My favorite Ted Kennedy piece is Charles Pierce’s, from 2003:
If his name were Edward Moore . . .
He would not have served so long, if he’d served at all. He might not have served with more than 350 other senators. He would not have served with all three men – Everett Dirksen, Richard Russell, and Philip Hart – after whom the Senate office buildings are named. He would not have had his first real fight over the poll tax and his most recent one over going to war in Iraq. None of this would have happened if his name were Edward Moore.
If his name were Edward Moore . . .
If his name were Edward Moore, Robert Bork might be on the Supreme Court today. Robert Dole might have been elected president of the United States. There might still be a draft. There would not have been the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which overturned seven Supreme Court decisions that Kennedy saw as rolling back the gains of the civil rights movement; the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act, the most wide-ranging civil rights bill since the original ones in the 1960s; the Kennedy-Kassebaum Bill of 1996, which allows “portability” in health care coverage; or any one of the 35 other initiatives – large and small, on everything from Medicare to the minimum wage to immigration reform – that Kennedy, in opposition and in the minority, managed to cajole and finesse through the Senate between 1996 and 1998, masterfully defusing the Gingrich Revolution and maneuvering Dole into such complete political incoherence that Bill Clinton won reelection in a walk. None of this would have happened, if his name were Edward Moore.
If his name were Edward Moore . . .
His brothers might be alive. His life might have been easier, not having mattered much to anyone beyond its own boundaries. His first marriage might have survived, and, if it had not, Joan Kennedy’s problems would have been her own, and not grist for the public gossips. It might not have mattered to anyone, the fistfight outside the Manhattan saloon, the fooz ling with waitresses in Washington restaurants, the image of him in his nightshirt, during Holy Week (Jesus God!), going out for a couple of pops with the younger set in Palm Beach and winding up testifying in the middle of a rape trial. His second marriage simply would have been a second marriage, and Vicki Kennedy would not have found herself dragooned into the role of The Good Fairy in yet another Kennedy epiphany narrative.
All of this would not have mattered, if his name were Edward Moore.
24 comments
August 26, 2009 at 7:14 am
Anderson
His brothers might be alive.
Not to mention Mary Jo Kopechne.
August 26, 2009 at 7:23 am
eric
She’s mentioned quite prominently in the article, Anderson.
August 26, 2009 at 7:29 am
PorJ
As I just noted in the other thread, this piece was remarkably controversial when it came out:
http://medialogarchives.blogspot.com/2003/12/how-stupid-can-you-get-this-past.asp
It was misconstrued by BOTH the right and the left. Which is a testament to Pierce’s brilliance, I suppose – his creation of a meta-analysis (or synechdoche? Metonymy? Some semiotician help me out here) for the entire mixed legacy of Kennedy.
How funny that it was immediately misconstrued (again) on this thread. I wonder if that was Pierce’s plan all along?
August 26, 2009 at 7:34 am
eric
Well, you know how it is: “I used to consider myself a Democrat, but thanks to 9/11, I’m outraged by Chappaquiddick.”
August 26, 2009 at 7:37 am
PorJ
Am I the only one thinking the Editors of the annual obit (new year’s) edition of the New York Times Sunday Magazine are going to have an impossible job this year? I mean, Michael Jackson, Walter Cronkite, Ted Kennedy…. All we need next is a former President. Is it me or has this been a crazy year.
The string that seems to bind them all together – from my perspective – is that they all reached the zenith of their popularity in a relatively small window – about 1968 to about 1985. Less than two decades. But for most of those of two decades, there were only 3 national TV networks and no internet. So they loom larger in national memory, I guess, because we all spent so much time seeing them.
August 26, 2009 at 8:14 am
Anderson
She’s mentioned quite prominently in the article, Anderson.
One would hope so. “His brothers might be alive” was just too good a rhetorical setup — it’s like Lucy holding the football.
(I have never inclined to any extreme of Kennedy fascination or Kennedy antipathy — and Ted’s accomplishments, partly because he actually lived to get old, outweigh those of his brothers combined. But I’ve always been amazed by Chappaquiddick — the national political culture was very, very different back then.)
August 26, 2009 at 8:14 am
Dr J
How long has Anderson been waiting for Ted Kennedy to die so he could use that line again? Bravo.
August 26, 2009 at 8:30 am
bitchphd
That really is a remarkable piece. The thing I like best is its frank admission of the importance–and value–of the old boys’ network.
One would hope so
You could try reading the article instead of just hoping, Anderson. It’s very good.
August 26, 2009 at 8:36 am
Anderson
Plutocrats’ justice and an implausible (but effective) coverup ensued.
Sounds about right.
August 26, 2009 at 9:24 am
kevin
You could try reading the article instead of just hoping, Anderson.
