The Last Tough Liberal
It was the biggest night of the young presidential candidate's campaign. In the South Dakota primary, he had trounced that state's native son, the sitting vice president, while in California he had just defeated the Minnesota senator who, one week earlier in Oregon, had inflicted his first-ever election defeat.
After accepting the cheers and applause of the crowd in the Embassy Room, he moved through a kitchen corridor on Los Angeles' Ambassador Hotel on his way to a press conference. He turned to touch the outstretched hand of Jesus Perez, a 17-year-old busboy, just before the assassin's bullet from a snub-nosed Iver Johnson revolver pierced his skull and smashed into 42-year-old Sen. Robert F. Kennedy's brain. He would die 25 hours later at Good Samaritan hospital on June 6, 1968.
For those of us who were alive then, the memory of those days is as clear and as painful as yesterday. Why did Robert Kennedy, a man who was never nominated, let alone elected, president, touch so profoundly — and so permanently — so many people? And why has no candidate since been able to inspire both the same passion and to enkindle the same public fervor for racial and social justice?
Here's my theory, which you have every right to know, comes from the frankly nonobjective view of somebody who, before he became a reconditioned virgin and a "detached" journalist, worked as a campaign organizer for Kennedy in the Nebraska, Oregon and California primaries.
American voters are always searching for one of two presidential types — a Warm-Hearted Conservative and-or a Tough, Muscular Liberal. Robert Kennedy, in my judgment, was quite simply the last Tough Liberal.
He was not a compelling orator. His platform manner could be tentative, his voice unimposing. But he was without pomposity, and he struck no false notes. He was small, maybe 5 feet 9 inches, and almost surely by the time of the California primary not weighing over 150 pounds. He had the strong, muscled forearms of the athlete he was, but he often slouched when he walked. He grew up behind two golden, charmed brothers, both sent to early graves — one in heroic wartime service and the second, the nation's commander in chief, assassinated in Dallas.
Tragedy had tested Robert Kennedy, and he had more than passed that test. He was the only American presidential candidate of the post-Civil Rights era who was able to win the enthusiastic — make that the devoted — backing and trust of both white working-class Democrats and African-American Democrats. He could speak of law and order to black audiences and they would listen, because they knew he was not talking in the racial-political shorthand of a Richard Nixon. White ethnic voters knew that he was not your garden-variety, "can't we all get along" liberal, that he was tough as nails and that nobody — CEO or labor boss or foreign dictator — could lean on Bob Kennedy.
Children loved Robert Kennedy, a feeling he returned fully to each child he encountered. He spoke to and for the Left-Out and the Left-Behind, poor white Americans in the hollows of Eastern Kentucky, poor black Americans in the ghettos of Oakland, poor brown Americans in the barrios of Los Angeles, poor Native Americans on the Dakota reservation.
The late Fred Dutton, the gifted California advisor who was constantly at the candidate's side, may have put it best: "Bob Kennedy is the kind of guy I'd like in a foxhole with me. He wouldn't run when the shooting began."
This was not the 2 o'clock courage of the whisky warrior. As a 21-year-old infantryman, Dutton fought for two months in the snow at the Battle of the Bulge, where he earned a Purple Heart and the Bronze Star, and was captured by the Germans and held as a POW.
Robert Kennedy was tough enough to beat Richard Nixon in 1968. He was truly the Last, Tough Liberal.
To find out more about Mark Shields and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
COPYRIGHT 2008 MARK SHIELDS 
|
 |
Comments
|
4 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Mark, I'm sure if Hillary reads this she'll be thinking “Boy are you rubbing it in.” Speaking of Obama, however, who I guess in your mind doesn't qualify as a tough liberal, how ridiculous of you to say that Obama owes Hillary an apology for the tirade put on by that idiot Michael Pfleger. How does one “owe” an apology for what someone else has done.? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last night was not one of your best. You kind of made the point that what matters most about Scott McClellan is whether the things he alleges are true, not whether his book is boring (that was the brilliant contribution made by that dope David Brooks), or whether he is a hypocrite for waiting until he was nice and safe to rat out his fellow rodents. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you could have said it with a little more fire in the belly, perhaps like this: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is common practice in law enforcement, and l do believe “law enforcement” is the appropriate phrase to be on one's mind when speaking of the Bush Administration, to enlist the services of informants and all kinds of unsavory people with evil motives. Why do they do this? Because they want to get the goods on the bad guys, and one of the best ways to find out what one bad guy is up to is by talking to another bad guy with an ax to grind. So when the bad guy rats out another bad guy, the cops don't care about how hypocritical or sleazy or whatever the informants motives happen to be. What they care about is whether what is being said is…you guessed it…TRUE. Get it? TRUE. Sorry to say this, and among those who should take particular note are George and Dick and that lovely talking manikin Dana Perino, but what our “disgruntled”, book-hawking, easy-money, former press secretary is saying happens to be…TRUE. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To your credit, Mark, you did sort of said that. Of course, it went right over the head of the sophomoric Brooks, a trusted keeper of the creed of the comfy in talking head land. But of course he has no interest in calling attention to what a yellow member of the parrot brigade he turned out to be when the nation was crying out for a journalist. And it was very cute last night when he told us that little tale about how he and an unnamed colleague went in to talk to Bush personally about the war (he never does miss a chance to let us all know how he regularly hobnobs with the big boys). Brooks, who never thought to mention what HE said (probably zippo) if indeed this little story has any truth to it, went on and on about how his colleague challenged a red-faced Bush about the war and Bush seemed to actually like it. I never did get the point of the whole story except that I guess it is meant to provide some sort of fig leaf for the big zero Brooks contributed to the journalism of that period. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And finally, a little pie in the face for Gwen Ifill, who like you is usually pretty darn good but kind of blew it last night. For her and her crew it was all about McClellan's hypocracy. I just couldn't believe how much they lingered on McClellan himself and the drama of it all and let the substance just get lost in the airwaves. It seems still, even at this late date, that nobody really has any real interest in dealing with the big elephant in the room. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And by the way, there is a reason why McClellan has no problem trashing the Washington Press Corps even though he's admitting in the same breath that he is among those responsible for “misleading” them. That is because he knows in his guilty heart that they were not really mislead. They were all in cahoots together to keep it nice and smooth and go with the flow, and they knew perfectly well they were just being middlemen for the delivery of propaganda. He knows deep down in there somewhere that the same thing lite is taking place even now, even on the exalted PBS, and he just can't quite get the irony of someone like him scolding journalists for toasting their life of easy words..
Comment: #1
Posted by: Masako
Sat May 31, 2008 11:02 AM
|
|
|
|
Mark, I'm sure if Hillary reads this she'll be thinking “Boy are you rubbing it in.” Speaking of Obama, however, who I guess in your mind doesn't qualify as a tough liberal, how ridiculous of you to say that Obama owes Hillary an apology for the tirade put on by that idiot Michael Pfleger. How does one “owe” an apology for what someone else has done.?
Last night was not one of your best. You kind of made the point that what matters most about Scott McClellan is whether the things he alleges are true, not whether his book is boring (that was the brilliant contribution made by that dope David Brooks), or whether he is a hypocrite for waiting until he was nice and safe to rat out his fellow rodents.
But you could have said it with a little more fire in the belly, perhaps like this.
It is common practice in law enforcement, and l do believe “law enforcement” is the appropriate phrase to be on one's mind when speaking of the Bush Administration, to enlist the services of informants and all kinds of unsavory people with evil motives. Why do they do this? Because they want to get the goods on the bad guys, and one of the best ways to find out what one bad guy is up to is by talking to another bad guy with an ax to grind. So when the bad guy rats out another bad guy, the cops don't care about how hypocritical or sleazy or whatever the informant's motives happen to be. What they care about is whether what is being said is…you guessed it…TRUE. Get it? TRUE. Sorry to say this, and among those who should take particular note are George and Dick and that lovely talking manikin Dana Perino, but what our “disgruntled”, book-hawking, easy-money, former press secretary is saying happens to be…TRUE.
To your credit, Mark, you did sort of say that. Of course, it went right over the head of the sophomoric Brooks, a trusted keeper of the creed of the comfy in talking head land. But of course he has no interest in calling attention to what a yellow member of the parrot brigade he turned out to be when the nation was crying out for a journalist. And it was very cute last night when he told us that little tale about how he and an unnamed colleague went in to talk to Bush personally about the war (he never does miss a chance to let us all know how he regularly hobnobs with the big boys). Brooks, who never thought to mention what HE said (probably zippo) if indeed this little story has any truth to it, went on and on about how his colleague challenged a red-faced Bush about the war and Bush seemed to actually like it. I never did get the point of the whole story except that I guess it is meant to provide some sort of fig leaf for the big zero Brooks contributed to the journalism of that period.
And finally, a little pie in the face for Gwen Ifill, who like you is usually pretty darn good but kind of blew it last night. For her and her crew it was all about McClellan's hypocracy. I just couldn't believe how much they lingered on McClellan himself and the drama of it all and let the substance just get lost in the airwaves. It seems still, even at this late date, that nobody really has any real interest in dealing with the big elephant in the room.
And by the way, there is a reason why McClellan has no problem trashing the Washington Press Corps even though he's admitting in the same breath that he is among those responsible for “misleading” them. That is because he knows in his guilty heart that they were not really mislead. They were all in cahoots together to keep it nice and smooth and go with the flow, and they knew perfectly well they were just being middlemen for the delivery of propaganda. He knows deep down in there somewhere that the same thing lite is taking place even now, even on the exalted PBS, and he just can't quite get the irony of someone like him scolding journalists for toasting their life of easy words..
Comment: #2
Posted by: Masako
Sat May 31, 2008 11:16 AM
|
|
|
|
Mr. Shields;
I don't want to take anything away from you, if you knew Mr. Kennedy, and liked him. I sailed right off the beach beside his father's house thirty five years ago on vacation in the same year my son was born, and I must say I was impressed. But I have grown so much less impressed with the Kennedys with every passing year that I cannot find redeaming qualities in them to speak of. There is a reason I like liberals, and it is that their hearts are in the right places, which means they have hearts, and not calculators where their hearts should be. I will say this as a fact, and you prove me wrong: JFK was warned out of Vietnam by the best general we had on his death bed, but would not leave until after re-election, for fear of seeming soft on Communism. That is the way Republicans have steered this country ever right and wrong with red-baiting, and by this method, endangered all our rights. Read about Kennedy, the Kennedys and the FBI, with J.E. Hoover bugging them in bed, and bugging Dr. King at every opportunity, with their knowledge, trying to compromise King's marriage, and trying to deprive him of his best council. I do not expect these people to be without flaws. I do expect that if they would govern us, that their virtue must be beyond price to them if it will be kept out of the price range of others. It seems to me, that to have the support of the rich, the lobbyists, and all who would corrode the souls of these mere mortals, that they must each have some proof that they are of easy virtue. Must all be rich who guide us? I guess so! It is only necessary for a person to be made rich to reconsider the interests of his own class in a new light. So, we have liberal rich people and reactionary rich people in government because that is the difference between the goals of public parasites, and it is slight. If you would make one final meal on the corpse of the body politic you are a reactionary. If you would keep the beast alive for milk, butter, and labor you are a liberal. Robert Kennedy was another rich guy looking for a government job. I'd like to tell all those people to get in line.
Comment: #3
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sat May 31, 2008 6:38 PM
|
|
|
|
Hi Mark,
You and David are my favorite "talking heads". However, I do not agree with your guys on Hillary being offensive in her remarks on Tuesday night. And it may be my immagination, but it seems to be mostly male commentators who are offended by her remarks on Tuesday night.
She came very close to winning. If you look at a map of the states she won, you can not tell who won. And she won more of the states Democrats need to win in November than did her opponents. She has a right to be very proud of not only herself but of her supporters and to thank her supporters for what they did. She praised Obama and said she will do what she can to ensure we have a Democratic president in the fall. But she does represent many voters.
When David and you say her remarks were inappropriate, it reminds of the fities and sixties when little girls were told not to correct their boy friends. Men do not like being "shown up". But women have learned to get pass "glass ceilings" they have to speak up and keep going even if it makes a few people uncomfortable.
Obviously I am biased. I am a female and a Hillary supporter. But I wondered if you realized how you sound to some of us when you say she was inappropriate in her remarks.
Jane L. Tillinghast
Comment: #4
Posted by: Jane L. Tillinghast
Thu Jun 5, 2008 8:09 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
