John F. Kennedy used his inaugural address to encourage Americans, their allies and even their enemies to come together around shared ideals. Kennedy, who came from a prominent Catholic, Bostonian family, understood the importance of religion and tradition to his American audience and he used this knowledge to his advantage, rooting his speech in America’s history and tying it to providence. Among the most significant groups Kennedy addressed were American citizens and politicians, old allies, new states, struggling states, “sister republics”, America’s enemies and clergymen.
Kennedy’s main point is that America and the world have the power to strengthen or to destroy mankind. They should, he says, strengthen it by pursuing human rights and liberty. Among the keywords that are helpful in understanding the purpose of Kennedy’s address are the following: loyalty, support, cooperation, alliance. Each of these words stresses cooperation and unity.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Understanding JFK’s Inaugural Address".
Kennedy makes several pledges to this end. First, he pledges to every nation that America will pay any price to make sure that liberty survives. Next, He pledges to America’s traditional allies that the nation will be loyal to them. After this, he pledges to new states, hoping to become democratic, that America will not allow one form of tyranny to be replaced by another and, finally, he pledges to help struggling nations who are hoping to “break the bonds of mass misery” that the United States will help them become free.
Kennedy’s speech can be divided into the following sections: historical context, pledges for the future, praise for cooperation, warnings for enemies, call to unity. In his “call to unity” in particular, Kennedy urges Americans work to further the causes of liberty instead of self-interest. He believes that America is particularly responsible for furthering the cause of liberty, but that it is God who grants men their rights. He tells Americans not to forget their heritage and to remember that their forefathers fought to ensure that they would have their liberty.
Kennedy’s essay is extremely effective. It is inspiring because of its positivity and credible because of Kennedy’s knowledge of history. On the other hand, Kennedy does not really develop his thesis well. He suggests that man has the power to destroy mankind, but he never really expounds on this idea. His emotional appeals are strong and many of his words would have reminded people of horrors they would hope to avoid, “Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors,” he declares, evoking memories of Hitler’s use of science to commit acts of terror. Yet most of his argument is based on feeling rather than data.
Nevertheless, Kennedy’s speech is compelling. This is largely because he helps his audience understand that they can be part of something bigger than themselves and that this thing they can be a part of is noble and moral. I think the reason that this is compelling is that people have a strong desire to be with others and to interact with them and that they also have a strong desire to do something that is morally right. Kennedy’s speech is also appealing because of his use of alliteration. The way his words sound makes them easy to listen to and inspiring.
Kennedy’s critics might have questioned his desire to cooperate with enemy nations. Someone like General Patton might have considered these enemies incapable of cooperating and would have pushed Kennedy towards more hostility, rather than less. Kennedy could easily have pointed to instances in history where former enemies had become allies. England, for instance, which was America’s enemy during the American Revolution, quickly became one of America’s greatest allies.
If I were Kennedy, I would have given more concrete examples of the dangers America and the world faced if they did not stand up for those fighting for liberty. I would have highlighted some of the horrors of the Nazi and Communist regimes. If I could have asked Kennedy three questions, I would have asked him what individual citizens could do to help the cause of liberty. I would also have asked him how he planned to work with Cuba to fight for liberty. Finally, I would have asked him if he believe America’s enemies were inclined to accept his invitation to work with him toward securing liberty.
If I had written his speech, I might have taken a more pessimistic view, leaving out hope for cooperation with America’s enemies. They would not prove to be fond of collaboration until later. On the other hand, increased cooperation in recent days seems to show that Kennedy’s view was an accurate one.
