Senator Ted Kennedy, RIP
Ted was the only Kennedy politician I ever knew (the other brothers having died both before their time and before I was born), and I didn’t know nearly as much about him as I probably should have. I was mostly aware of him as a caricature and a punch line — at least until he opposed the Iraq War in 2002. So the obituaries and remembrances that mark his passing today are a chance for me to bone up on some recent history and take a look at the scope of his life and career.
The lengthy, detailed obituary in the New York Times was my first stop this morning. Later in the day I took advantage of the Daily Dish’s roundup of reactions across the Web. I found the short reflection from the Economist particularly insightful. It ends:
Mr Kennedy will never achieve the public sainthood that his brothers achieved. Republicans knew that, especially after he stopped being a presidential threat. That had the effect of allowing conservative activists to underestimate him and allowing conservative senators to work with him. Mr Kennedy found a way to push past his flaws, then use them to his advantage. His brothers furthered the myth that political progress is made by great men at great moments. Mr Kennedy proved that it is often the badly-flawed people, the counted-out people, who really get things done.
Matthew Yglesias points out that his youth at the time he arrived in the Senate was one of those “flaws” that became an advantage.
Have you read anything worth passing on about Senator Kennedy? And what do you remember?
I thought George Will of the Washington Post had a fine reflection on both the Senator and, to a lesser extent, on the Kennedy family generally. Will considers Ted “the most consequential [Kennedy] brother”. And what I actually found even more interesting was this statement regarding Eunice:
“It is arguable, and he [Ted] might have cheerfully conceded, that Eunice was the most consequential Kennedy, at least as measured by the selfless enlargement of happiness. She lived a luminous life, perhaps because of the dark fate of the third oldest of Ted’s siblings. ”
People also may not know but in one of Robert Novak’s last published columns, he recounts the gracious assistance both the Senator and his wife provided him and says, inter alia, regarding Ted:
“I have had few good things to say about Teddy Kennedy since I first met him at the 1960 Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, but he and his wife have treated me like a close friend…The Kennedys were not concerned by political and ideological differences when someone’s life was at stake, recalling at least the myth of milder days in Washington.”
Indeed, he was by far the most effective over his two brothers who have achieved credit for doings that do not measure up to Ted’s. It is a good example of things not being what they appear. He was a champion of the downtrodden. His sins were more exposed than his brothers. Yet he emerges with the most integrity and accomplishments.
There is a lot of good writing on Kennedy out there, in large part because Kennedy was such a great character. And obits give reporters a chance to write a bit more than usual. That often doesn’t work out, but I think this paragraph in John Broder’s obit is pretty damned good:
“He was a Rabelaisian figure in the Senate and in life, instantly recognizable by his shock of white hair, his florid, oversize face, his booming Boston brogue, his powerful but pained stride. He was a celebrity, sometimes a self-parody, a hearty friend, an implacable foe, a man of large faith and large flaws, a melancholy character who persevered, drank deeply and sang loudly. He was a Kennedy.”
BTW, anyone know who is presiding at the funeral on Saturday?
I have to agree with much expressed here. I think that his contribution is minimized because he did not have the mythology surrounding him or the prop of presidency.
However, congress is where power is actually wielded and legislation and the art of politics really needs to be exercised day in and day out. When there is no glare of media.
I heard one commentator say that Ted Kennedy’s dirty secret in the senate is that he worked like a dog. I think that is very true.
He certainly had a lot of flaws and character defaults to be sure. However, I think that in a way that can be a strength. There is too much cult of personality in politics today.
I think his one mistake was to not recognize his true gift early on. He was a politician and that can actually be a GOOD thing. He excelled in that vocation in the senate and that should be enough. He failed when he tried to move out of his natural gift and charism and covet other gifts.
So there is a lot to learn from a very flawed but effective man in his calling.
Ted Kennedy has been in the Senate since I was in second grade–and next week I turn 55. He was the last senator who was unashamedly (and often bombastically) liberal. For good or ill, my guess is that you’ll never hear another politician talk that talk again.
Having been taken as a kid to see Hubert Humphrey and LBJ, who happily waded into crowds and clearly loved glad-handing, I was taken aback by Kennedy’s reticence.
Both LBJ and Humphrey managed, in the few seconds they were wringing your hand, to establish a kind of instant rapport. During one of these glad-handing sessions with Humphrey at an airport, our neighbor shouted out, “UMWA members support you, Hubert!” And Humphrey, who had a carrying voice, shouted back, “And, friend, I need UMWA votes!”
During his final shot at the presidency, Kennedy could give a rousing speech on stage, but seemed ill-at-ease meeting people and shaking hands. He struck me as a man with a mission he didn’t much want to carry, one that perhaps became easier as he got older.
Last night’s NewsHour with Jim Lehrer had a segment about Ted Kennedy’s faith and how it influenced his work. You can watch or read the transcript here.
The journalist Tom Oliphant said this: “But I asked him, ‘Where does this rabid concern about poverty come from?’ And he looked at me like I was from Mars. And he said, ‘Have you never read the New Testament?’”
