Edward “Teddy” Kennedy, February 22, 1932 – August 25, 2009.
(The whole speech above: 1, 2, 3, 4. And Teddy’s eulogy for his brother, Bobby.)
Recent comments
- 160serpentinegmailcom on An open letter from the populists of the 1890s to the populists of today
- 160serpentinegmailcom on Trumpism, local and global
- eric on A wreck by any other name: on the inadequacy of “Great Recession”
- Brad DeLong on A wreck by any other name: on the inadequacy of “Great Recession”
- Alex on Hitchens minor on the English and their history
- David in San Jose on Trump, populism, Hofstadter, Heer.
- eric on What does Paul Campos know that the Public Policy Institute of California does not?
- ari on What does Paul Campos know that the Public Policy Institute of California does not?
- eric on Keeping a finger on gold
- ari on Keeping a finger on gold
- kevin on “Eight schools account for half of all history professors.”
- eric on “Eight schools account for half of all history professors.”
- ari on “Eight schools account for half of all history professors.”
- eric on “Eight schools account for half of all history professors.”
- eric on A life well lived!
This is officially an award-winning blog
Archives
- July 2017
- April 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- November 2015
- August 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- January 2013
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- May 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
7 comments
August 25, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Vance
Damn, RIP indeed.
If he’s sending himself off like Tennyson’s Ulysses, who’s going to stay behind to get the practical things done, as Ulysses says of his son:
August 25, 2009 at 11:17 pm
ari
The Times‘s coverage. Oddly, the Globe remains silent.
August 25, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Vance
The Globe.
August 26, 2009 at 3:26 am
dia
Learning of his death via Radio 4 this morning (and through my sleepy haze), I was surprised at the emphasis the obit piece placed on his support for Irish republicanism. I know a couple of years ago there was a bit of a shitstorm about him being offered a British knighthood (dishonouring victims, etc.) but I guess I hadn’t realised how much of a controversy it really was.
I don’t know that much about his career beyond the textbook stuff and his present work on healthcare reform – I’m a c19th-er struggling to cope in a world of Nixonians… How seriously did American commentators and the American public take his pronouncements on the IRA, Unionism, Northern Irish politics? Was he seen as authoritative? An eccentric? An ideologue?
August 26, 2009 at 6:29 am
PorJ
I agreed with many (perhaps most) of Kennedy’s positions, but honesty compels me to say I didn’t particularly care for the Kennedy mystique or Kennedy himself. I was very happy he supported Obama, despite the Clinton pressure. But I’m most curious, today, on how the obituararies will handle Chappaquiddick – the historian/journalist in me sees this as most sensitive on THIS day. Here is a specific example from ABC News
Charles Pierce wrote an excellent Kennedy piece in The Boston Globe Sunday Magazine a few years ago that tried to workaround with the following breathtaking quote:
As Dan Kennedy noted at the time, this passage was completely misconstrued by both the right and the left. Which is as it should be, because the legacy is remarkably complex.
But can it be boiled down to: “But for Chappaquiddick he would have been President”?
August 26, 2009 at 7:09 am
Ben Alpers
But can it be boiled down to: “But for Chappaquiddick he would have been President”?
I wouldn’t boil it down to this.
Chappaquiddick certainly kept Kennedy out of the ’76 presidential race, a race he probably could have won. But it didn’t end his presidential chances.
Remember that in early 1979, before he announced his candidacy, Kennedy held a 2-1 lead over Carter among Democratic primary voters. Even when he announced, immediately after the disastrous Roger Mudd interview, he still held a ten-point lead in national polls.
Many people, including myself, feel that the performance of his 1980 presidential campaign–which was truly terrible other than that great convention speech–reflected the fact that Teddy never really wanted the presidential mantel that his brothers’ deaths had essentially thrust upon him.
I agree entirely, PorJ, that Kennedy’s legacy is remarkably complicated and that Chappaquiddick plays a role in the story. But I really don’t think it’s the headline.
Kennedy’s great political success was in the Senate. And that success was itself ambivalent. On the one hand, in one of the great second (or third?) acts in US political history, he became among the most powerful and effective Senators of all time, an unabashed liberal who was able to get things done in an era in which unabashed liberals were steadily losing ground even within his own party. On the other hand, the fact that unabashed liberals were steadily losing ground within his own party indicated the extent to which he was losing the larger cause for which he fought: a rededication of his party and the nation to social and economic justice.
August 26, 2009 at 9:39 am
kid bitzer
excellent points, ben a., esp. the last paragraph.