"You have had presidential candidates over the last 30 years who would have had a very hard time getting nominated under the old system. One example is John Kennedy"
About this Quote
Beschloss is doing something historians do best: using a single, almost mischievous example to puncture a story Americans like to tell about their politics. The surface claim is procedural - that “the old system” of party nominations (smoke-filled rooms, boss control, elite gatekeeping) functioned as a filter that today’s primary-driven process no longer provides. But the real move is cultural: he’s quietly challenging the comforting assumption that democratizing nominations automatically produces “better” candidates.
Invoking John Kennedy is the point, and it’s a provocation. Kennedy is now embalmed in civic myth as the glamorous ideal of modern presidential leadership. By suggesting JFK might not have survived the earlier party machinery, Beschloss forces readers to see how contingent “inevitability” is. The subtext isn’t that Kennedy was unqualified; it’s that his profile - youth, Catholicism, media-driven charisma, a different kind of coalition - depended on a political environment where mass persuasion could overpower insider skepticism. In other words, the mechanisms of legitimacy shifted: from party elders certifying a candidate’s acceptability to voters performing that certification themselves.
The context is the post-reform era of nominations, especially after 1968, when parties ceded power to primaries and caucuses. Beschloss is weighing trade-offs, not nostalgically pining for bosses. His intent is diagnostic: when we argue about “unelectable” outsiders or unvetted celebrities today, we’re really arguing about who gets to define risk, and what we think the party is for - a democratic vehicle, or a quality-control institution.
Invoking John Kennedy is the point, and it’s a provocation. Kennedy is now embalmed in civic myth as the glamorous ideal of modern presidential leadership. By suggesting JFK might not have survived the earlier party machinery, Beschloss forces readers to see how contingent “inevitability” is. The subtext isn’t that Kennedy was unqualified; it’s that his profile - youth, Catholicism, media-driven charisma, a different kind of coalition - depended on a political environment where mass persuasion could overpower insider skepticism. In other words, the mechanisms of legitimacy shifted: from party elders certifying a candidate’s acceptability to voters performing that certification themselves.
The context is the post-reform era of nominations, especially after 1968, when parties ceded power to primaries and caucuses. Beschloss is weighing trade-offs, not nostalgically pining for bosses. His intent is diagnostic: when we argue about “unelectable” outsiders or unvetted celebrities today, we’re really arguing about who gets to define risk, and what we think the party is for - a democratic vehicle, or a quality-control institution.
Quote Details
| Topic | Leadership |
|---|
More Quotes by Michael
Add to List
