However hypothetical the question is, it is worth considering what kind of a world we would live in if John F. Kennedy had served two terms as American President. If we take for granted that he would have been re-elected, which he surely would have been, how would his reign have affected today’s world. Much has been written about how he was killed and who was involved, but the real important questions are left out. There is, however, one thing that must be taken into consideration when thinking about how the world would be had JFK served two terms and that is the state of Cuba. It is quite likely that America under Kennedy would have stepped up its efforts to overthrow Castro. So the question I ask is thus: Would it be worth sacrificing Castro’s Cuba for the world we would have if Kennedy had served 8 years?

There are many ways in which a two-term Kennedy administration would have left its mark on the world, however I will concentrate on what I feel are the four main areas:
- Latin America
- Vietnam
- Relations with the Soviet Union, nuclear disarmament and world peace
- Race Relations and Civil Rights

The condition of Latin America is probably the most open-to-discussion point. Today, Latin America is still in turmoil. For example, in Bolivia the infant mortality rate is at 54.58, the GDP growth rate sits at 2.5% as it has more or less since 1999, unemployment affects 11.7% of the population and around 70% still live below the poverty line. In Colombia, though conditions are slightly better, they are still unacceptable. The infant mortality rate is at 22.27, GDP is at 3.3%, 55% live below the poverty line and 14.9% are unemployed. These are just two examples of countries in turmoil, and the likes of Peru, Chile, Brazil and Mexico present much the same picture. It is my argument that had JFK served two terms, the picture would be much different. It’s arguable, but Latin America has hardly improved since the sixties when Generals and conmen ran the continent. Kennedy’s well-known plan for Latin America, the Alianza Para Progreso (Alliance for Progress) would’ve seen Latin America develop at a much quicker rate and in it’s own way. Though the plan wanted to extend the values of American civilization to the countries of the region, the Alliance for Progress was to encourage free, but fair, trade alongside the promotion of more diplomatic governments which worked to improve the lives of the millions of impoverished people of the region. Kennedy also openly said that he would, “…deny the right of any state to impose its will on any other”. This is a clearly defiant plan against the dollar diplomacy which was carried out by his predecessors and which has continued under subsequent Presidents. Education and housing programmes were set up by the Kennedy administration in an intensive effort to industrialize the economies of Latin America. In March 1962, Kennedy announced that the industrialization effort was to be backed up with $3 billion from 1963-1966 along with the billions more which was committed by the Latin American nations themselves. This aid was being accepted without any loss of dignity. The industrialization of Latin America would lead them away from being the banana republics which they remain today and would also have lead them away from monopoly control from the likes of the United Fruit Company, whose exploitation continued for years after.

But this was no grand plan to create another United States of Latin America. Kennedy rationalism was clear throughout his promotion of this plan. He made no propaganda-fuelled speeches about revolutionising Latin America; he merely wanted to improve the basic living for all people. He simply wanted a, “…hemisphere where every man has enough to eat and a chance to work, where every child can learn and every family can find decent shelter.” In an interview with the Inter-American press association, he also stated that his hope was, “…for a hemisphere where every man, from the American Negro to the Indian of the Altiplano, can be liberated from the bonds of social injustice, free to pursue his talents as far as they will take him and allowed to participate in the fruits of progress”. He also rubbished the attitudes of many Republicans of the time by declaring that, “These problems, the hard reality of life in much of Latin America, will not be solved simply by complaints about Castro, by blaming all problems on Communism or Generals or Nationalism.” To me, this says Kennedy was willing to work alongside governments of all sorts to allow for the mass progression of Latin American people. This whole plan, the Alliance for Progress, was the most revolutionary plan any American President had set out for the impoverished masses of Latin America. Although Kennedy set aside a lot of money to help the programme through, he always stressed that the Alliance would not dictate to any nation how it must organize it’s development, so long as regular reports were made to show that the money wasn’t being used improperly. There was one problem with the Alliance for Progress and that was the fact that private enterprise had a very important place in the funding. Due to there not being anywhere near enough public capital to revolutionise these countries, a lot of private money had to flow. This could mean that even though Kennedy ensured there would be no dollar diplomacy on the part of the government, the companies may have used monopolies to exploit the progress. This would all depend on how much control Kennedy enforced over these private companies who were helping with the financial aid. Unfortunately, we would never know what sort of control Kennedy would have insisted on having over these companies due to the events of November 22nd 1963.

Upon Lyndon Johnson’s succession to the Presidency, the aid to Latin America was cut, probably to fund the increased effort in Vietnam. Johnson did not speak much about the Alliance for Progress and it’s aims were thrown out of the window due to the wrong people being allowed into power in the countries of Latin America. Had Kennedy been in power for 8 years, pushing and promoting the Alliance, I would argue that by 1970, the people of Latin America would be better off than they are even now. Drug trafficking would be cut, the numbers below the poverty line would be miniscule in comparison to the aforementioned figures, disease and unemployment, due to the natural progression, would have shrunk as the years went by. The likelihood that there would have been more Kennedy-like Presidents and administrations in the years following his hypothetical 8 years is very high and, therefore, the plan would have been implemented for years to come.

