A mixed legacy, that was getting better all the time

[barking_iguana]

For the second half of his career, Ted Kennedy was immensely valuable. I will miss his influence on the country. Others have been more effective champions in getting big measures to the top of Congress' agenda, but none (at least in the Senate) have been as effective on so many issues in making sure that the legislation that passed would actually accomplish as much of what was needed as possible.

But it's impossible to truly take the measure of his effect on American society without also considering the effect of the first half of his career. And here, I think a good compromise between the uncompromising truth and respect for those who identified with him and are mourning is an lj-cut.

Kennedy has been praised as an unwavering champion of a fairness-based liberalism that was going out of style, just as he was becoming its most visible champion, in the late 1970s. What's not being mentioned is that it was going out of style in large part because until that one speech at the 1980 convention, its leading proponent was completely unable to articulate it as a coherent philosophy, with a morally driven agenda. The Reaganites squawked that liberalism was nothing but a collection of interest groups doing special pleading, and that view was confirmed every time the media went to Kennedy for the liberal point of view on an issue. He always spoke of how much some measure would help some segment of the population, and never why helping them was part of a broader system that was fair to everyone and helped the country grow.

It is not Kennedy's fault alone that the within-the-system left emerged with no viable spokesman in the years following McGovern's about-face on Cambodia, Humphrey's death, etc. Of course things were made even worse because Kennedy was an obvious drunk, whose irresponsibility had cost a woman her life and who (until later) continued to act like a perfect lout in his personal life. But had his failings been confined to what he did offstage, the harm would not have outlasted his time at the center of the stage. Instead, he captured the role of Mr. Liberal at a time he was woefully inadequate for it. And that is a large part of how Reaganism became the accepted political orthodoxy for a generation and why class inequality continues to get worse and we live so much by 'the golden rule.' (He who has the gold makes the rules.)

I can forgive the man for his personal failings. I can understand how, had I come from a similar family, I might not have handled it any better. But I cannot forget the political climate that I saw develop in the late 1970s and am only now starting to see glimpses of reprieve from. And I cannot forget Kennedy's role in creating that climate, despite now being in the midst of all this adulation.

Comments

[bigscary.livejournal.com]

I find it really hard to blame someone for being an incoherent spokesperson when a coherent spokesperson was lacking. If anything, the account you give of the early part of his career makes it more inspiring (it makes the latter part doubly so, as you suggest). Despite not being able to clearly articulate why his philosophy and ideology were correct, despite the wreck of his family, despite his inability to maintain any sort of anything resembling any kind of functionality in his own life, the man stood resolutely by what I think is the most important set of ideas in political philosophy: that fairness matters, that those who need help should be helped, that we're all in this together.

Think about it -- deep in his cups, in his rawest moments, if you caught him with his pants down, liquor on his breath, slurring every single word he said, I'm certain that if you asked him, he would say that his privilege carried obligations, that government exists to aid the weak against the strong, to make the game fair, to see that rules are the same for everyone, and to catch people when they fall.

For all his flaws, he lived the liberal project, and when he overcame his flaws, it made him work harder for those who were still trying to do so.

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

Think about it -- deep in his cups, in his rawest moments, if you caught him with his pants down, liquor on his breath, slurring every single word he said, I'm certain that if you asked him, he would say that his privilege carried obligations, that government exists to aid the weak against the strong, to make the game fair, to see that rules are the same for everyone, and to catch people when they fall.

You may well be right, but I'm far less certain than you are. At the time, I dearly wished what you say was true, but I just didn't see it. It seemed as if each mini-cause was simply a way to hold a coalition together, so he could get elected. I'm agnostic as to whether the moral vision was there before he had the clarity to articulate it, or whether they came together as part of the same process.

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

And there were lots of people who would have been less harmful spokespeople than he was. As I said, I can forgive him his need to try for the Presidency when he was unfit, but in his absence, the media would have settled on someone else.

I'm pretty sure that with Kennedy not there, Mondale would have been seen as the leading liberal in 1975. They were considered roughly equal until Mondale neutered himself by taking the vice-presidency in a centrist administration. Perhaps as the clear leader of the faction, Mondale would have gone ahead with his contemplated run at the 1976 nomination. Or maybe, not having run for the nomination but still being the acknowledged factional leader, he would have quietly declined the vice-presidency, in which case he would almost certainly had the role that Kennedy ended up failing to fill.

[bigscary.livejournal.com]

Contrafactuals are all well and good, but given that every potential spokesperson or leader disqualified theirself through compromise or error, maybe there is something to the theory that there was something wrong with the time.

[freeko.livejournal.com]

So many of the generation ahead of me are the children of reagan. I came from the last generation to think critically. Though I must admit I lacked idealism compared to you and those of your generation.

Ted Kennedy was flawed, but his intentions were good and sadly we have a generation that believes good intentions are not enough., Maybe they are not? but it should count for something!

[chemoelectric.livejournal.com]

EMK was thrown headfirst into the Senate at the minimum age, so if it took until he was about JFK’s age as president to start to be articulate, that’s not surprising. MLK was articulate at a young age, but it’s not common.

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

I think I was more articulate when I was younger than I am now. Not as wise, but enough quicker and more effective with the part I had already figured out to more than make up for what I've figured out since. At least in most situations.

But you're right, I think that is unusual.

[chemoelectric.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't agree. For example you are much more succinct now than just a few years ago.

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

Than a few years ago? Yes. Than a few decades ago? I don't think so.