A Tribute to Ted Kennedy

posted at 10:49 pm on August 26, 2009 by
printer-friendly

First things first: my condolences to the family and friends of the late Senator Ted Kennedy on their loss. The hours after a loved one passes from this world are a quiet cave of ice, where all of us must journey from time to time, and the memory of that place is the fellowship shared by all mortal men and women. I am here to speak ill of the dead today, and will make no pretense otherwise, but I also wish to respect the feelings of the living. I have been to that cave of ice. I wish Senator Kennedy’s survivors as swift a return as their hearts will allow.

It’s unfortunate that the personal sorrow of a man’s death must become a topic of political discussion, but it’s only fitting, because Ted Kennedy helped write the field manual to the politics of personal destruction. Politicians have been spreading scurrilous lies about their opponents since the early days of the republic, but Kennedy used scurrilous lies to destroy a man who wasn’t a politician: Judge Robert Bork. Kennedy kicked Bork’s Supreme Court seat out from under him, by questioning his very humanity. Let me repeat a Kennedy quote you have probably heard a few times today:

Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions, blacks would sit in segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of million of citizens.

Thus began the modern era of below-the-belt, win-at-any-cost politics, played for the highest of stakes. Kennedy’s Democrats have never been shy about throwing elbows while the media referees are taking one of their frequent naps. Kennedy was the chief programmer for the endless loop of Great Society liberal arrogance, in which the Left used various social problems as the pretext for power grabs, which invariably made the problems worse… justifying further power grabs. This is the virus Democrats wish to introduce into the health-care system. The initial injection of a government-funded “public option” would lead to the total collapse of the health insurance industry, which would require even more sweeping government control of medicine, leading to a grim future in which titanic amounts of taxpayer loot would be shoveled into a system that produced sub-standard care and wealthy politicians.

Kennedy was a prince in the Aristocracy of Intent, absolved of every crime by the soaring nobility of his intentions. His constituents were delighted to watch him emerge from a warm bath of incredible wealth, to rail against men who were crass and selfish enough to accumulate their fortunes by creating jobs and meeting consumer needs. A straight line can be drawn from his limousine liberalism to Al Gore’s Learjet environmentalism. To be a Kennedy supporter is to endorse the notion that only the wise elite of the ruling class are morally entitled to the trappings of wealth. In the workers’ paradise, the masses will be uniformly poor, controlled, and maintained… while the commissars live in mansions, the Castros are billionaires, and the Kennedys hold court at Martha’s Vineyard. The desperate slobbering of people like Chris Matthews is an embarrassing illustration of the liberal’s enduring need to believe his leaders are giants in the earth, the elite of the elite. Of course the Left is feverishly working to deify Kennedy. Liberals see themselves as moral and intellectual heroes, and heroes kneel only before gods.

Kennedy is praised for his “passion” by the same people who recoil in horror from the passion of town-hall protesters and pro-life advocates. Awarding political power, and respect, on the basis of “passion” is another road to totalitarianism. The passion of the State’s acolytes will always eclipse that of hard-working taxpayers, who scurry home with one hand on their wallets, hoping to avoid the notice of a hungry government. There will never be a shortage of passionate advocates for billion-dollar spending programs.

Lust and sanctimony are a dangerous combination. We’ve had enough of politicians who believe their duty to their party, and its vision of the future, transcends their loyalty to the real America that lives beyond their ideology. Ted Kennedy unquestionably believed this, when he offered to help the Soviet Union defeat Ronald Reagan… or when he found it expedient to portray George Bush and the American military as the new management of Saddam Hussein’s torture chambers, even as American troops were locked in mortal combat with al-Qaeda terrorists. We’ve had enough of Senators-for-life, and royal families who use safe districts as dynastic thrones. We don’t need any more “visionaries” who think the purpose of the private sector is helping government to realize its true potential.

There’s no doubt that Kennedy was a towering figure with a legendary career full of important legislative achievements. The most important legislative achievement of a reborn America will be strangling all the other legendary careers in their cribs with term limits. Congressmen and Presidents were meant to bow before their constituents, not tower over them. I’m all in favor of naming the term limits bill after Edward Kennedy. It would be a fitting tribute.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Early, early on, when Doonesbury was funny, Trudeau capped a strip with, “Of course they’re sympathetic to the plight of the working class — that’s how they avoid belonging to it.”

It should be engraved on Ted Kennedy’s headstone.

cthulhu on August 26, 2009 at 11:10 PM

I’m all in favor of naming the term limits bill after Edward Kennedy. It would be a fitting tribute.

