English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

In American history now there is a great debate about 1968 being a watershed year. Some advance if Bobby Kennedy would have been successful in becoming President of the USA that year a whole different turn of events would have transpired. America would have gotten out of Vietnam without as much generational strife, and they would have led the world in not only a national health care programme, but a real moral agenda. There would have been more emphasis about eradicating poverty in the western world, and race relations would have turned for the better. Again, many historians say 1968 was a watershed year, and Bobby Kennedy could have turned the 1960s into a progressive 1970s, instead of the regressive decade it became. The regressive 1980s would never have happened. There would have been no Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan, and instead our societies would have progressed further than what we can comprehend today.

Do you agree?

2007-11-01 14:01:30 · 5 answers · asked by Rita K 1 in Arts & Humanities History

5 answers

It's a lovely hypothesis but just as the prime minister in the UK, presidents don't make that much difference, the world is run by men in grey suits, they hold the real strings of power. The idea that a president could change the world so radically is nothing more than a fairy tale.

2007-11-01 14:25:10 · answer #1 · answered by MrClegg 4 · 0 0

It is not true. The Kennedys were a rapacious lot knee-deep in corruption. Jack Kennedy got the USA into Vietnam. Bobby was quite possibly the murderer of Marilyn Monroe and didn't give a toss about civil rights.

2007-11-01 18:37:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

One the only hand, he had the call acceptance of being a "Kennedy'. yet, the country had had 8 years of a Democrat and there turned right into a foul conflict occurring that human beings did not like, so as that they were searching for replace. merely seem at our very last election. i imagine it would were close, yet that contained sooner or later, Nixon would have gained by technique of a narrow margin. maximum all of us isn't partisan, and in easy words seem on the actual undeniable actuality that the superb 8 years changed into one party and it did not seem so good, so enable's replace the party in workplace and see what takes position. you also favor to remeber that Nixon changed into re-elected in 1972, so a lot of folk must have beloved something about him. And, for sure, no human being knew Watergate changed into going to ensue on the on the spot.

2016-10-23 06:04:25 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

You live in a country that assinates Kennedys and votes for Bushes-you only have your countrymen to blame.
Of course it would have been better.

2007-11-01 14:16:31 · answer #4 · answered by johnstonemac 6 · 0 0

I don't think anyone can know the answer to that sort of question.
It's rare for one man to make that much difference.

2007-11-01 19:49:11 · answer #5 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers