Are we done worshipping the Kennedys yet? And what do you mean by "we"?
That was quite a spectacle — the commentariat gushing superlatives over the alleged power of Ted and Caroline to deliver liberals to Barack Obama. Half the electorate wasn't even born when the sainted John F. Kennedy was assassinated — and few have any idea who Ethel is. Though the Kennedy brand is in steep decline, the wave of conformist opinion still thinks this endorsement is very big.
Americans fought a revolution to free themselves from ruling families. Thomas Paine wrote that "we cannot conceive a more ridiculous figure of government than hereditary succession, in all its cases, presents."
Nonetheless, the Kennedys fancy themselves liberal kingmakers, and the media swallow their presumption whole. "The torch is passed," the chroniclers scribble, as candidates beg Kennedys for their "prized endorsements."
JFK was indeed a charismatic figure, but the more we learn about his Camelot in Washington, the less perfect it sounds. (One might start at the 1960 election, which was stolen with an assist by the mob.) Daughter Caroline was adorable, but could someone please explain her cosmic significance today?
The career of dynasty elder, Ted Kennedy, meanwhile, is headed for a disgraceful end. The Massachusetts senator has been caught in a sneaky plot to kill a clean-energy project in Nantucket Sound. Seems he doesn't want to see wind turbines from his waterfront estate. "Don't you realize — that's where I sail!" he famously said.
The heck with his constituents, who live with some of the foulest coal-burning plants in the country. The heck with the United States, trying to free itself from foreign oil. The heck with the planet, threatened by global warming. Environmentalists now boo at the Kennedy name — not that many in the media have noticed.
In 1994, the family parked Ted's troubled son Patrick in a Rhode Island congressional seat.
Patrick recently condemned a wind farm proposal for his state — with references to "monster windmills." You see, making any New England waters safe for wind turbines would undercut Dad's efforts to keep them off his Hyannisport horizon.
Patrick moves in and out of rehab over pills and booze. In 2000, he shoved a security guard at Los Angeles International Airport. Later that year, he "trashed" a leased sailboat, according to the vessel's owner. In the wee hours two years ago, he crashed his car into a barrier near the Capitol building. One wishes Patrick luck in recovery, but doesn't his district does deserve a fully functional representative?
A new Obama ad shows the Illinois senator flanked by Patrick and Ted, with Caroline spouting the same sort of vacuous platitudes that (sadly) have characterized his own speeches. Obama is better than any of these people, and the spot emphasizes what's missing in his campaign: substance.
In a non-romantic look at the family, "The Dark Side of Camelot," author Seymour Hersh described John's 1960 strategy as follows: "He made his mark not in the Senate, where his legislative output remained undistinguished, but among the voters, who responded to Kennedy as they would to a famous athlete or popular movie star."
Sound familiar?
The Obama campaign has, with justification, criticized Hillary Clinton's candidacy as another example of dynastic politics. But now that Obama is playing adopted son of the Kennedy clan, that argument falls apart. As for Clinton, her trolling for the endorsements of other family members lacked dignity. And she missed an opportunity to dismiss the Kennedy mystique as so much hot air.
The idea of political dynasties insults a free people. Why this obvious point gets lost in the glowing and lazy reportage of the Kennedy endorsements beats me.
To find out more about Froma Harrop, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
|
 |
Comments
|
9 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
I was 18 when JFK was elected (couldn't vote for him then). It's hard to describe the sense of possibility and hope he represented. It was leaving Ike and World War II and the Korean War behind and looking into a bright new future. In his best moments JFK had a grace and poetic sensibility that at least echoed Lincoln if it did not really approach it. Of course, over the years I've learned the dark side of Kennedy and have had to revise my thinking on many things. The entire Kennedy family has been marked by dysfunction. Nevertheless, they have been an example of a wealthy family who has consistently spoken and worked for equality and well being of all citizens. So rather than trash the Kennedy's, Ms. Harrop, it might be better just to note that endorsements in general mean very little to the individual voter and let's move on.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Martha P. Campbell
Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:37 PM
|
|
|
|
Ms . Harrop obviously dislikes the Kennedy`s . I understand her feelings although I do not fall to the level of anti Kennedy sentiment that she is at . I am from Patrick`s district in Providence . He has not done much for me or my area . Nonetheless the endorsement from Ted , Patrick , and Caroline are extremely significant . Regardless of Ms. Harrop`s personal views about the Kennedy`s they are evidently still relevant . Irrelevant pols do not warrant a whole opinion piece . Nor do irrelevant pol endorsements overshadow the state of the union speech ( even from a lame duck president ) . The truth is a Kennedy endorsement means more money , better organization , more widespread organization , access to labor unions , etc etc etc .
