Compare And Contrast Quindlen And Jfk

Both JFK and Johnson were highly famous, yet controversial presidents. Elected in 1960 as the 35th president of the US, 43-year-old John F. Kennedy was the youngest man to run in office. As president, Kennedy endured to tense Cold War strains in Cuba, Vietnam and elsewhere. He additionally drove a reestablished drive for an open administration and in the long run gave government support to the developing social equality development. On November 22, 1963 JFK was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. His successor, Johnson, took over as president for a brief period of time. In spite of his noteworthy accomplishments in mainland US, Johnson's legacy was characterized by his inability to lead

Each timeline shared several commonalities regarding the socio-cultural, economic and political occurrences during the reign of President Kennedy and President Johnson. Such similarities include the overall flow of each group’s paper, which for the most part either introduced Kennedy’s assassination followed by Johnson’s presidential accession or the Civil Right’s movement. In my opinion, the former and the latter were significant ingredients to the Great Society Program’s magnitude because out of “respect for the slain president,” ambitions, new legislation was created to equalize the playing for the poor (who where mainly minorities) (U.S. Department of State, n.d.). Hence, the beginning of Johnson’s notable proclamation for a “war on poverty”

The essays are both very different, mainly in the way the authors define what an immigrant is. Loudon defines an immigrant as "someone who comes to a new place and enjoys what pioneers worked and died to create" (1). In contrast to Loudon's definition, Miller defines an immigrant as an individual that makes America unique; she states that nobody is technically from America. These definitions are unique to the opinion of the author, making their arguments personal. Although Loudon and Millers definitions are contradicting, they have a similarity; each provides

As I previously aforementioned, both authors’ had the same view. Both of the authors, Quindlen and Kennedy, view our country as having been built of immigrants;

Machiavelli would mostly disapprove of John F. Kennedy as a leader. He would disapprove of John F. Kennedy ‘concerning cruelty and clemency’, and ‘concerning things for which men, especially princes, are praised or blamed’. On the other hand, he would approve that JFK was right in ‘that one should avoid being despised and hated’.

The speeches of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy are both meant to deliver a powerful message. Despite how similar these messages are, there are contrasting ideas that set the speeches apart. The speeches of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy share similarities in their statements on freedom and the main purposes of the speeches themselves, while differing in historical context.

1. Each author had their own objective in writing each of the books. Both books tell the tale of history much like any other textbook. However, each book leaves out certain events creating a noticeable bias between the two. In The People’s History of the United States, the liberal author Howard Zinn writes about American history in a particularly unconventional way to convince the reader that there is another side to the history of the United States, one that does not necessarily invoke a feeling of patriotism, but rather showcases several flaws. On the other hand, Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen write about American history in a very patriotic way in A Patriot’s History of the United States to persuade the reader that one should feel a sense of pride in the history of the United States. Although they bear many similarities due to history not changing, the differences between The People’s History of the United States and A Patriot’s History of the United States are very pronounced due to the bias of each author.

Simply put, America is the land of opportunity. In the past, immigrants have left most of their family, memories, and familiarities with their homeland in search of a better life in America, where jobs were easy to find and the economy was booming. These immigrants formed almost the entire American population, a demographic anomaly in which people from nationalities separated by land and sea; these people come from countries separated by expansive distances can live within the same neighborhood. Both Anna Quindlen with her essay “A Quilt of a Country” and John F. Kennedy with his essay “The Immigrant Contribution” have documented the story of these immigrants and what they have done to contribute to the great country of the United States of America. Both authors have written in their own unique style which has changed the reader’s perspective of their accomplishments, contributions, and sense of community in their new nation. In the essays “A Quilt of a Country” by Anna Quindlen and “The Immigrant Contribution by John F. Kennedy, they show similar writing styles by both using the formal diction in their writing, and contradict in the way that Quindlen takes a more poetic approach in her writing, while Kennedy, being the President of the United States, uses more sophisticated dictions.

On the other hand, the essays “A Quilt of a Country” by Anna Quindlen and “The Immigrant Contribution” by John F. Kennedy, they differ in the way that Quindlen tends to use the poetic diction in her writing, while Kennedy typically leans towards using the sophisticated diction in his writing. For example, in this passage found in Quindlen’s essay, the dictions of technical, poetic, and sophisticated are used. Quindlen writes: “Once these disparate parts were held together by a common enemy, by the fault lines of world war and the electrified fence of communism.” (Quindlen, 15) The poetic diction used in this section of the essay helps paint the picture that once, the United

- Kennedy’s thesis was “rallied citizens to get positively involved in serving their country and that freedom must prevail”. “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you. But what together we can do for the freedom of a man” and “My fellow Americans: ask not what America will do for you. Ask what you can do for your country” He is persuading the Americans by exclaiming that you should contribute to the country, and how you can provide freedom to every citizen to make this country a better

Quindlen and Kennedy have similarities and differences in their styles.Both authors qoute outside sources to support what they're trying to get across. However, Kennedy uses factual data to make a better understanding, and Quindlen uses Metaphors/ Analogies. First ”The National Opinion Research center agreed with this statement:’The U.S. is a unique country that stands for something special in the world ’ ” (Quindlen 15).Secondly “A German farmer wrote home from Missouri in 1834, If you wish to see our whole family living in… a country where freedom of speech obtains , where no spies are eavesdropping, were no simpletons criticize your every word and seek to detect therein a venom that might endanger the life of the state, the church

John F. Kennedy did a lot for our country although his presidential term was cut short. He had a certain allure to him that Americans liked. Kennedy knew what to do to gain the votes of all different types of voters no matter their age, race, or religion. His campaign and presidency have inspired even today’s presidents and presidential candidates in multiple ways. John F. Kennedy was a spectacular man and president that brought a fresh feel to America and who left a legacy that will never be forgotten.

Some people often referred to JFK as "Camelot" but why did they? What did JFK do to be compared to Camelot? In this essay, I will be explaining what and who they both are. You will also find out how they are compared to one another.

Out of both of these works there are infinite possible interpretations, but there is only one shared theme that i can identify towards these works. The one shared theme that i have concluded is that of the only person who can determine whether or not you are a true american is

Throughout history, presidents have always had a strong impact. In these two essays it was very obvious that John F. Kennedy impacted the people and government during his presidency, but these two authors had very different opinions of his true goals and accomplishments. The way that Carl M. Brauer’s essay describes John F. Kennedy’s involvement in the civil rights movement in comparison to Nick Bryant’s essay, was completely opposite, in Brauer’s essay, JFK was a leader and promoted youth and need for change. JFK was seen to leave behind a legacy of what he started rather than what he actually did. According to Bryant, John F. Kennedy was just doing what he could without actually getting truly involved and that he was only doing it for the image he wanted to portray to the people. JFK was explained to be lazy and selfish and only able to identify with those he could relate to: privileged.