His first response to Kennedy’s death was the kneejerk cry of “Chappaquiddick!”
Do you really expect him to take the time to read something?
August 26, 2009 at 9:30 am
bitchphd
Like Kennedy himself, I prefer to assume the best rather than the worst of others.
August 26, 2009 at 9:55 am
Russell60
I was at a campaign appearance he made in Burlington, Vermont in 1980, when he couldn’t get a word in edgewise because two women were shrieking at him from the audience. I don’t remember what their grievance was, but it had something to do with his being insufficiently left wing on some issue. He finally gave up and said something along the lines of “that’s why America is such a great country; everybody has their say!” Which may have been true, but anybody else with a question DIDN’T get to have their say. RIP; at least he was spared from going out and getting abuse from town hall birthers and deathers.
August 26, 2009 at 11:20 am
aep
I hope he set a few fires under the Dems’ behinds over the public option before he passed. I’d feel a lot better if he was working the back rooms right now. The Times article makes clear that the car accident stopped his presidential bid at a time he would’ve been a shoo-in. The event shaped his career–no one with a lick of sense could argue otherwise. As for his consequence? I wasn’t alive for Camelot (38), but my gut wrenched when I opened the LA Times this morning. Passing progressive laws just got a lot harder. Sigh.
August 26, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Anderson
His first response to Kennedy’s death
Sigh. No, that was my first response to Pierce’s “His brothers might be alive.”
My first response to Kennedy’s death was “bummer,” the title of an e-mail to a friend of mine who had been on Kennedy’s staff some time back.
Hagiography is not my bag, whether it’s Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, or Barack Obama. Oh woes iz me.
August 26, 2009 at 2:47 pm
kid bitzer
this is a good time to send out props to charlie pierce, by the way, who has written a lot of good stuff.
i wonder if mark schmitt will write something about teddy. mark was one of the first bloggers i read (back at his old “decembrist” venue), and i was always impressed by his knowledge of the hill and his general smarts.
if anyone sees him go into print on the occasion, i’d love to see a link to it.
August 26, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Western Dave
AEP, Having recently just finished Nixonland (as in this morning), the whole Chappaquiddick thing was much more bizarre than I had thought growing up in a Democratic household in the 70s and 80s where it was always referred to as “that unfortunate accident.” That said, Nixon would have taken out Kennedy in 72 by any means necessary. And hint, hint, didn’t somebody around here promise a book review of seminar or something on Nixonland?
August 26, 2009 at 3:28 pm
andrew
Here you go, kb. Web only, though.
August 26, 2009 at 5:53 pm
TF Smith
Classy with a K, Anderson – truly impressive display. I’m sure you will go far in the GOP.
The current generation of Republicans never fails, do they?
August 26, 2009 at 6:09 pm
kevin
Sigh. No, that was my first response to Pierce’s “His brothers might be alive.”
My first response to Kennedy’s death was “bummer,” the title of an e-mail to a friend of mine who had been on Kennedy’s staff some time back.
Well, not being able to read your private emails, I was merely judging you by what you posted here on this public forum on the man’s life. Your first response here wasn’t “bummer,” it was a snide comment straight from Glenn Beck country.
I know, I know, I should have been able to read your mind, but I haven’t perfected the art of telepathy. Sigh. Sigh, sigh, sigh.
Hagiography is not my bag, whether it’s Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, or Barack Obama. Oh woes iz me.
Hagiography isn’t what I’m asking for. Just some simple decency and a modicum of common courtesy on the day of a fellow human’s passing.
You got one thing correct, though. Woe is you, alright.
August 26, 2009 at 7:21 pm
dana
Knock it off, guys. Anderson’s been here enough I think he deserves the presumption that he isn’t a stealth GOP Kennedy hater.
August 26, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Seth
I’m still trying to understand Pierce’s claim that Kennedy kept Bob Dole from taking the White House in 1996. How exactly does that work?
August 27, 2009 at 8:52 am
kid bitzer
thanks, andrew. pretty good piece by schmitt. and an interesting anecdote re bradley.
August 27, 2009 at 9:08 am
kid bitzer
this piece moved me more than any other remembrance i’ve read:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/08/details.php#more?ref=fpblg
(side note–josh has some very impressive correspondents, if you think about who must have written that “another reader” note.)
August 27, 2009 at 2:09 pm
rea
I’m still trying to understand Pierce’s claim that Kennedy kept Bob Dole from taking the White House in 1996. How exactly does that work
As I understand Pierce’s argument, Kennedy put Dole in a position in which he either had to tack right to satisfy the base, or tack left on issues that the country as a whole supported but outraged the Republican base–insurance portability and minimum wage. Dole chose the base, and resigned as majority leader; won the nomination but lost the general election.