Remembering the Real Deal
By Robert Scheer
Truthdig: August 25, 2009
The light has gone out, and with it that infectious warm laugh and intensely
progressive commitment of the best of the Kennedys. Not, at this point, to
take anything away from the memory of his siblings-Bobby, whom I also got to
know, was pretty terrific in his last years-but Senator Ted Kennedy was the
real deal.
Unable to move with his brothers' intellectual alacrity, sometimes plodding
in impromptu expression but smooth and skillful while reading from a script,
the youngest Kennedy made up for his shortcomings early in his Senate career
by resolutely working the substance of issues. His principled determination,
plus his capacity to truly care about the real-world outcomes of legislation
for ordinary people rather than its impact on his or anyone else's election,
became his signature qualities as a lawmaker. But for those same reasons, he
also wanted legislation passed, and his ability to work with the opposition,
as he did three years ago with John McCain on immigration reform, now grants
him a legacy as one of the nation's great senators.
Oddly enough, for one born into such immense familial expectations, he was a
surprisingly accessible and down-to-earth politician in the eyes of most
journalists who covered him. I think of him as always authentic and never
oily. As opposed to most politicians, the offstage Ted Kennedy was the more
appealing one.
Although he excelled as an orator, never more so than delivering the speech
that Bob Shrum crafted for him at the 1980 Democratic Convention but which
was informed by Kennedy's own deeply felt passion, it was in his less
choreographed moments that he was at his best. I spent quite a few hours
over the years interviewing him on subjects ranging from health care to
nuclear arms control, mostly as a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, and
while his grammar could be troubling, his sentiments never were.
Not once in those interviews did I find Kennedy to equivocate or slide into
the amoral triangulation that defines almost all successful politicians.
They position themselves, but he took positions, and as in the case of
health care reform, he would end his life fighting for those causes with his
last breath.
I would put Kennedy alongside my other hero, George McGovern, as the two
most trusted standard-bearers of the Democratic Party's too-often-sabotaged
liberalism. I just could never imagine either of them ever selling us out.
Indeed, I haven't felt quite so sad about the passing of a political leader
since the day when people started bawling all over the Bronx with the news
that FDR had died. In a political world dominated by bipartisan cynicism,
there are few touchstones of integrity for the common folk, and Kennedy was
one of them.
Lest I be accused of surrendering to the emotions of the moment, let me
quote from a column I wrote in January of 2008 when the Democratic
presidential primary battle hung in the balance:
"It should mean a great deal to progressives that in the race for the
Democratic presidential nomination Sen. Ted Kennedy favors Sen. Barack Obama
over two other colleagues he has worked with in the Senate. No one in the
history of that institution has been a more consistent and effective fighter
than Kennedy for an enlightened agenda, be it civil rights and liberty,
gender equality, labor and immigrant justice, environmental protection,
educational opportunity or opposing military adventures.
"Kennedy was a rare sane voice among the Democrats in strongly opposing the
Iraq war, and it is no small tribute when he states: `We know the record of
Barack Obama. There is the courage he showed when so many others were silent
or simply went along. From the beginning, he opposed the war in Iraq. And
let no one deny that truth.'"
Hopefully, it will be added to Ted Kennedy's legacy that he was right about
Obama just as he was consistently right on every major issue that he dealt
with as a senator. Indeed, Kennedy's endorsement of Obama was critical to
our current president's historic nomination and election, and it is
therefore fitting that the favor of that all-important endorsement be
returned with a significant reform of the ailing U.S. health care system.
In the first year of the George W. Bush presidency, I wrote a column for the
Los Angeles Times entitled "Bush Could Really Use a Fireside Chat with FDR,"
stating, "This is a president who never learned that it is possible to be a
leader born of privilege and yet be absorbed with the fate of those in
need. . Not so Roosevelt, a true aristocrat whose genuine love of the common
man united this country to save it during its most severe time of economic
turmoil and devastating war." Kennedy wrote me a note thanking me for the
column and adding, "I can think of at least fifty on the Senate side of
Capital Hill that could benefit from a good fireside chat as well."
