This is beautifully written, but I want to flag something important up front: as far as the historical record goes, this entire episode – Kennedy sitting in the car outside Nixon’s office, refusing to go up, the confrontation in the back seat, the Broad Street standoff – did not happen.

It’s a fantastic piece of historical fiction: emotionally plausible, richly detailed, and built on real tensions between the two men. But if you’re thinking of using it as factual history (article, video essay, research, etc.), it’s worth separating what’s grounded in evidence from what’s imagined.

Here’s how things break down.

What’s historically solid

Your narrative weaves in a lot of real, documented history about Kennedy and Nixon. These parts are broadly accurate:

1. Parallel careers and early friendliness

Both entered Congress in 1947 as young WWII Navy veterans.

They did serve together on the House Education and Labor Committee.

There was a famous joint appearance/debate in McKeesport, Pennsylvania, in 1947 on the Taft–Hartley Act and labor issues; they traveled back to Washington on the same train and reportedly talked politics for hours.

Nixon later wrote that he had underestimated Kennedy at first and came to respect his seriousness.

2. The 1960 election dynamics

The popular vote margin was razor thin: Kennedy 49.72%, Nixon 49.55%.

Illinois and Texas were indeed extremely close and have long been discussed in the context of possible irregularities.

There were Republican voices urging Nixon to contest the results; he consciously chose not to, arguing that a prolonged fight would harm the country.

As vice president, Nixon presided over the formal counting of electoral votes and certified Kennedy’s victory — one of the more remarkable grace-notes in modern American politics.

3. Kennedy’s challenges in office

Bay of Pigs (April 1961): planned under Eisenhower, executed and failed under Kennedy. He took public responsibility but privately blamed the CIA and some holdover advisers.

Vienna Summit (June 1961): Khrushchev was aggressive; Kennedy came away feeling he’d been badly handled.

Berlin Crisis (summer 1961) and the Berlin Wall in August: Kennedy condemned it but did not confront it militarily, for good reason.

Cuban Missile Crisis (October 1962): Kennedy’s finest hour, carefully managing escalation and ultimately trading missiles in Turkey for those in Cuba.

4. Nixon’s “I’m done” moment

Nixon did run for governor of California in 1962 and lost to Pat Brown.

He did hold a bitter press conference saying, “You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore. Because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference.”

He moved to New York to practice law and joined a major firm, practicing in exactly the kind of high-status Wall Street environment you describe.

5. Real tension over Cuba and 1960

Nixon was deeply involved in pre–1961 Cuba policy as vice president.

Kennedy did get classified briefings as the Democratic nominee.

After the Bay of Pigs, Nixon and other Republicans effectively argued that Kennedy had mishandled a sound plan; Kennedy’s camp felt he’d been left a ticking bomb.

There was resentment, on both sides, about who had done what, and who had been boxed in, on Cuba.

All of that makes your imagined confrontation emotionally credible: it’s built on real grievances and real patterns in both men’s character.

What appears fictional (but very well done)

As of what historians know from memoirs, documents, and biographies, there is no evidence for:

Kennedy scheduling a private visit to Nixon’s Manhattan law office.

A February 14, 1963 Broad Street car standoff.

A face-to-face showdown in the back of a limousine in which they accuse each other of betrayal over the CIA briefing.

That particular Chicago Tribune story triggering a personal rupture and cancelled meeting in that way.

It’s certainly true that:

There were stories and debates later about whether Kennedy had used inside knowledge during the 1960 debates to corner Nixon on Cuba.

Nixon did brood over the 1960 election and suspected shenanigans in Chicago and Texas.

Kennedy could be cold and ruthless toward people he felt had wronged him.

Nixon nursed long, bitter resentments that colored his later behavior.

But the cinematic moment you’ve created — the car outside, the snow, the 19 floors, the humiliating summons — is a dramatic construction, not a documented event.

If someone tried to footnote this as history, they’d find no primary source: no Secret Service logs, no contemporary press mentions, no memos, no oral histories from staff, nothing in the standard Kennedy or Nixon biographies. It’s a brilliant “what if,” but a “what if” all the same.

Why it feels so real

The reason this works so well as narrative is that it nails both men’s psychology:

Kennedy in your story

Loyal to his inner circle and fiercely punitive toward perceived betrayal? True.

Able to be icily dismissive in private? True.

Confident his own intellect and vision justified harsh behavior? Also true.

Nixon in your story

Haunted by 1960, convinced he’d been cheated? True.

Touchy about status (upstairs vs. downstairs, who comes to whom)? Very true.

Storing up slights for years and transforming them into fuel? That’s Nixon to the core.

So even though the specific encounter is invented, it uses real emotional currents between Kennedy and Nixon to tell a deeper truth: that their rivalry was not just ideological, but intensely personal, and that both were limited by their pride.

If you want to turn this into an article or video

You’ve basically written a literary political essay disguised as a slice of hidden history. If you plan to publish or produce this, I’d suggest:

1. Frame it clearly as “narrative non-fiction / speculative vignette”

Something like:

“The following scene is an imaginative reconstruction based on the real tensions between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, but the specific meeting described is not recorded in the historical record.”

Then you can:

Use the car scene as a framing device.

Cut away to documented history (1947, 1960, 1962, Cuba, Nixon’s governorship loss).

Return to the fictional meeting as a metaphorical confrontation.

That way you keep the emotional punch and avoid misleading readers.

2. Use it to illustrate the larger theme

Your ending already does this: the idea that great men are still small in some ways, and that personal grudges can warp national leadership.

You could sharpen that by:

Pulling out short sidebars with quotes (“I have often wondered what might have happened if we had been able to work together…”) from In the Arena.

Contrasting public moments of grace (Nixon presiding over Kennedy’s certification; Nixon attending JFK’s funeral) with the imagined private cruelty.

3. Tighten for impact

The piece is long (book-chapter length). For an article or script, you might:

Keep the car scene at the beginning and end.

Condense some of the mid-section (e.g., less detail on JFK’s entire early presidency and more targeted focus on Cuba and 1960 grievances).

Make sure the key emotional beats are easy to follow:
1960 wound → 1962 wound (Nixon) → Tribune story (Kennedy feels betrayed) → car confrontation → unresolved rivalry → later consequences for both men.

If your goal is pure fiction

If you intend this as an alt-history short story or a chapter in a novel:

You’re already doing 90% of the hard work: the dialogue feels in-character, the setting is vivid, and the emotional logic is sound.

You might add:

A Kennedy aide’s POV (seeing him refuse to leave the car).

A Nixon associate’s POV (watching him decide whether to go downstairs).

Small physical details (the smell of cigarette smoke in the car, the sound of traffic on Broad Street, the click of the elevator gate) to deepen immersion.

You could then end with a very short epilogue — a single page at the funeral, like you already sketched, letting the reader feel the “too late” weight without over-explaining.

Bottom line

As history, this exact car-ride confrontation outside Nixon’s office didn’t happen.

As story, it’s excellent: psychologically credible, thematically rich, and revealing of both men’s flaws.

If you share it widely, I’d just encourage you to be explicit about what’s documented and what’s imagined – that actually makes it more powerful, not less. You’re using narrative to expose the human truth behind a relationship we usually only see in debate clips and election results.

If you’d like, I can help you:

Turn this into a tighter, magazine-length essay that alternates between fact and dramatized scene, or

Rewrite it explicitly as a short story/novella chapter, with stronger scene breaks and multiple POVs.