Among the many ludicrous JFK theories offered by under-informed writers, George Will’s stands out. In yesterday’s Washington Post, the conservative pundit writes:
“The bullets of Nov. 22, 1963, altered the nation’s trajectory less by killing a president than by giving birth to a destructive narrative about America.”
Will wants you to believe that the murder of a liberal president under circumstances that the government has never explained to the satisfaction of the majority of its citizens is less important than the fact some liberals criticized the right-wing extremists who used hateful rhetoric toward the slain president.
This is a strange claim: Killing the president didn’t change the country as much as the rhetorical transgressions of New York Times editorial writers.
As a species of JFK denialism, this is rich.
JFK denialism is the phenomenon in which a person displays a refusal or inability to acknowledge some or all of the evidence of JFK’s assassination.
In historian Robert Dallek, JFK denialism manifests itself when, in contravention of his long career of distinguished scholarship, he oddly decided to do no original research on the circumstances in which JFK died.
For Will, JFK’s denialism is manifested in the bizarre claim that JFK’s assassination was relatively unimportant.