End of the Kennedy dynasty, end of another liberal idol

(Note, Feb. 14: many more comments harshly critical of the Kennedys, Robert Kennedy in particular, which I think are overblown, have been posted.)

The late Sen. Edward Kennedy’s stupid, thuggish, embarrassing son, Patrick, a congressman from Rhode Island since 1995, and an occupant of political office since the age of 21, has announced that he is not running for re-election (see video of his resignation statement here). Which means that for the first time since 1962, there will be no Kennedy serving in Congress. Indeed, with the exception of a hiatus between 1960 to 1962, it will be the first time since 1947 that there will be no Kennedy serving in Congress:

• John F. Kennedy, member of U.S. House of Representatives from Massachusetts, 1947 to 1953, U.S. senator from Massachusetts, 1953 to 1960.

• Edward M. Kennedy, U.S. senator from Massachusetts, 1962 to 2009.

• Robert F. Kennedy, U.S. senator from New York, 1965 to 1968.

• Joseph P. Kennedy II, Robert’s son, member of U.S. House of Representatives from Massachusetts, 1987 to 1999.

• Patrick J. Kennedy, Edward’s son, member of U.S. House of Representatives from Rhode Island, 1995 to present.

(See links to all Kennedys on this page.)

Because of the Kennedy family’s exceptional prominence in American life, we think of the whole family as being exceptional. In reality, their prominence was due to the extraordinary qualities of two Kennedys, John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy. The rest of the family were not extraordinary, except for their extraordinary teeth and extraordinary shared family resemblance. They were a rather mediocre, brutish bunch with a taste for self destructive behavior. The latter is seen in the deaths of:

• David Kennedy, Robert’s son, a drug addict who died of a drug overdoes in 1984.

• Michael L. Kennedy, Robert’s son, who died by skiing into a tree when he and several family members, including his mother, Ethel, were throwing a frisbee back and forth to each other while skiing down a slope in Aspen, Colorado in the twilight.

• John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Jr., son of John F. Kennedy, who died along with his wife Carolyn and her sister when, as an inexperienced pilot, he took off in a private plane in twilight and looming bad weather to fly from New Jersey to Massachusetts and lost control of the plane in the darkness. The National Transportation Safety Board determined that the probable cause of the crash was pilot error: “Kennedy’s failure to maintain control of the airplane during a descent over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation.” Kennedy was not qualified to fly a plane by “instruments only.” Yet, in the darkness (he had taken off as the sun was going down), that is what he was doing.

• In the previous generation, Kathleen Kennedy Cavendish, sister of John F. Kennedy, died in a plane crash in 1948 in the south of France after she and her married lover took off in a private plane in a rain storm.

As for the mediocrity, let us point out that Patrick Kennedy’s departure from Congress would not be the end of the Kennedy dynasty in Congress, if Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, daughter of John F. Kennedy, had been appointed to the U.S. Senate in late 2008 to fill the seat of Hillary Clinton. But though Caroline is the daughter of two glamorous parents and has lived in wealth and moved in elite circles her entire life, and her husband is an art expert, when she put herself forward as a possible appointee to the U.S. Senate she revealed, as I put it at the time, the stunning vapidity of her thoughts and flatness of her speech and personality.

She also disconcerted the press and public with her “ums” and “y’knows.” In a 30 minute interview with the New York Daily News, she said, “y’know,” 200 times—once every nine seconds for 30 minutes.

Excerpts from the interview:

About tax cuts: “Well, you know, that’s something, obviously, that, you know, in principle and in the campaign, you know, I think that, um, the tax cuts, you know … “

About being a good senator: “In many ways, you know, we want to have all kinds of different voices, you know, representing us, and I think what I bring to it is, you know, my experience as a mother, as a woman, as a lawyer, you know.”

On why she wants the job: “Um, this is a fairly unique moment both in our, you know, in our country’s history, and, and in, in, you know, my own life, and um, you know, we are facing, you know, unbelievable challenges, our economy, you know.”

The discovery of Caroline’s utter lack of personality, talent, ability to speak, and knowledge of politics killed her chances to be appointed to the Senate. And that is why Patrick Kennedy’s departure will leave the Congress without a Kennedy for the first time in almost 50 years.