That's also a worthy epitaph for Ted Kennedy: Born of privilege, and yet
absorbed with the fate of those in need.
***
Editor's note: In honor of Sen. Ted Kennedy's passing, we're re-posting one
of his classic moral stands. This 2007 speech against the escalation of the
Iraq war was so good we had to give him an award.
Truthdig: Posted on Jan 12, 2007
This week Truthdig salutes Ted Kennedy for calling on Congress to honor the
will of the people and block the escalation of the Iraq war. While many in
Washington have stated their opposition to Bush's plan to send more troops
to Iraq, the senior senator from Massachusetts has actually acted on those
convictions-authoring a bill that would require congressional approval
before any more troops could be sent.
Kennedy has positioned himself as one of the most vocal opponents of
escalation, demanding that Congress exercise its constitutionally mandated
"power of the purse" to prevent this madness from going any further. Where
some have busied themselves searching for the right words, Kennedy has been
shouting from the rooftops.
We tip our hat to the senator for realizing this issue is about more than
triangulation and political gain-it's about human life and the balance of
power in our democracy.
Text of Kennedy's Senate floor speech on escalation:
Iraq is the overarching issue of our time. American lives, American
values, and America's role in the world is at stake.
As the November election made clear, the American people oppose this war,
and an even greater number oppose sending more troops to Iraq.
The American people are demanding a change in course in Iraq. Instead,
the president is accelerating the same failed course he has pursued for
nearly four years. He must understand that Congress will not endorse this
course.
The president's decision to send more American troops into the cauldron of
civil war is not an acceptable strategy. It is against the advice of his
own generals, the Iraq Study Group, and the wishes of the American people,
and will only compound our original mistake in going to war in Iraq.
Just this morning, the secretary of state testified that the Iraqi
government "is ... on borrowed time." In fact, time is already up. The
Iraqi government needs to make the political compromises necessary to end
this civil war. The answer is not more troops, it's a political settlement.
The president talked about strengthening relations with Congress. He
should begin by seeking authority from Congress for any escalation of the
war.
The mission of our armed forces today in Iraq no longer bears any
resemblance to the mission authorized by Congress in 2002. The Iraq War
Resolution authorized a war against the regime of Saddam Hussein because he
was believed to have weapons of mass destruction, an operational
relationship with Al Qaeda, and was in defiance of U.N. Security Council
resolutions.
Not one member of Congress would have voted in favor of the resolution if
they thought they were sending American troops into a civil war.
The president owes it to the American people to seek approval for this new
mission from Congress. Congress should no longer be a rubber stamp for the
president's failed strategy. We should insist on a policy that is worthy of
the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform.
President Bush has been making up his mind on Iraq ever since the
election. Before he escalates the war, the American people deserve a voice
in his decision.
He's the commander in chief, but he's still accountable to the people.
Our system of checks and balances gives Congress a key role in decisions of
war and peace.
We know an escalation of troops into this civil war won't work. We've
increased our military presence in the past, and each time, the violence has
increased and the political problems have persisted.
Despite what the president says, his own generals are on the record
opposing a surge in troops.
Last Nov. 15, 2006, General Abizaid was unequivocal that increasing our
troop commitment is not the answer. He said, "I've met with every
divisional commander, General Casey, the corps commander, General Dempsey-we
all talked together. And I said, 'In your professional opinion, if we were
to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our
ability to achieve success in Iraq?' And they all said no."
On Dec. 29, General Casey said, "The longer we in the U.S. forces continue
to bear the main burden of Iraq's security, it lengthens the time that the
government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and
dealing with the militias. ... They can continue to blame us for all of
Iraq's
problems, which are at base their problems."
Time and again, our leaders in Vietnam escalated our military presence,
and each new escalation of force led to the next. We escalated the war
instead of ending it. Like Vietnam, there is no military solution to Iraq.
The president is the last person in America to understand that.
We must not only speak against the surge in troops, we must act to prevent
it.
No comments:
Post a Comment