Scott Brown, like other pols, gets his history wrong

Beware of politicians bearing narratives, we warned earlier this week. An addendum can be added to that: Context, history and cynicism are necessary.

Take, for example, John F. Kennedy’s address to the state Legislature in 1961. Known as the “City Upon a Hill” speech, a phrase borrowed from the Puritans, it would be hailed as one of his best, and Joe Kennedy III, his grand-nephew and now a Congressional candidate, headlined the 50th anniversary commemoration last year.

“Today the eyes of all people are truly upon us–and our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state and local, must be as a city upon a hill–constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities,” JFK said.

It’s a stirring speech. But it takes on a slightly different meaning with some historical context. The book “Common Ground” notes the speech came as corruption – a bribery case that involved the head of the Turnpike Authority – was playing out on the front pages of the Bay State’s newspapers.

“Judge Trumpets Call to Clean Up State Corruption,” the Globe headline said a few days before Kennedy's speech, with the following lead: “Federal Judge Charles E. Wyzanski Jr., in one of the most blistering opinions ever read in a courtroom, last evening sounded a clarion call to clean up a state-wide 'network of corruption.'"

This was the president’s home state the judge was talking about.

Which brings us to U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, who recorded and blasted out on Friday a 3-minute statement on the controversy over the Obama administration’s rule on contraceptives.

“Here in Massachusetts, we have a history of fighting for religious freedom,” Brown said. “It is an American tradition [that] has never wavered, and it doesn’t have a party affiliation.”

Roger Williams would likely disagree with that first part. So would Anne Hutchinson. As Kenneth Davis wrote the following in 2010 in the Smithsonian magazine:

The much-ballyhooed arrival of the Pilgrims and Puritans in New England in the early 1600s was indeed a response to persecution that these religious dissenters had experienced in England. But the Puritan fathers of the Massachusetts Bay Colony did not countenance tolerance of opposing religious views. Their “city upon a hill” was a theocracy that brooked no dissent, religious or political.

In short, they were hypocrites. Davis goes on to note that Massachusetts at point allowed only Christians to run for office. There was the Know Nothing period in the state’s history. Anti-blasphemy laws have been on the books.

If “religious freedom” has indeed been an American “tradition,” then it certainly has wavered countless times.

Note to Brown and other pols, for future reference: Best to double-check with history before extolling alleged virtues of the Bay State and early America.