FOR those who feel so inclined, the wonders of the web can afford you the same view that Lee Harvey Oswald had 60 years ago as he perched in a corner of the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas.
A webcam providing a round-the-clock, 365 days a year view from the window which was Oswald’s sniper’s nest is a slightly unnerving offer from the museum which now occupies the sixth floor of the building where John F Kennedy’s assassin – or supposed assassin, if you prefer – lurked.
On Wednesday, the 60th anniversary of the assassination, it showed crowds thronging Dealey Plaza, the small historic centre of Dallas which appears almost untouched since November 1963. Logging on to the webcam is a fascinating view into history and in some ways directly into the past.
Six decades on from one of the defining moments of its modern history and America has changed almost beyond recognition in ways too many to list. But in Dealey Plaza, it is always half past noon on November 22, 1963 – the roads, paths, lawns and trees appear the same as they did then. The ornate white pergolas, from one of which Abraham Zapruder filmed his horrifying, iconic home movie of the killing; the curving road, the grassy knoll and the triple underpass – all remain, mute and seemingly unaltered since that day.
READ MORE: St Andrews: Row over university rector's Israel comments
One of the great cliches about the Kennedy assassination – and there are quite a few – is that it is the day America lost its innocence. That statement requires one to believe that America was in some fundamental way an “innocent” country before that day, which most would agree is something of a stretch, But there is something to it, all the same. It is possible to trace a line from the assassination, through Vietnam, Watergate, the growing polarisation of American politics and society with its endless culture wars, all the way through to the present, so that some draw a direct link between the assassination and its aftermath, and the gradual emergence of the populist wave that drove Donald Trump to the White House, and which could yet see him return there.
The welter of conspiracy theories surrounding the Kennedy assassination could probably fill the Library of Congress, and more. But you don’t even have to be a JFK conspiracy believer to see how the murder and its aftermath was a fundamental precursor to the gradual eroding of trust in government and its institutions in the US in the years and decades which followed.
That same feeling of disconnect with those in power, a corrosive assumption that all politicians must be in some way corrupt – the “it doesn’t matter who you vote for, they’re all the same” mentality – and a feeling that an unseen hand is controlling things regardless of who you vote for, is not unique to the US.
It is the same worldview that has seen the rise of similar populism elsewhere in the democratic world, including here in the UK. It has also, generally, been the right-wing which has been able to harness that populist, sometimes borderline nihilist, sentiment to its own ends and purposes.
Whether it is the weaponisation of working-class discontent here in the UK to deliver Brexit, or the fuelling of similar disillusionment to feed anti-immigration policies in other Western democracies – which only this week delivered veteran rabble-rouser Geert Wilders as winner of the Dutch election – it has been the right-wing which has benefitted disproportionately from the decades-long rise in political cynicism.
Kennedy, for all his flaws, is still remembered as the first rock star president, maybe the first rock star politician, full stop. The image of him, youthful and effortlessly cool-looking, alongside his stuffy contemporaries like Harold MacMillan and Charles de Gaulle, only served to emphasise how different he was.
He was the last president to turn up at his inauguration in the time-honoured tradition of sporting a top hat, although he dispensed with it once the formalities got underway, itself almost a metaphor for how he represented a break from the formalities of earlier generations.
Kennedy’s time in office straddled the short window – indeed his truncated presidency is perhaps the definitive demarcation line in the US and elsewhere – between the era of genuine deference for political leaders and the move towards the overriding cynicism we have come to know today.
A measure of distrust in political leaders, parties and systems is healthy, arguably even essential, to the proper functioning of democracies. But the deep, toxic and corrosive cynicism which has permeated politics throughout the West for so long now is anything but healthy.
READ MORE: St Andrew’s Day is still a work in progress for many Scots
It’s far too much of a stretch to suggest that had Kennedy lived the trends we have seen in politics over the last two generations would not have occurred anyway. They undoubtedly would have. But his passing is a marker nevertheless, a fixed point in time from which so much was to flow, so that it is not unreasonable to see it as a point which opened the door to the age of mass cynicism and disillusionment.
There are those who theorise that global politics operates on a system of recurring great cycles, oscillating between periods of conservatism and liberalism, war and peace, chaos and order. So maybe the great cycle of cynicism and the age of distrust we know now was ushered in on November 22, 60 years ago.
And maybe, just maybe, we can start to move beyond that in the generation which lies ahead, to usher in a new era where trust in political leaders and institutions is restored and refreshed. Realistically, that may be too much to hope for, but given some of what we have witnessed in recent times it’s not too much of a stretch to suggest the future of democracy may depend on it.
Another 60 years from now, Dealey Plaza will probably still remain unchanged from the date it will forever be associated with. Whether America and the wider world will have moved beyond the age of cynicism, distrust and populism is another question entirely.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here