Senator Kennedy and Legislative Liberalism

Today President Obama honored the late Senator Ted Kennedy by calling him "the greatest legislator of our time." These were fitting words for a man who demonstrated just how much can be accomplished by learning the ways and means of Congress.

President Obama's words were a reminder that losing the 1980 Democratic nomination to President Jimmy Carter might have been one of the best things to ever happen to Senator Ted Kennedy. Much of Kennedy's earlier career had been consumed with hopes of winning the presidency. Although Kennedy proved to be a skilled legislative tactician from the moment that he arrived on Capitol Hill, there was always speculation about whether he would be the next member of the family to inhabit the White House. The Chappaquiddick scandal in 1969 forever undermined his ability to achieve that goal, but he did not stop trying during the 1970s.

By 1978, Senator Kennedy had become frustrated with Jimmy Carter. Like many liberals, Kennedy felt that Carter had moved too far to the center, focusing on issues like inflation over unemployment and abandoning problems like national health care. At the Democratic midterm convention in Memphis, Kennedy finally unleashed on the president: "Sometimes a party must sail against the wind," he said, "now is such a time."

In November 1979, Kennedy announced that he would challenge the president. Carter said he didn't care. "I'll whip his ass," the president said. But polls showed that Kennedy was favored by as much as two-to-one.

But Kennedy's campaign did not go well. During a television interview that was broadcast shortly before Kennedy officially announced his candidacy, the senator could not explain why he wanted to be president. Given his eloquent speech at Memphis, nobody thought he would have a tough time with the question. But he did, perhaps reflecting his assumption that he was always destined to run.

Kennedy won some primaries, including New York and California, yet he was outmaneuvered by the president who ran up the delegate count. According to biographer Adam Clymer, his staff had failed to conduct adequate polling before he ran and underestimated how much Chappaquiddick would define his image. One of Kennedy's advisors noted that the senator had responded to every question about the incident, but that didn't matter: "They've all been asked and all been answered. It's that people don't like the answers."

At the Democratic Convention, the tension between Carter and Kennedy was on public display. Kennedy delivered a powerful speech. He said: "I am confident that the Democratic Party will reunite on the basis of Democratic principles, and that together we will march towards a Democratic victory in 1980. And someday, long after this convention, long after the signs come down and the crowds stop cheering, and the bands stop playing, may it be said of our campaign that we kept the faith. May it be said of our Party in 1980 that we found our faith again."

Carter's speech paled in comparison. As the convention ended, a large number of Democrats appeared on the stage to stand alongside Carter and show their support. The crowd waited for Kennedy for fifteen minutes. When Kennedy finally walked on stage, he raised his fist to the Massachusetts delegates. Then he curtly shook Carter's hand and walked away after a few minutes. Kennedy had practiced a more enthusiastic embrace but decided not to do it. Nor did he lift Carter's arm--the traditional sign of party unity. After Kennedy left, the delegates chanted "We Want Ted!" The senator returned. At that point, it appeared as if Carter was chasing him, only to have Kennedy merely put his hand on the president's shoulder. Ronald Reagan took note.

Carter felt that Kennedy should have healed the divisions and that his challenge had hurt the Democrats in the general election.

Although Kennedy did not abandon his presidential ambitions after 1980, it had become evident that he had little chance of becoming the president of the United States, particularly after Ronald Reagan and the conservative movement seemed to have captured the heart of America.

But the loss in 1980 was an unexpected blessing, as it was responsible for focusing Kennedy on his career as a legislator. And Kennedy turned out to be outstanding at the job. What made him so unique was his ability to retain a broader ideological commitment while simultaneously mastering the art of compromise. When Kennedy had first entered the Senate in 1962, Georgia's Richard Russell told him that "you go further if you go slow." Kennedy took Russell's maxim to heart.

After 1980, he worked on fighting for liberalism one bill at a time. He joined the tradition of liberals like New York Senator Robert Wagner and Missouri Democratic Representative Richard Bolling who made Congress their home base as they fought for their political values. He was an unreconstructed Great Society liberal who was determined to fight for health care, civil rights, and social justice. When Kennedy made deals with Republicans, everyone was sure that he would be back the next year to fight for more. It was the second part of this equation that is crucial to understanding his legislative style. This is why the most ardent liberals respected him so much at the very same time that Republicans genuinely appreciated his role as dealmaker.

Kennedy offers an important lesson of politicians of the future. Too often, newcomers to Washington have their eyes set on the Oval Office from the moment they arrive in town. But up-and-coming stars should remember that members of Congress who do their job well can leave behind a legislative record that few presidents ever achieve. Kennedy also used the bully pulpit of Congress to caution against the use of military power and in favor of diplomacy and arms reduction.