One thing always high on the Kennedy debate is Vietnam. Unlike the discussion on Latin America, there is not much debate about Vietnam. Kennedy openly followed plans to half the numbers of US troops in Vietnam by 1964 and wanted all US troops out by 1968. The fact that Lyndon Johnson DOUBLED the number of troops in Vietnam just a month after he succeeded Kennedy not only raises suspicions about the nature of JFK’s death, but also proves that Vietnam would not be remembered in anything like the same way it is now. The amount of deaths that would have been avoided cannot even be estimated and the chaos that erupted in Vietnam in the years after Kennedy, as well as they years after Kennedy planned to withdraw, defined an age in world history. This would have all been avoided with two Kennedy terms. Kennedy said once, in a private recording, “To achieve peace in that unstable region, we must not unleash our weapons of war. A withdrawal of troops is essential and diplomatic and rational negotiations must take place to ensure the welfare of those people living in chaos.” I believe this leaves no more to be said on the matter.

The biggest event of Kennedy’s reign was obviously the debacle that erupted between America and the Soviet Union on the soil of Cuba. Relations with the Soviet Union were a very big issue and continued to be until it’s eventual collapse in the late 80’s. The nuclear arms race got way out of hand during Kennedy’s reign and he often commented on how the problems needed to end. However, there is no clear evidence that anything was done to stop nuclear testing. He would often use the excuse that America is continuing it’s testing because intelligence had evidence that the Soviets were secretly carrying out tests too. Though I am a great admirer of JFK and believe he genuinely wanted peace between the two polarized nations along with an end to the nuclear arms race, I do think that not enough was done on America’s part to stop it escalating out of control. The fact that it took an event like the Cuban Missile Crisis to stop the turmoil shows that not enough was done by either side. However, Kennedy spoke about dreams for world peace and this leads me to believe that it was those below him, namely RFK, who had a lot of influence on things. Kennedy spoke of peaceful coexistence between the Soviets and Americans. He, on more than one occasion, described the Soviets as a “basic common link” and called on Americans to re-examine their attitudes towards the Soviet Union. In a Soviet-friendly speech, Kennedy once said, “We should hail the Russian people for their many achievements – in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and acts of courage”. It was also Kennedy’s resoluteness which helped end the Cuban Missile Crisis and his famous “What kind of a peace do we want?” speech proves that he was committed to world peace. An extract of that speech is the only way to best express Kennedy’s vision:

“What kind of a peace do I mean? What kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave of the security of the slave. I am talking about a genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living. The kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children – not merely peace in our time, but peace for all time.”

Had JFK served two terms, relations with the Soviet Union would probably have been a lot better by 1970. As it was the isolation of the USSR that led to its collapse, Socialism may well be in a much better position today. I’m not arguing that the Soviet Union would still exist, but I would argue that Socialism in the world would be much more well respected and not so fragmented as it is now.

Finally, an issue that Kennedy concentrated heavily on was Civil Rights. The battle for Civil Rights reached its peak in the 60’s and Kennedy was one of the most progressive Presidents ever on the issue even for his short reign. He worked closely with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and tried to sympathise with Malcolm X and his struggle only to have his efforts quashed. There is no doubt that blacks and other ethnic minorities would be much better off today had Kennedy had his opportunity to change things more. During his short reign, Kennedy implemented such plans as the President’s Committee on Equal Opportunity in Housing and the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity. He helped Negroes get housing that was owned by federal government or financed through federal assistance. Prior to his plans, blacks would frequently be denied housing on racial grounds. The Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity was set up by Kennedy to ensure Negroes got a fairer chance in employment and were not denied their right to work just because of their race. He also rigorously followed plans to end school and university desegregation completely and had his plans been achieved in his 8 years, further finer tuning of the education system would have made it a lot better today than it is, giving all people of all races and backgrounds a fairer chance from day one. JFK also aided the push for equal franchise rights for Negroes. Although blacks could vote, they would still be intimidated and sometimes measures would be taken to ensure their votes weren’t counted. Kennedy fought hard to end such actions and began using the Justice Department to intervene when such instances occurred. This use of the highest Justice courts to ensure equality for blacks was dropped upon the succession of Lyndon Johnson. Kennedy devoted a lot of time, money and effort to the advancement of black people in this turbulent time for them in America. Should he have served 8 years, many of his plans would be completed and, again, I would argue that by 1970, blacks would be better off than they are today, when they are still rounded up in the ghettoes in a similar, but more subtle, way to the Jews of Eastern Europe in the disgraceful Nazi era. The education in these areas is so poor that black people have literally no chance of advancing out of the poverty they currently reside in. The placement of gun stores and liquor stores in many of the ghettoes in America is, in my opinion, not a coincidence. Kennedy’s plan to make legal cuts on the ability to sell guns in such areas would’ve seen a drastic change to the “black” ghettoes and the gun problems which riddle them to this day would be a lot less disturbing.

The argument I present is therefore that had John F. Kennedy been allowed to serve two terms in government, the world we live in today would be a lot more peaceful, a lot more fair and people would be living in much better conditions in the most impoverished parts of the world. Whether or not Cuba would have been a sacrifice had JFK served 8 years is debatable, but if we take it as a given that Castro would have been overthrown, would the world we would be living in be worth that sacrifice? If we look at some of the major events in world history since JFK, can we say they would not have happened? For some, I think the answer is yes. No Watergate. No Korean War. No world recessions. No religious extremism – the hatred expressed by American governments has just bred such hate across the world. Fairer trade in Africa and Latin America. No Israel-Palestine conflict – or at least no conflict so troubling. No Iraq. Nowhere near as much Latin American poverty.

Maybe more importantly, no Lyndon B. Johnson. No Ronald Reagan. No Richard Nixon. No George H.W. Bush. No George W. Bush.

The world in 2005 would be shaped so drastically different that it is hard to imagine. The ideals of many more people would be shaped on the basic principles of human coexistence as set out by John Kennedy, “We all inhabit this Earth. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.” Somewhere along the line from the 22nd November 1963, those values have been lost.