Politics & Power Quote by Michael Beschloss

There is a quiet provocation in Beschloss's point: the very people who knew Kennedy best would have been the ones most likely to stop him. That flips the usual civics fable - that insider experience is an obvious credential - into a warning about how parties used to function as gatekeeping machines. Under the old convention system, nominations were brokered by bosses, committee chairs, and delegations steeped in Washington memory. Familiarity didn't breed confidence; it bred dossiers.

The intent is less to relitigate 1960 than to expose what reforms changed. Kennedy's rise depended on a nominating process that could be influenced by voters, television, and momentum - forces that reward narrative, charisma, and the ability to look "presidential" at a distance. In contrast, the smoke-filled model rewarded relationships, debts, and risk-aversion. People "who had worked with him" would have had granular reasons to distrust him: perceived opportunism, the complications of his family, health rumors, ideological ambiguity, or simply resentment that a young senator was skipping the line.

The subtext is uncomfortable for both romantics and reformers. If the old system could block a figure who became iconic, it suggests parties once filtered for consensus rather than inspiration. If the new system could elevate Kennedy despite insider skepticism, it suggests democratization can also be a workaround for elite alarm bells. Beschloss is really describing a trade: less insider veto power, more mass-mediated legitimacy - and a different kind of vulnerability.