When John F. Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, he died a deeply frustrated president because most of his domestic agenda had been bottled up on Capitol Hill by a coalition of southern Democrats and Republicans. Freed from his own presidential aspirations after the 1980 primaries, Ted Kennedy was able to concentrate on taking the fight directly to Congress. In doing so, he made liberalism a legislative reality--even in an era of conservatism--and gradually inscribed his ideals into the nation's laws.

Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. His new book, "Arsenal of Democracy: The Politics of National Security -- From World War II to the War on Terrorism," will be published this fall by Basic Books. You can learn more about Zelizer at www.julianzelizer.com.

Comments

[JohnBryansFontaine]

The two best ways to Honor Kennedy are to get Health Care and EFCA passed into law.

[vanmungo]

"Heath Care" as in which bill? With what provisions?

[Eclectic Radical]

In the immediate term, the best bill possible as long as it is a /good/ bill.

Then we keep working for Medicare for All.

[PunditBasher]

Since the democrats have failed for at least the last 20 years to do anything progressive; and Kennedy was the leader of the democrats

Then he was not especially successful was he?

[Eclectic Radical]

I believe the tally was 300 bills successfully sponsored or co-sponsored, passed by both houses of Congress, and signed by sitting presidents or passed over their vetoes.

These bills included Title 9, civil rights legislation, workplace legislation, women's rights legislation...

No. Not particularly successful at all.

[PunditBasher]

Right...and for at least the last 20 years any bill he has past has been a conservative one
Like his support for NAFTA and the WTO
Or his support to end the glass steagall act

The things you claim as successes like title 9 happened well over 20 years ago
So he was a failure for at least the last 20 years; exactly like I said

[kbojar]

I think you need to be of a certain age for Kenndy’s death to have resonance. See my post "The Kennedys, Obama’s Eulogy: What it all means to this aging activist "at http://www.the-next-stage.com/

[IssuesInFocus]

Great post. To his detractors I must emphasize the Kennedys are in class by themselves and have give much to this country. Cannot think of any other 'professional poltician" from any one family who could have done a better job of high lighting the needs of the poor. He did it with passion and candor. His contributions are laudable.... worthy of "great praise." So in that vein I say--healthcare reform-- now, or never ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GisOAYMONzY

[dawnec1957]

Mr Zelizer,
It is nice to see someone that looks into the context of history and reality of politics, put into words the very good article you have written. Thank you.

Dawn E C

[vanmungo]

Professor Zelizer presents an appallingly skewed picture of Ted Kennedy's politics.

Beyond the emotional effusions of the moment and behind the Kennedy mystique, what was the political reality of Ted Kennedy? Was he a true progressive in the sense of Paul Wellstone or Bernie Sanders or even Russ Feingold?

Ted Kennedy was a firm supporter of WTO/NAFTA, which has led to the rapid deindustrialization of the United States.

He voted for the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which turned commercial banks into gambling casinos and thereby set in motion the reckless practices that caused the current financial/housing meltdown.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s he vigorously pushed the neoliberal corporate dereguation policies that fostered the currrent mess.

He cosponsored "No Child Left Behind," which has converted large swaths of the educational system into an arid testing treadmill.

Despite his initial opposition to the war in Iraq, he has repeatedly failed to oppose funding for that criminal aggression, along with the one in Afghanistan and the bloated military budget.

He watched passively as EFCA as devoured by corporate lobbying.

In the end, he cast his lot with the defeatists on health care who scuttled the only serious, proven reform--Medicare for all--in favor of a shriveled, impotent, lobbyist-friendly version of the "public option."

For the full story, read, "Ted Kennedy, The Hollow Champion," by the noted left journalist Alexander Cockburn:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn08282009.html

Here you will find truths that lie too deep for tears.

[vanmungo]

Oh, yeah--forgot to mention: voted to confirm both Scalia and Roberts.

[PhilipTaylor]

It is NO Coincidence that Income Imbalances (INEQUITY) have GROWN to HISTORIC MAXIMUM over the last 40+ Years!

40 YEARS of COMPROMISE with REPUBLICANS has resulted in the MOST IMBALANCED INCOMES AMERICA HAS EVER SEEN!

---- The R1CH R1CHER and The P00R P00RER! ------

It is time for America to return to the BALANCED INCOMES we had before Reagan!

The Top Tax Rate for 50 YEARS Before Reagan was between 63% to 94%!

Top Rate is NOW 35% (Effective Rate=17%) for the Very R1CH - Lowest since 1929!

We must take INCENTIVES for THEFT AWAY & Put EXCESSES Toward Deficit Reduction!

A 63% to 91% Top Tax Rate on income over $3.5 Million would Bring Income Imbalance back into Ki1ter!

[Mark Mack]

Politicians have always been ambitious, egocentric and selfish. The problem now is that there are more political wannabes. Which adds to the total number of politicos who have deformed Public service into a chase sport of Ego, self Interest and career ambition. I would recommend that all of the newbie politicians and their staff read this good post but I'm afraid many of them won't get it. They're too busy in their Committees taking minutes and losing hours.