I realize that there are Liberal thinkers and scholars with far more egalitarian and broadly sympathetic views and ideas than EK had or applied. Then there are also Liberals of the type such as Alexander Cockburn that to my great consternation never fails to apply the shock factor, for instance, to skewer EK in the harshest terms as he has just done, while at the same time offering great plaudits to Robert Novak, going as far as describing his exposure of Valerie Plame's identity as the watershed moment of his journalistic career. I will honestly never understand the Liberal/Progressive/Left Wing views of Cockburn in that sometimes it is truly difficult to reconcile his aggressive positions w.r.t. decent (if flawed) Liberals, while offering favorable booms to someone (such as Novak) whose war-mongering positions, in my view, contributed further to the genocide in Iraq by emboldening the Bushco mafia. At times, I do not see this pattern as being objective, as some might argue, but more sensational.
So EK never became President, and if he had, we will never know if he might have met the same brutal fate as his two gifted brothers before him. We will likewise never know if he would pursue the same aggressive, often genocidal foreign policy with corporate imperialism that has defined most American Presidents. What I would conjecture is that EK would at least generate the kind of love and admiration around the world that was an easy arena for his illustrious brothers. In a world so lacking in goodwill, that alone is an amazing starting point for the leader of a mighty, Goliath nation that can destroy far more readily than it can rebuild or nurture.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