Amen. In discussing Kennedy, how does one ignore the total record? And don’t get me started about Mary Jo…

itzWicks on August 27, 2009 at 12:12 AM

In the spirit of Teddy, let me suggest that the term limits bill only apply to Democrats. Republicans can serve as long as they want, and no scandal can dislodge them.

In the spirit of Teddy, let’s not level the playing field, let’s tilt it the other way for a while first.

As I have heard from so many race obsessed liberals, it’s only fair after such a long period of oppression to have the oppressed do the oppressing for some time to catch up.

How about that?

Brian1972 on August 27, 2009 at 5:13 AM

Brian1972 on August 27, 2009 at 5:13 AM

Hmmm. That sounds familiar….

Seriously, I believe we’d be better off without 2/3rds of our supposed representatives on the right side of the aisle as well. We need people to represent us who know how to say no to new programs and more spending, and who will begin the Herculean task of shrinking our federal government to a reasonable size.

Term limits, baby.

hillbillyjim on August 27, 2009 at 6:21 AM

BTW, thanks again for another outstanding post, Dr. Zero. You might want to think about throwing in a dud here and there before we start taking you for granted!

Your work, your wit, and your withering way with words are much appreciated.

hillbillyjim on August 27, 2009 at 6:26 AM

This morning is my first time in the Green Room – I got here because I was looking for more Dr. Zero posts -Great writing that so eloquently and accurately expresses my own beliefs.

Yesterday morning ABC put up a quote by Obama saying Kennedy was “the greatest U.S. Senator of our time.” That was one of the more ridiculous statements our POTUS has made – and that’s significant considering all the ridiculous things he’s said.

themediansib on August 27, 2009 at 6:52 AM

Moment of caution.

While term limits will weaken the power of the congresscritters, the question I have to ask is whether it will weaken the power of the central government overall, or whether the power will merely shift to some other government organ.

I would be much, much happier with Teddy K being, well, himself as a senator, having to put up with a re-election yearly than as an appointed (and therefore non-removable) Tsar…

Remember – Chicago eventually voted out Rostenkowski.

Mew

acat on August 27, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Moment of caution.

While term limits will weaken the power of the congresscritters, the question I have to ask is whether it will weaken the power of the central government overall, or whether the power will merely shift to some other government organ.

I would be much, much happier with Teddy K being, well, himself as a senator, having to put up with a re-election yearly than as an appointed (and therefore non-removable) Tsar…

Remember – Chicago eventually voted out Rostenkowski.

Mew

acat on August 27, 2009 at 11:25 AM

An excellent point… term limits must be implemented carefully, and they’re not a silver bullet. My own reservation about term limits, far outweighed by the good I think they would do, is that removing the fear of losing a re-election bid would liberate some of the congress-critters to do their worst. Lame ducks have little to fear from the voters, after all, aside from a general desire not to doom the party’s chances of retaining the seat.

An overall emphasis on Constitutional fidelity, and strict controls on the options available to government, must be part of the solution too. We need limited terms for the occupation of uncomfortable seats.

Doctor Zero on August 27, 2009 at 12:08 PM

Why stop at term limits for elected officials? How about, “no person shall be eligible to serve in any position, whatsoever, for any governmental entity or entities, after 12 years of service in any combination of Federal, state, or local government, with the exception of the armed forces”?

cthulhu on August 27, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Doc:

The other side of the “lame duck” argument is that the presence of term limits might make elective office less valuable to the power hungry, in which case there would be less to fear from lame ducks.

My observation – opinion only – is there’s a tipping point in Congress at which a Representative / Senator stops representing his constituents to the government and starts representing the government to his constituents. It’s a big part of why I get such a laugh when opponents talk about all the “experience” we’d lose if term limits were implemented: yes, we get so much benefit from the experience of Barney Frank, San Fran Nan, Henry Waxman, Bobby Byrd, the late Sen. Ted, John F Kerry, etc. And, just to be bipartisan, all too often Sen McCain seems to think he’s “grown” beyond the wisdom of the people he supposedly represents.

They’re not a silver bullet; reducing the amount of $$$ Washington has to play with would be the bullet, but that’s not happening any time soon.

BD57 on August 27, 2009 at 2:21 PM

BD57 on August 27, 2009 at 2:21 PM
—–
Power, once concentrated, tends to only de-concentrate explosively…. instead, it flows to other .. organs.

This is my fear regarding Obama’s Tsars. They have massive power and are utterly unaccountable. No amount of term limits touches the Tsars, and it will take a very different Republican than John McCain (or, I fear, Mitt Romney) to shut them down.

How many years, how many Presidents, since a government program was ended?

Mew

acat on August 27, 2009 at 5:11 PM