Oh wait. The Kennedy political dynasty might have continued in a manner of speaking, even in the absence of any Kennedy in political office, if Barack Obama, as had been widely predicted, had turned out to be the reincarnation of President Kennedy. But, to paraphrase Sarah Palin’s remark to Obama in her Tea Party speech: “How’s that Return of Kennedy thing workin’ out for yah?”

- end of initial entry -

Jim C. writes:

1. By far the most talented and brilliant Kennedy was Joseph Sr.

2. Joe Jr. was also exceptional but died young.

3. JFK was underrated.

4. RFK was the real thug of the family

5. As much as we loathe him, Teddy was one of the most successful U.S. senators ever

LA replies:

Joe Jr. was a big palooka with a huge ego but not very capable. His sickly younger brother Jack, whom he bullied, consistently outshone him, for example, with his senior thesis which was turned into the book While England Slept. He died because, after Jack became a hero in the PT 109 incident in the Pacific, Joe was desperate to do something equally noteworthy; the thought of his younger brother being more celebrated than himself was unbearable to him. So he volunteered for Operation Aphrodite (look it up at Wiki), an extremely dangerous mission involving flying planes loaded with explosives, then bailing out, and the planes would be guided by remote control to their targets in Germany. The plane he was piloting blew up prematurely in mid air. He died as a direct result of seeking to equal his younger brother.

James P. writes:

“Because of the Kennedy family’s exceptional prominence in American life, we think of the whole family as being exceptional. In reality, their prominence was due to the extraordinary qualities of two Kennedys, John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy.”

The prominence of the Kennedys was due primarily to the extraordinary qualities of ONE Kennedy—Joe, the father. Without his drive to gain vast wealth, the family would not have gained prominence. Without him relentlessly pushing his offspring, none of them would have won political office; they would have been layabouts like most of the subsequent generation.

I will agree that JFK had extraordinary qualities. I do not agree that RFK was very extraordinary. He always struck me as a typical rich man’s son—spoiled, entitled, arrogant, narcissistic, and cruel. As Ann Richards said of Dubya, RFK was born on third base but thought he hit a triple. He would have been nothing if not for his father and elder brother. He had fewer qualifications to be Attorney General than Eric Holder, and not much more qualification to be President than Obama. America is fortunate that this empty suit never occupied the Oval Office.

LA replies:

This is one of the most off-base, prejudice-filled comments I’ve ever read. Whatever Robert Kennedy was, he was an extremely capable, can-do individual. You ought to read a biography about him.

James P. writes:

You wrote:

“This is one of the most off-base, prejudice-filled comments I’ve ever read. Whatever Robert Kennedy was, he was an extremely capable, can-do individual. You ought to read a biography about him.”

I have read many biographies of RFK. In addition, I looked very carefully at RFK’s role in the Kennedy administration when I wrote my doctoral dissertation. I stand by my previous remarks—we are lucky this man was never President.

LA replies:

Which biographies (not hatchet jobs) said what you said about RFK?

It’s just ridiculous. Even RFK haters never described him as merely a spoiled rich man’s son. He was intensely active, a doer.

James P. writes:

“Spoiled” does not mean lazy. I don’t think he was lazy—and indeed, it would have been hard for him to be lazy in that family. Dogged persistence more than intelligence or intellectual curiosity got him through Harvard and UVA. Yet his energy, his intense activity, his dogged persistence were applied to far from admirable ends—chiefly, personal and family advancement—in pursuit of which he used far from admirable means—including brutal abuse of subordinates. He would never have gotten anywhere—least of all Attorney General, Senator, or Presidential Candidate—if not for who his father and brother were.

LA replies:

Bobby Kennedy’s energies were used mainly for personal and family advancement? So that’s the main objection to him now from conservatives, rather than that he used his impressive energies and abilities to advance liberalism?

I think that if I said that Robert Kennedy wore a jacket and tie, someone would post here saying that he was a ruthless criminal.

David B. writes:

Your post on the Kennedys is a good one. It was an impressive feat for JFK to beat Henry Cabot Lodge for a Senate seat in 1952. If he had been no more articulate and intelligent than his daughter Caroline, he would never have made it even with his father’s fortune behind him. I previously posted at VFR the anecdote (from magazine editor Charles Peters) about JFK and his writer, Ted Sorensen. When Sorensen was giving a speech in his place, JFK (who had laryngitis) had to break in and make the points Sorensen missed. Peters noted that John F. Kennedy was smarter than the man who was supposedly his brain.

