For every constituent who has a fond memory of the late Ted Kennedy, there is one who had her bottom pinched, his car dented by the lecherous and lushy senator. I submit that both appraisals are valid—the evidence is overwhelming on both sides. He did much for people, and he did much to people (if just not quite enough—or too much!—for one particular young woman).
But there is one fault for which I can find no amelioration: his refusal to resign as it became clear that he could no longer carry out his duties. It is sobering (behave BTL) to read how much business passed through the Senate while he slowly failed in health and died. Even the most ardent fan, who might have felt the seat belonged to the family and not to the citizens of the Commonwealth, would have to recognize that we were largely without representation for the last year and a half. I would argue that it is better to have half representation by one clown than full representation by two, but many who live here would disagree, preferring the entire Volkswagon of clowns we routinely send to Washington.
No one would deny him the most aggressive treatment of his disease (provided by a medical system he decried and sought to destroy), or unlimited time with his family, both of which he took full advantage of. But look at the voting record again. He might as well not have been in the Senate.
Boy, ain’t that the truth.
The gall, arrogance, and chutzpah of him then to ask that the law of succession be changed—especially when he was so instrumental in its previous change from the system he now calls for:
I am now writing to you about an issue that concerns me deeply — the continuity of representation for Massachusetts should a Senate vacancy occur. In 2004, as you know, the law was changed to provide for a special election to choose a new Senator to serve for the remainder of an unexpired term. The law now mandates that the special election be held 145 to 160 days after a Senate seat becomes vacant. I strongly support that law and the principle that the people should elect their Senator; I also believe it is vital for this Commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election.
Other states allow for such appointments; that’s not really the issue. I don’t believe other states are so contemptuous of democracy, however, to change the law when it might not benefit the party perennially in power. Nor do I believe other senators act as if their seat is theirs by right and inheritance.
The letter is dated in early in July, when he would have been to sick to write it, and was made public in late August, when he was near death. These events did not just happen, they were planned for, prepared for, executed as he wished.
We’ve made these points before, as have others. But the scope of the conceit, the yawning chasm of the void of his representation are staggering to anyone with the dew or representative government in their eyes. When the woman reportedly asked Benjamin Franklin at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” he most honestly should have answered, “It depends.”
We have had great leaders and godawful ones—many have been both. But our system of government as outlined in the Constitution (inspired by the rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence) is what makes us great as a country. My allegiance is to the beliefs and rights enumerated in that document, not to one man, however giving or groping he may have been, however long he served, whoever his brothers were.
Celebrate him if you wish—but do him the honor of forgetting or disregarding the last chapter of his professional life. Even if you support the rest of his record (as I once did), you have to feel betrayed over the past year or so by the droit de seigneur he exhibited toward Lady Liberty.
