By William Tucker on 9.1.09 @ 6:08AM
Forever at demagogic war against Malefactors of Great Wealth.
"In Kennedy, the Last Roar of the New Deal Liberal,"
proclaimed the New York Times' "Week in Review"
Sunday section in summarizing the late Senator's career. There's
another way they might have put it: "Ted Kennedy: The Man Forever
Stuck in the 1930s."
With the Last Liberal Lion now laid to rest, it is worth pausing
a moment to evaluate what the career of the third-longest-sitting
Senator in history (behind only Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond)
was all about. Like Thurmond and Byrd, Kennedy came from a
baronial state where the traditional centers of wealth and power
are rarely challenged by newcomers. This kind of politics fit the
New Deal perfectly. Its strongest support was in the urban
centers of the East Coast and in the populist dynasties of the
Old South -- home of John Stennis and Earl and Huey Long. In
these states the principle had long been established that "the
masses" were exploited and victimized by Big Business and it was
the business of politicians to intercede on their behalf or else
they would be denied the basic sustenance of life.
Thus, the prevailing image of the New Deal was the Leaders and
the Masses, the Shepherds and their Flocks, the People and the
Politicians, united against the Malefactors of Great Wealth.
Kennedy and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party have never
entirely given up on this model. During the funeral there was
endless mention of the poor, the downtrodden, the homeless, the
dispossessed, the excluded, the gay -- any of the myriad of
constituencies into which the populace can be sliced and then
assigned to its Democratic shepherd. ("I doubt if even the poor
spend this much time talking about the poor at their own
funerals," said one person I was watching with.) There is logic
to all this. Democrats embrace ACORN and its organized voter
fraud, motor-voter laws, amnesty for illegal immigrants -- maybe
even inviting half of Mexico into the country -- because all this
promises the votes to keep them in power.
Thus, for Ted Kennedy, the Reagan Revolution was simply a rebirth
of the Fifth Avenue dowagers who exulted (according to Peter
Arno's cartoon in The New Yorker), "Let's go
down to the Trans-Lux and hiss Roosevelt." He never quite matched
the Medieval imagery of Mario Cuomo, who saw Reagan's America as
the land of "the lucky and the left-out, the royalty and the
rabble." His image of himself was that he was not one of the
"idle rich" but actively engaged in righting wrongs and helping
the downtrodden. As Evan Thomas wrote this week in
Newsweek, "His own ideology seems to have been rooted in
liberal guilt: since the rich have a lot (like good health care),
why shouldn't the poor? Kennedy's gifts were more of the heart
than the head."
What Kennedy and other liberals never wanted to acknowledge,
however, is that when the "active rich" reach out to help the
poor, they must reach over that vast
muddle-in-the-middle who are neither rich nor poor but middle
class and trying to make their own way. The people who oppose New
Deal politics are no longer society ladies who want to hiss
Roosevelt. They are Joe the Plumber, the Babbits, the Sammy
Glicks -- all the "men and women on the make" (that's Woodrow
Wilson's phrase) who never show up well in films and literature
but who are the mainstay of the economy and the backbone of the
nation. These are the people holding "Tea Parties" and storming
Town Halls protesting Obamacare. They are not glamorous. They
aren't invited to celebrity funerals. They aren't even mentioned
at them. All they want is make their own way and be left alone by
the government. They have no use for liberal politicians and
therefore liberals have no use for them.
Kennedy never met a tax cut he didn't oppose, a federal program
he didn't like. He would have been happy to raise taxes to 50
percent or more in European fashion -- all this in the name of
"taxing the rich and helping the poor." Yet as numerous analysts
have pointed out, income taxes -- the main source of this revenue
-- don't really target "the rich." Instead, they tax people who
are trying to become rich, who are working hard to build
their fortunes. People who are already rich aren't
affected very much by income taxes because they don't have to
depend on earned income. If that profile fits a certain Senator
from the State of Massachusetts, well then maybe it isn't too
surprising.
I've never begrudged Senator Kennedy the outcome at
Chappaquiddick. I thought he paid his dues on that by forfeiting
the presidency. Without Chappaquiddick, Kennedy almost certainly
would have been the Democratic nominee in 1972 or 1976 and could
have won the presidency in either of them. What we got instead
was the immortal ghost of Camelot, the eternal torchbearer of the
"Dream That Will Never Die," his famous 1980s Convention keynote
address that was in fact the valedictory for his one unsuccessful
run at the presidency.
And what was "the Dream"? Basically, it was the idea that large
swathes of the American populace -- a majority, even -- would
remain perpetually dependent on the government. No new centers of
economic wealth or political power would ever arise to challenge
the social configuration of the 1930s -- when the old patriarch,
Joe Kennedy, successfully made the transition from being a
malefactor of great wealth (and reputed rum-runner) to a
respectable member of the new establishment by being appointed
the first Director of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
So is the Dream really over? Well, maybe not. In a perfect
replica of European dynastic succession, all of Massachusetts is
now holding its breath to find out whether Robert F. Kennedy,
Jr., the heir apparent, will give up his peerage as Duke of the
Hudson Valley in order to take title to the Kennedys' Bay State
Barony. Should he deign to run for the vacant Senate seat,
Kennedy the Younger would be inheriting the peerage that has been
in the family since 1954 -- except for a brief year interregnum
between 1960 and 1962 when Benjamin Atwood Smith II, a former
Harvard fullback, was appointed to fill the time between which
John F. Kennedy moved up to the presidency and Edward Kennedy
turned 30 so he could legally inherit the estate.
Like a loyal vassal, Smith was appointed U.S. ambassador to an
international fisheries conference in 1963 in reward for his
services.
topics:
New Deal, Ted Kennedy