, sorry about the pun!), I think it's a shame Elliot Spitzer ran into trouble, because he is brilliant and is a very effective leader.
Read Mimi Alford's views.
There are always willing partners for men/women in power, in politics, business, the arts.
Referring to the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton as "attempted impeachments" is like referring to the events of November 22, 1963 as an "assassination attempt". Just as JFK was in fact assassinated on that date, both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were in fact impeached in 1868 and 1998, respectively.
"Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature that allows for formal charges against a civil officer of government for crimes committed in office. The actual trial on those charges, and subsequent removal of an official on conviction on those charges, is separate from the act of impeachment itself." (per Wikipedia)
While Johnson and Clinton were in fact impeached, subsequent actions to have them removed from office were unsuccessful.
With respect to Richard Nixon, articles of impeachment were drawn up against him but he resigned before the House could consider them. He was eventually pardoned by Gerald Ford.
I can't speak to Andrew Johnson, but Nixon's was deserved and Clinton's was frivolously based on partisan politics.
As to the question of whether or not the public should be aware of politician's sex lives, I think it
was Jesse Ventura who summed it up best by suggesting that no, the public should not be aware
of candidates sex lives unless they were running on a Family Values ticket.
(Ha, Ha....Too Funny)