Just to play Devil's Advocate, it may be better in the long run that trust in politicians is low. When we have overly trusted politicians, as in the 1960s, the results have generally been a disaster.
And a continuing increase in presidential power is not necessarily a good thing either.
I don't think you can assume that a Kennedy administration would have been scandal-free. Maybe, but there are no guarantees. Watergate was very much along the lines of what previous presidents, particularly JFK and LBJ, had done, but it was the climate that tolerated those actions that changed, and made Watergate the scandal that it was.
The greater partisan atmosphere in the wake of Vietnam made opposition parties search for scandals as a way to regain power in a way that they didn't before. Nixon was not unique in his corruption. So I don't think Kennedy would necessarily have been exempt from this mood change, though it may not have been as extreme if he had ended the Vietnam War sooner without a foreign policy disaster.
The fact remains that Kennedy was committed to the idea of fostering dependency on government as a way of fighting poverty, and showing forbearance toward criminals as a way of dealing with crime. These twin liberal ideas from the 1960s have been a disaster, and unless Kennedy gave up on them quickly, his presidency would have been a disaster.
I fully agree. Power cprrupts, etc...it's important to keep politicians in check. Talking about presidential elections, you should come down and vote in the fantasy presidential election that is on right now...
