Aug 28 2009
The complexity of the Ted Kennedy legacy
One thing stands for certain, how you feel about him and his legacy pretty much has a lot to do with which side of the aisle you stand on.
To many on the left, he was their lion, their champion, who fought tirelessly for what he believed in. To many on the right, he was a callous killer and alcoholic who used his power and prestige to escape justice for himself and his family.
Maybe both are right.
I watched a documentary on the Kennedy dynasty not long ago, and I recall one aspect very vividly: He was in a way portrayed as the runt of the litter, the hanger on who was in the shadows of his great brothers. In a way, he was. Joe was destined to greatness, but was heroically killed in WW2. JFK was to be the great one, and was on his way as president, until an assassin ended his career. Robert followed the same path as John, a little sooner. Not to mention losing a sister to a plane crash, as well.
And left among the surviving siblings was the youngest, Ted. He was often compared (unfavorably) by his parents to his brothers1 , perhaps unjustly so. No doubt that drove his ambitions all of his life.
It is also safe to say that even as he lived in their shadows, he also used the influence of their achievement to launch his own career. His whole family reveled in a dynastic greatness rarely seen in this country.
His political career is a contradiction, and as I said about, his achievements pretty much depend on your political alignment. Personally, I can applaud some of his achievements, I am ambivalent to many, and I oppose others. I think in that I am being as fair as I can.
Of course, no recollection can be done of him without remembering his biggest scandal, the 1969 Chappaquiddick incident. I didn’t fully understand this until much later in my life. One eye opener was when a favorite author of mine used that in a parallel universe novel, and presented it as a slightly more cynical account.
But it stands to this day as the shadow that will forever haunt his memory and legacy.
And it should. The facts of the event are a clear account of a man who made bad decisions that likely caused the death of a woman, and who escaped justice without even a token slap on the wrist. This column on Vanity Fair really sums up how I feel:
Where’s Mary Jo Kopechne’s Eulogy?
…I am very well known, a United States senator. My family is incredibly powerful. There are allegations that I had been drinking heavily hours up to the time I got into the vehicle with the passenger. I deny this for the rest of my life. That at no point did I make an attempt to call for rescue would probably be considered by many people to be outrageous and horrible, perhaps a crime that would carry a prison sentence. Can you imagine what the parents of the deceased would be going through when they found out that their 28-year-old daughter died alone in total darkness? I serve no time.
…
After my passing, would you fail to mention the incident and the death of this innocent person in reviewing the events of my long and lauded life? You wouldn’t forget about her, would you? That would be negligent.
I think that is a fair representation of the reality. His legacy should be shadowed by the miscarriage of justice he benefited from. Although, someone at HuffPo figures she might be proud of him or something.
I admit, the most amazing thing to me was how he managed reelection after this. I have seen politicians go down in flames over far less serious circumstance. That the people of his state continued to elect him is astonishing. Sen Ted Stevens lost in Alaska merely on accusation.
As this column says, we get the leaders we deserve, and God help us.
And now, we are left with him as a totem for national health care. His body had not gone cold before Pelosi was sounding the rally cry to pass the legislation in his honor. As a matter of fact, even immigration (shamnesty) is getting the Kennedy anointment.
Not to mention how history is now being rewritten about his brother’s deaths. Now they were killed by right wingers or something (Hat tip Hot Air) . Here is one answer:
Hey Mike, if Sirhan Sirhan was a right-winger, then why did left wing radical / Obama confidant Bill Ayers dedicate his book to RFK’s assassin?
Meanwhile, a family squabble is now underway to fill his empty senate seat. This is actually one of the most appalling and ironic aspects of this whole discussion.
You see, back in 2004 when Kerry was running for president, the Massachusetts State Legislature changed the law concerning replacements of Senate seats. Fearing that Kerry might win and then Gov Romney would appoint a republican to his seat, at Kennedy’s urging, they passed a law requiring a special election to fill a vacant seat.
But as his health was declining, Kennedy again appealed to his State counterparts to reinstate the original law, so the now democrat governor can appoint a democrat instead leaving the matter in the hands of the people:
A cancer-stricken Sen. Edward M. Kennedy has written a letter to Massachusetts leaders asking that they change state law to allow a speedy replacement of him in Congress.
The note has been sent to Gov. Deval Patrick and the state’s Senate president and House speaker…
The letter acknowledges the state changed its succession law in 2004 to require a special election within five months to fill any vacancy. At the time, legislative Democrats — with a wide majority in both chambers — were concerned because then-Republican Gov. Mitt Romney had the power to directly fill any vacancy created as Democratic Sen. John Kerry ran for president.
But Kennedy writes “it is vital for this commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election.”
Make that two “Democrat” voices.
John Fund notes:
The Boston Globe now notes Mr. Kennedy’s current request “puts lawmakers in a delicate position.” They “are nervous about being accused of engineering a self-serving change to help their party” just a few years after ramming through a similar self-serving change.
It’s sad to see Senator Kennedy sign on to such an obvious ploy. Under the law he now proposes, he would likely not have become a U.S. Senator in 1962, after his brother became president.
Ironic.
It is true he was a part of some great bipartisan efforts in congress, though that does not mean that the legislation produced was good. But it was a joint effort and that does mean something. His relationship with Ronald Reagan was particularly interesting, as the two mean were fierce rivals and yet were also said to be respected friends, as he is with John McCain.
He is lauded for his bipartisan efforts, though his railroading (Borking) of SCOTUS nominee Bork was notorious in its partisanship.
It is again strangely ironic that his death has taken away the Senate’s super majority, at least until January, so that now they may actually have to practice some real bipartisan efforts to avoid a filibuster.
That is just a part of the complexity I see in Ted.
I close with this quote that really sums it up:
“The idea that Edward M. Kennedy could be a viable national politician – let alone a much-admired and lionized political figure – has convinced millions of everyday citizens and succeeding generations of conservative activists that among the elites of academia, politics, and the media two standards of behavior exist: One for liberal Democrats and another for conservative Republicans. Along with sweeping changes in immigration law, soaring oratory, and strengthening the nation’s social safety net, this reservoir of class resentment is also part of Kennedy’s legacy…
It is an article of faith among conservatives that if a Republican senator had launched an attack this personal and vitriolic – not to mention wildly exaggerated – against a nominee named by a Democratic president that liberals would have gone ape and that the ladies and gentlemen of the Fourth Estate would have made the intemperate conduct of the Republican senator the main issue. The point is that Ted Kennedy surely earned the accolades he is receiving today. He also earned the disapproval he is receiving among Americans who saw him only from a distance, who judged him by his words and deeds, and found him wanting.”
One Response to “The complexity of the Ted Kennedy legacy”
On Fox News, the morning of Ted Kennedy’s death, a reporter stated taht Joe Jr. was “shot down” in WW2. In reality, Joseph Kennedy, Jr. died in an explosion of the aircraft he was piloting. It was a B-24 that had been loaded with explosives and was being tested as a pilotless bomb. The idea was for the cockpit crew to get the aircraft in a position to hit a designated target at which point the crew would parachute from the aircraft. They were to be picked up by high speed naval rescue craft. The primary target for these aircraft was to be the German submarine pens and facilities on the French coast. It didn’t work out so well.