Father William Byron has a nice remembrance at CNS that includes this bit about Ted Kennedy’s sense of his imperfections, or burdens. It is related through their recognition of a mutual friend of his and Kennedy’s, a longtime Kennedy staffer, Walter Sheridan:
The senator and I had met previously on a number of occasions, and as we approached each other in the hallway, he stopped and asked: “Don’t I know you? Aren’t you a friend of Walter Sheridan’s?”
After I responded, the senator smiled, spread the forefinger and middle finger on his right hand in slingshot fashion, and said, “Whenever I look at Walter, and I see him every day, I can’t help but think of Bobby. And whenever Walter looks in here,” his two fingers pointing directly into his eyes, “he’s trying to find Bobby, but he’s just not here.”
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0903846.htm
For an assessment prior to his marriage to Victoria Reggie, check out this article from the late Michael Kelly. Long but worthwhile piece on two sides of Kennedy: vices (drinking, womanizing, boorishness, etc.) and virtues (a workhorse, access to policy counsel, etc.)
http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5585&pageNum=1
A SOBER LOOK AT TED KENNEDY
As we celebrate fifty years of GQ, we take a look at some of the best journalism the magazine has published. In 1990, Michael Kelly—who later became the first American reporter to die in the Iraq war—gave us this memorable and devastatingly candid portrayal of the last Kennedy brother
When GQ sent Michael Kelly to profile one of America’s most powerful men, Kelly was a young writer, and unknown. But after three months of reporting, thousands of pages of research, and over seventy interviews with everyone in Washington, from congressmen to waiters on Capitol Hill, he filed this famous portrait of Edward M. Kennedy, remarkable not only for its courage in exposing a senator’s vices but also for the balance of its tone…
I pray that Senator Kenedy has found eternal rest. We were a Kennedy household when I was growing up. I remember my father taking me and a sibling to see JFK at our local airport when his presidential campaign plane stopped to refuel during the middle of the night. Enough people were on hand that JFK made a few remarks, and I got the opportunity to shake his hand. (We also went to see HHH at a refueling stop on another night; I didn’t get to shake his hand, but I remember his broad smile, all the more memorable because it was two o’clock in the morning.) I also had the opportunity to shake hands with Ted Kennedy once during his campaigning for another politician.
There’s much I admire about Senator Kennedy. He was an eloquent champion of the downtrodden, and he leaves a remarkable legislative record. He also became a source of great strength within the extended Kennedy family in the face of continuing tragedies (e.g., the untimely death of JFK, Jr.). I confess to feeling ambivalent about him, however. Once staunchly pro-life, his voice was still for more than 35 years in defense of the unborn, a cause that I consider to be quintessentially liberal. And, so far as I know, he never threw his considerable legislative weight behind passage of the Pregnant Women’s Support Act, a statute specifically focused on abortion reduction and which has been introduced in at least three consecutive congressional sessions.
Cardinal O’Malley’s press release yesterday on the passing of Senator Kennedy seems, IMO, to reflect the ambivalence I feel, especially in the use of the adverb “often” in the second paragraph:
“Today we mourn the passing of Senator Edward M. Kennedy and we extend our heartfelt prayers and sincere condolences to his wife Victoria and their children, Kara, Edward, Patrick, Curran and Caroline. Senator Kennedy was blessed with a dedicated and loving family who stood by his side, particularly during the past year as he faced his illness with courage, dignity and strength.
We join with his colleagues in Congress and the people of Massachusetts in reflecting on his life and his commitment to public service. For nearly half a century, Senator Kennedy was often a champion for the poor, the less fortunate and those seeking a better life. Across Massachusetts and the nation, his legacy will be carried on through the lives of those he served.
We pray for the repose of his soul and that his family finds comfort and consolation in this difficult time.”
Jean: you obviously have overlooked Barney Frank (MA), Fortney “Pete” Stark (CA), Barbara Mikulski (MD) and Bernie Sanders (VT) when it comes to outspokenly frank liberals. I’m sure there are many more if I’d take the time to stop and think.
Jimmy, I’ll concede your point.
But when conservatives want to deride the left, they refer to “Ted Kennedy liberals.” Can Frank, Stark, Sanders, Mikulski–or perhaps the new senator from Minnesota, Al Franken–assume the mantle of that epithet?
Time will tell.
William Collier said:
Once staunchly pro-life, his voice was still for more than 35 years in defense of the unborn…
Of all the Kennedy tragedies, this was the greatest of them. And no one seems to know why.
David Gibson:
Thanks so much for the excerpt from the Byron piece. The quote at the end was striking.
Jean Raber:
Given what you said about Ted Kennedy’s reticence, I thought you might want to see these excerpts from talkingpointsmemo.com:
It may sound strange, but in reading all of these obits and memoirs, I’m finding that I really didn’t know Ted Kennedy the senator and person. All I really knew was “Ted Kennedy”, the punch line for conservative fund-raising. Perhaps that is in part because the Kennedy clan’s accomplishments and tragediescame and then started ebbing away before my time – it’s something that I’ve heard about all my life but didn’t experience first-hand. I’m feeling that I’re really missed out on an extraordinary life – I wish I had known these things about him when he was alive, I really would have appreciated him much more.