Mickelson, who ran the gallery. Leftrnhanging for the reader is the question ofrnwhat happened to these photographs.rnWere they destroyed, and if so by whom?rnDid the FBI, which seemed to knowrnmore about JFK than JFK himself, everrnsee them? Did they become part ofrnHoover’s blackmailing of the President?rnDid JFK send copies to the participants,rnmuch as other politicians send picturesrnof themselves greeting Mr. Megabucksrnin the hope that the contribution channelrnwill remain open?rnAll of these stories feature some formrnof criminal conduct, not to mention arngreat deal of stupidity. Yet out of thernmorass came only broad limitations regardingrnassassinations of foreign leadersrnand wiretapping and a gaggle of restrictionsrnplaced on both the FBI and thernCIA, largely as a result of Watergate.rnFew people entered the criminal dock asrna result of having carried water forrnKennedy or members of his family, andrnthose who did were usually victimsrnthemselves of a double-cross. No Americanrnofficial was ever indicted on warrncrimes charges despite a plethora of evidencernof criminal intent to initiate andrnescalate the United States’ involvementrnin the Vietnam War; and today Washingtonrnmaintains its stranglehold on Cubarnby a draconian embargo that owes itsrnlongevity to the fact that the Kennedyrnbrothers not only got their noses rubbedrnin the dirt by Castro but failed in their attemptsrnto kill him off as well. No one didrntime —including Frank Sinatra, whornserved as middleman in establishing thernlink between the Kennedys and the mobrnfor the theft of the 1960 election. Money,rnthe mother’s milk of politics, stillrnflows, with JFK’s Arkansas lookalikernboldly insisting that cash passed underrnthe table from Asian interests constitutesrnno violation of the laws. More importantlyrnthough — and I think this is therncritical point that Americans refuse tornface today —is the fact that, since thernpresidency of John F. Kennedy, the officernhas failed to reform itself Instead, itrnhas become more imperial and arrogant,rnits occupants more trapped in a bunkerrnof their own construction. And we arernthe worse as a nation for it.rnAt least the failure has been bipartisan.rnUnder the elected kings (andrnone appointed one) who succeededrnJohn F. Kennedy, we have endured therncontinued quagmire of Vietnam (LyndonrnJohnson and Richard Nixon); Watergaternand the use of unsavon- charactersrnto spy on and disrupt domestic activitiesrn(Nixon); the Mayaguez incidentrn(Gerald Ford); the taking of U.S. diplomatsrnas hostages by the Iranians and therndisaster resulting from the attempt to rescuernthem (Jimmy Carter); the selling ofrnarms to terrorists to finance counterrevolutionaryrnactivities (Ronald Reagan); andrnthe overthrow of the Panamanian governmentrnand the mass slaughter of Iraqirncivilians (George Bush). In other words,rnall Presidents since Kennedy have feltrnemboldened in some way or another tornemulate him by initiating risky and legallyrndubious operations in the name of nationalrnsecurity, bypassing in the processrnthe checks and balances of the Constitution.rnNixon got caught, and bounced.rnReagan came close to paying dearly forrnIran-Contra. George Bush, the onlyrnPresident who took his military adventurern(against Iraq) to Congress, bought itrnat the polls, in part because he failed tornfinish the job.rnYet the White House, as an institution,rnis more secure than ever. No onerngets far by proposing a single presidentialrnterm; no one seriously considers adoptingrna parliamentar)’ system, in which thernPresident would be the leader of the congressionalrnmajority. No one in Congressrnseriously proposes drastic reductions inrnthe White House budget, or refusals tornpay for what already is budgeted, as inrnthe case of the United Nations. Thernpress, which continues sheepishly to explainrnthat, as recentiy as the Kennedy administration,rnyou simply did not reportrncertain things, now gives us tittle-tattle atrnevery chance. Gary Hart, a bright youngrnman with an attitude, seems to havernbeen the only victim.rnAnd then, of course, came Bubba.rnLiberals fell over themselves proclaimingrnyoung Governor Bill Clinton ofrnArkansas the new JFK when it becamernclear that he was going to capture thernDemocratic nomination in 1992; theirrntask was made considerably easier whenrnClinton, at the convention, produced arnnewsreel from the I960’s showing himrnshaking hands with the martyr himselfrnHow on the mark those people were!rnClinton’s morals are possibly indictable,rnhis policies are suspect, and he has putrnAmericans at risk for even more vacuousrnreasons than most of his predecessorsrnwere willing to accept. He sent Americanrntroops to occupy Haiti and restore arndemocracy that had never existed (andrnstill doesn’t); he introduced Iranian (yes.rnIranian) arms into the civil war inrnBosnia-Herzegovina and, once he hadrntipped the military balance, sent Americanrntroops there to establish what mayrnwell become a never-ending presence inrnthe Balkans. All this, moreover, beforernthe time of his reelection! Clinton, withrnhis finger on the greatest nuclear arsenalrnever assembled, pushes the North AtlanticrnTreaty Organization eastward towardrnthe highly unstable components ofrnthe former Soviet Union, thus threateningrna new arms race.rnJournalists of the stature of Roger Morrisrnand Ambrose Evans-Pritchard havernwritten books exposing Clinton’s sins tornlittle effect, though no one, to judgernfrom conversation down at the local barbershop,rntrusts him for a minute, especiallyrnif their daughters happen to bernaround. His shadowy connection withrnthe CIA and drug-runners has beenrnprobed by Morris, Evans-Pritchard, andrnAlexander Cockburn to no avail, whilernhis best friend and former enforcer at thernJustice Department has served jail timernand is suspected of receiving hush money.rnSo how much book do we want on arnPresident? Not much, apparently, whilernhe is still in office. Which raises the intriguingrnquestion: If we had knownrnabout JFK then what we know about JFKrnnow, would we have elected him Presidentrnin I960? Re-elected him in 1964?rnThat is difficult to say. While Bill Clinton’srnrebound in the polls in the wake ofrnthe breaking Lewinsky scandal may suggestrnthe likely answer, it is more likelyrnthat public indifference is simply thernmeasure of the moral decline of thernAmerican people in the second half ofrnthe 20th century.rnJohn F. Kennedy’s multiple indiscretionsrnwere appalling, no doubt. On policyrnmatters, however, he was only followingrnthrough with a program forrnconcentrated power centered in thernWhite House and subject to little or nornoversight that was begun by FranklinrnRoosevelt and further promoted by presidentsrnTruman and Eisenhower. Onrnmoral matters, look up Warren G. Harding.rnKennedy alone must have felt thatrnhe was up to the job. The legions recruitedrnto build the legend while keepingrntheir lips sealed were released fromrnall obligation on November 22, 1963,rnand they have been building the record,rnin fits and starts, ever since. It is we as arnpeople who have not acted upon thatrnrecord. Perhaps we never will.rn36/CHRONICLESrnrnrn