In addition to being wrong about the influence of the Kennedy`s Ms. Harrop is also wrong about Barack and his appeal . Ms. Harrop calls Barack`s message empty or vaccuous ( i dont remember the exact wording ) but her point is that Obama`s campaign has not talked about substantive issues and his plans on dealing with those issues . Ms. Harrop is correct in this observation . But for people like me the issues are not that important this time around . We know that Hillary and Barack are both pretty similar when it comes to the major issues . We know that a Democratic president would roll back the Bush tax cuts . We know that a Dem president would work to open up better dialogue with our allies and our so called enemies . We know that a Dem president would take a whack at health care . Issues wise Barack and Hillary are not that far apart .
Issues are not what seperates Barack and Hillary . What seperates them is what the candidate brings to the White House personally , spiritually , sociologically , and nationally . Fairly or unfairly , Hillary brings almost twenty years of bickering , baggage , scandal , division , lies , sex , and dysfunction . I do not want 4 or 8 more years of turning on the radio only to hear my president called a bitch , a liar , a phony , or worse .
Barack does not bring any baggage with him to the White House . Instead he offers something new , something fresh , something better . Politics aside , Barack offers all Americans a chance to respect their president . I`m sick of disliking my president . I`m sick of being embarresed by my president . I want to respect my president . Barack offers all Americans this chance . I defy you to find anyone that does not respect Barack Obama . Clearly the same cannot be said for Hillary Clinton . The choice is easy ... Barack in `08 .
Comment: #2
Posted by: sweetfly
Sat Feb 2, 2008 8:55 AM
|
|
|
|
I read an opinion piece of yours for the first time and it will be the last. Your opinion amounts to you being another nut job in the likes of Ann Coulter. If you want to talk disparagingly about a political dynasty then turn your attention toward the Bush family. George W's lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have cost this country and over 3,000 of its families, the lives of their precious loved ones. I think history has already recorded that this horror of a US President will go down as the worst of all time. Focus on that for a change. While the Kennedys have some not so shiny moments in their history, the Bush's have done far worse for this country with their ties to big oil lining their pockets, enriching corporations and CEO's at the expense of the American public, increasing the gap between rich and poor and virtually eliminating well paying manufacturing jobs in this country in favor of communist, 25 cent per hour basically slave labor so that the bottom line can be increased and the CEO get a multimillion dollar bonus. Tack on that more Americans lack health insurance than when he became President, that more Americans are in poverty and that real wages have decreased during his term in office and there is no need to talk about what past political families have done, we've got enough problems to fix from just what the current President has created. Chew on that for a while.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Christian Lyons
Sat Feb 2, 2008 8:58 AM
|
|
|
|
Many of the words used in your above article are what I would refer to as, "dissing" words. You used: "worshipping, spectacle,gushing superlatives, sainted, " all within the first two paragraphs. These are words that you meant to be devisive and are intentionally used to put down the other person, in this case the Kennedys. It is this kind of rhetoric that has escalated over the past seven years that I find totally unacceptable. If you want to say something and write your opinion, get your facts correct and don't diss the other person. For this reason, I am a Barack supporter since I don't hear those kinds of intentionally demeaning words coming from him. You must also remember the Kennedys have been elected by their constituents, they were not annointed to a kingship.
As far as the wind turbine energy initiative off Martha's Vineyard, the majority of Cape Codders and Martha's Vineyard residents are against this project. Ted Kennedy has not done anything sneaky here. This area of the country prizes the rare beauty of the land and sea and wish to protect it from corporate destruction. John Kennedy created the Cape Cod National Seashore for this very reason. In addition, the tourist industry is dependent upon selling this beauty, which constitutes the livelihood for the entire Cape/Vineyard economy. There are plenty of other places to put wind turbines. I'm all for wind energy and have seen thousands put up in western Minnesota in areas that are not obtrusive.