Regarding Joseph Jr., I once read somewhere that it was wrong to think he would have become president instead of JFK if he had survived WWII. Joe Jr. one never have appealed to the intellectuals and people in general as JFK did.

I don’t think RFK was like George W. Bush. Many people on both sides of the political fence were impressed by his abilities. It was to be expected that Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. would have two capable sons. It was natural for the third generation to go downhill.

Jim C. writes:

LA replies:

Which biographies (not hatchet jobs) said what you said about RFK? It’s just ridiculous. Even RFK haters never described him as merely a spoiled rich man’s son. He was intensely active, a doer.

I agree. While Bobby benefited from nepotism, he took the ball and ran with it. He was certainly brave to pursue Hoffa and organized crime. And comparing Bobby to Obama is an insult to Bobby: Bobby was actually intelligent.

February 14

James P. writes:

You wrote:

“This is one of the most off-base, prejudice-filled comments I’ve ever read. Whatever Robert Kennedy was, he was an extremely capable, can-do individual. You ought to read a biography about him.”

I have read many biographies of RFK. In addition, I looked very carefully at RFK’s role in the Kennedy administration when I wrote my doctoral dissertation. I stand by my previous remarks—we are lucky this man was never President.

James P. writes:

You wrote: “Which biographies (not hatchet jobs) said what you said about RFK? “

I don’t know how to answer that, since I don’t know what you consider a hatchet job. Is any critical biography a hatchet job? It goes without saying that Kennedy hagiographies are not going to say what I said, though I do think that if you read even a relatively admiring biography of RFK—such as Evan Thomas’ recent one—the picture of RFK as an unpleasant bully with a vast sense of personal entitlement comes through loud and clear.

Also look at more general books on the Kennedys, like Collier or Kessler, which place RFK in the context of a family that considered ruthless pride, overweening ambition, and unlimited self-aggrandizement as virtues.

James P. writes:

You wrote: “Bobby Kennedy’s energies were used mainly for personal and family advancement? So that’s the main objection to him now from conservatives, rather than that he used his impressive energies and abilities to advance liberalism?”

The two went hand-in-hand. RFK did not do much to advance liberalism until after his brother was assassinated and he became a Senator with Presidential aspirations. Attacking LBJ from the left—on the domestic front and on foreign policy—was RFK’s only viable path to power.

A commenter wrote: “He was certainly brave to pursue Hoffa and organized crime.”

Brave? Pah. The son of vast wealth and privilege used the power of the Federal government and the press to go after the son of a coal miner. If that was a David and Goliath struggle, RFK was not David. Hoffa was a criminal, to be sure, but RFK’s methods in going after him were highly unethical to say the least.

N. writes:

… and that is why they are idolized, in my opinion. Rum-running, pro-Nazi, Jew-hating Joe Kennedy made his money in various unsavory ways, including manipulation of stock prices. He had the sense to buy good press. Saint John the Martyr should have been cashiered after losing his Navy vessel in the Solomans, but political connections of his father prevented that.

Shall we discuss the lobotomized sister? Shall we discuss the fact that Saint John the Martyr was as much of a walking pharmacy as Michael Jackson? Shall we discuss the disgusting skirt-chasing habits of all of the Kennedy brothers, and the Mafia connections as well? How about the hagiographic press that even aided in covering up Edward’s homicide?

N. writes :

For the record, I find hatred to be a dangerous emotion and strive to avoid it. I can have pity for individual people even as I despise their actions, their words, and aspects of their lives. I can pity individual members of the Kennedy crime family [1] even as I despise just about everything they stand for, every book that was ghost written for them (including “Profiles in Courage”), every hagiographic word ever mumbled by Ted Sorensen, every after-school special, every PBS retrospective, every hollow intonation of “Camelot,” etc.

I have long found Kennedy worship to be a despicable form of idolatry. Partly because I remember both the assassination of Saint John the Martyr and his brother, Saint Robert the Martyr.

Renaming things “Kennedy memorial” began before Saint John the Martyr was in the ground. It was “Kennedy this” and “Kennedy that,” and multiple teachers basically had breakdowns over the event, turning class into worship-sessions that we students had no choice but to endure.

I remember how the entire country was forced to a standstill, with all TV broadcasts limited to the funeral proceedings for both of them, especially Saint Robert the Martyr. For days, everything had to stop and we were all expected to hover over the TV set in order to catch a glimpse of the train carrying his casket. Anyone who criticized in the least bit was shouted down as a “Kennedy Hater,” or had their patriotism challenged, or worse.