I don't know where you have been, but if you read Barack's "Audacity of Hope" you will find more substance in his book than any other politician's writiings. He is meticulously thorough and specific. I suggest you read his book before you start criticizing.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Jan
Sun Feb 3, 2008 11:40 AM
|
|
|
|
Froma Harrop is right. What she said was factual. The above replies are obviously from those people who worship the Ks. I was in high school during Jack Kennedy's election. I was fooled by his good looks and also by his eloquent rhetoric. The facts are that he was a bad person, he had a bad marriage. Most of the Kennedys have bad marriages, with a few exceptions. Very few. Ted should be giving his endorsement from jail. Have you forgotten about Chapaquidick? How those stupid people in Massachuetts keep reelecting him is beyond belief. Keep up the good work Froma!
Comment: #5
Posted by: John
Mon Feb 4, 2008 9:01 AM
|
|
|
|
Froma.. I rarely respond to an editorial.... buts yours today in my local paper in Spokane prompted me to do so. You take such aim at one family, but make no mention of the Bush Dynasty, and the wealth they and their cronies have accumulated at the expense of all of us. The Kennedy's I am sure have plenty of money, however they as a family have worked for the betterment of those less fortunate and those without a voice. Do you really think that without the voices of John and Bobby Kennedy that the Civil Right movement would be as far as it is today. Obviously you are two young and priveleged to understand what John and Bobby worked for. I am sorry you missed out. They were a beacon of hope to my family, and I admire Caroline for her Courage, Strengh and her Intellect.
Cheers to Obama and the Kennedy's. I will take them any day over this corrupt bunch thats in the White House now!
Comment: #6
Posted by: mark mustoe
Mon Feb 4, 2008 4:08 PM
|
|
|
|
Ms. Harrop makes a spurious claim in her column: "One might start at the 1960 election, which was stolen with an assist by the mob." Harrop is presumably speaking of Kennedy's disputed victory in Illinois. But even if Kennedy lost Illinois he would have won the election anyway. Kennedy ended up with 303 electoral votes, 34 more than the 269 required for victory. Now take away Illinois' 27 electoral votes. Kennedy still wins with 276 electoral votes to Nixon's 246. A bit of research indicates that several states conducted recounts in the wake of the 1960 election. The result was that Hawaii's outcome was reversed in Kennedy's favor.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Jason
Mon Feb 4, 2008 9:25 PM
|
|
|
|
Ms. Harrop makes a spurious claim in her column: "One might start at the 1960 election, which was stolen with an assist by the mob." Harrop is presumably speaking of Kennedy's victory in Illinois. But even if Kennedy lost Illinois he would have won the election anyway. Kennedy ended up with 303 electoral votes, 34 more than the 269 required for victory. Now take away Illinois' 27 electoral votes. Kennedy still wins with 276 electoral votes to Nixon's 246. A bit of research indicates that several states conducted recounts in the wake of the 1960 election. The result was that Hawaii's outcome was reversed in Kennedy's favor.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Jason
Mon Feb 4, 2008 9:27 PM
|
|
|
|
Living with the Kennedy legacy in RI has been a life long enviromental hazard. Agreed that Ms. Harrop could have mentioned the Bush "dynasty" as well but I am still in agreement with her article. It is time for a change but lets be sure we fully understand that change is a move in a better direction. Obama lacks any true substance and experience and only looks good because the Clintons are the alternative options. I have been a lifelong Dem but I see the party moving in a socialist directiion. I am more afraid of leaders that "want" a powerless country to lead. This "eat the rich" syndrome is unhealthy. It punishes the folks that are productive and successful. There are more lower and middle class in this country and that is why they want that vote. Masses. I am not in favor of a goverment that wants to be my parent. I want to parent the goverment. Small goverment and tight borders. If you all like JFK so much why don't you ask yourself -What have you done for YOUR country lately?
Ms Harrop please keep writing sense in this stubburn "blue" state.
Comment: #9
Posted by: Diane Slater
Wed Feb 6, 2008 5:42 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