I did not know what “cult of personality” was, but years later when I read about the concept I understood it immediately. Because I’d seen it myself, in my own town, in my own school, as well as on TV for days on end. Even in the 1980s, I knew liberals who regarded the Kennedy clan with an emotion that can only be described as reverence. People who would “refute” any attempt to criticize Edward’s latest stupid legislation via accusation of “wanting to finish the job Oswald and Sirhan started,” i.e. equating criticism of legislation with a desire for assassination. I found this to be just incomprehensible at first, and later on rather enraging. Then it just disgusted me, and I came to despise all Kennedy worshippers as the idolaters that they are.

LA writes:

I’ve now posted James P.’s and N’s comments on the subject. I repeat what I said before. In my view, there is a kind of over-emotional anti-Kennedyism which I think is not true and not useful. There are people who, the moment the name Kennedy is mentioned in any context, start spewing in vitiolic terms the case against the Kennedys. In the present case, all that happened was that I said that John and Robert Kennedy had “extraordinary” qualities. I wasn’t approving them, I wasn’t calling them great men. I was merely saying that they both had extraordinary qualities. Yet that was enough to trigger an onslought of anti-Kennedy remarks that to my mind are so overblown they sound like bigotry.

I’m not saying people should not criticize the Kennedys, but that there is an excessive emotional element in many criticicisms which is not good. For example, N. sounds as though he is personally angry about JFK’s scandalous sex life, which of course been known about for three decades. Isn’t it time to have absorbed the facts of Kennedy’s life by now and have a more objective view of the subject? I don’t mean a non-judgmental view; I think his behavior was bad to the point of depravity; I mean a view which doesn’t sound personally angry and aggrieved on the subject?

February 16

Alan Levine writes:

I read your initial comments on the withdrawal of Patrick Kennedy and the Kennedys in general some days ago. I did not comment though it seemed to me (as it has before) that you were a might soft on JFK and RFK. [LA replies: All I said was that they both had “extraordinary” qualities, which is obviously true. The word “extraordinary” doesn’t necessarily mean they were great or even good men. It doesn’t mean I was approving of them. But the mere statement of any praise for Kennedys is enough to set off a wave of Kennedy hostility from some quarters. So go ahead, Alan. The floor is yours.] Yet that was enough to set off this outpouring. There are people who I did not want to agree to disagree again. I was offline for some days and saw the rest of the thread today. Seeing the lengthy exchanges that resulted, I have to say that I am largely in agreement with the comments of James P. and N., however over the top they may seem to you. Yes, JFK and RFK were obviously intelligent and articulate, vastly more so than George shrub junior, and JFK was loaded with charm and a great speaker. He was also a drug addict, a pathological liar, and bully whose whole life was a lie. He was not even physically fit for the Presidency. RFK was not obviously incapable, but I doubt he would have gotten anywhere without his brother (even within JFK’s administration, he was widely disliked and called “the little bastard.”) He was also a bully and a thoroughly nasty character, who had quasi-treasonable dealings with the Soviets and physically assaulted Chester Bowles. Both men were so surrounded by flatterers and court biographers and historians that it is still hard to see what they really were like. I suggest that you look at Thomas Reeves and Seymour Hersh on the Kennedy Administration. I can only say that both brothers, though doubtless better than the rest of Kennedys, were even more awful than I have made them sound, or even than Reeves makes them sound. I myself grew up admiring JFK (I never had much use for RFK or the rest of the clan) but in the last 35 years have learned that what I believed about JFK was almost entirely false. I have dealt with aspects of JFK and his administration in several of my books (mostly on the Cold War and the space race) and have never found anything that did not make me think worse of the man…. Both brothers were thoroughly despicable and it is very hard not to hate them. In fact, while there may well have been and perhaps ARE men in the White House who have done more damage to the USA, I think that JFK was the most evil, perhaps the only really evil President, we have ever had. By the way, I do not care much about his womanizing, although that too was worse than we usually hear (e.g. the Rometsch woman). In JFK’s case, cheating on his wife was about the nicest thing he did. At least, it kept him out of deeper involvement in public life! I remain a little puzzled by your “softness” on the Kennedy brothers.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 13, 2010 09:05 AM | Send