The Footnote Speaks: What Would Mary Jo Kopechne Have Thought of Ted's Career?
We're comfortable with moral relativism in this country -- or, at least, we love us a good "sinned and redeemed" narrative. And, for the most part, we realize that there are few lives on which we can slap a "Good" or "Evil" label and expect it to be accurate.
Which, let's face it, is one of the reasons the Ted Kennedy story is so fascinating. The huge achievements, weighed against the huge sins. Forty-six years of history-book accomplishments on everything from Civil Rights to the Americans with Disabilities Act to gender equality. Disabled? Poor? A member of any minority group? Then chances are your life is at least somewhat better because of Ted Kennedy. And for anyone who started to lose faith in the left's seeming impotence over the past decade (cough cough) he provided a pretty strong reason not to throw in the towel.
So now he's dead, and we do what we do when a Kennedy dies: read and write obsessively about him. Some of the obituaries are point-counterpoint parallels of sin with salvation. Then there are obsequious, grandiose bromides like:
He was a Rabelaisian figure in the Senate and in life, instantly recognizable by his shock of white hair, his florid, oversize face, his booming Boston brogue, his powerful but pained stride. He was a celebrity, sometimes a self-parody, a hearty friend, an implacable foe, a man of large faith and large flaws, a melancholy character who persevered, drank deeply and sang loudly. He was a Kennedy.
Good grief.
But in all the florid or scalpel-sharp prose, there's one constant: Peeking out from the center of the story is the matter of his playing a major part in the death of a 28-year-old woman.
Mary Jo wasn't a right-wing talking point or a negative campaign slogan. She was a dedicated civil rights activist and political talent with a bright future -- granted, whenever someone dies young, people sermonize about how he had a "bright future" ahead of him -- but she actually did. She wasn't afraid to defy convention (28 and unmarried, oh the horror!) or create her own career path based on her talents. She lived in Georgetown (where I grew up) and loved the Red Sox (we'll forgive her for that). Then she got in a car driven by a 36-year-old senator with an alcohol problem and a cauldron full of demons, and wound up a controversial footnote in a dynasty.
We don't know how much Kennedy was affected by her death, or what she'd have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history. What we don't know, as always, could fill a Metrodome.
Still, ignorance doesn't preclude a right to wonder. So it doesn't automatically make someone (aka, me) a Limbaugh-loving, aerial-wolf-hunting NRA troll for asking what Mary Jo Kopechne would have had to say about Ted's death, and what she'd have thought of the life and career that are being (rightfully) heralded.
Who knows -- maybe she'd feel it was worth it.
This post originally appeared on Opinionistas.com.
Follow Melissa Lafsky on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Lafsky
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It is morally reprehensible to suggest that Mary Jo Kopechne's life is merely a footnote, and that she would have believed that her death was worthwhile if it did not hinder the political aspirations of Senator Kennedy. Moreover, it is unforgivable and ridiculous to state that Mary Jo's life is not as meaningful as a th efuture achievements of a drunken man who left her to die. I am a liberal Democrat who feels ashamed to think that we overlook what Joyce Carol Oates aptly has described as Ted Kennedy's "despicable" and "unmanly" behavior on that night, leaving her to suffocate while he worked out an alibi to save his political life. Whether or not you believe that Senator Kennedy acted criminally, Mary Jo's life had worth and her future achievements were shortened. This is the tragedy that needs to be remembered.
how could anyone write such a thing unless they are deranged to some extent, or delusional. Think about it, would this woman want the same opportunity as Ms. Kopechne to influence someone's career? I think not.
This is a horrible article. Mary Jo Kopechne was not a footnote but a wonderful person. It was not 'worth it.' How anyone could think such a thing is competely beyond me.
While I believe Sen. Kennedy did provide us with legislation that really improved lives, NOBODY is a "footnote." Every human is important. For all we know, Ms. Kopechne could have had a successful career in campaign management and perhaps might have propelled another politician into office who would have done great things, as well. She didn't get HER chance to shine.
Go to Google Maps and type in Chappaquidick, go to the east to the Dike Bridge. There is a marker there that shows where the car went into the water. You will notice that there is a house, known as the Dike House, to the just before the bridge - only 150 yards from where the accident took place. Mrs. Pierre Malm, who lived in the house, said she was up reading and had a light on that evening. Go to Wikipedia to Chappaquiddick and scroll down about halfway to see a picture of the Dike House. There is NO WAY Kennedy could have missed that house - only 150 yards away - SECONDS away from the accident. When the fishermen came across the car the next morning, that is the house they went to, to phone for help.
I guess I am sanctimonious and flawed to think Teddy would be judged as any normal person would've been had they not been a Kennedy and had money. He could've tried pulling her out no matter how dark it was. He ignored the well-lit house nearby to go to a party presumably to establish an alibi. He had a chance to show he more character than thirst for keeping his political career alive. It doesn't matter whether he had an affair with this woman. He just blew it on all accounts. If that was McCain instead of Kennedy, you would be screaming out. No political ideology justifies a death. Give me a break!
Grand jurors didn't buy it:
""There was definitely a cover-up. We were all madder than hell that we couldn't subpoena anyone we wanted—our hands were tied," says another grand juror, Lloyd Mayhew, 68, a retired New England Telephone Company employee. "So many things bothered me; they still do. One of them is that within 100 yards of the Dike Bridge is a summer cottage. The lights were on, and there was a phone. Kennedy walked right by it. I don't know what kind of a man would do that."
Kennedy's cousin, Joe Gargan, who helped him that night said Kennedy wanted to make it appear Kopechne was driving the car alone:
"Indeed, Gargan told Leo Damore, author of Senatorial Privilege: The Chappaquiddick Cover-up, that Kennedy wanted to say Kopechne had driven off alone in the car, but Gargan convinced him the story wouldn't hold up."
Again, no evidence he tried to save her either.
Too bad we can't ask her...it would be interesting to see what SHE would have to say about which was more important to her...her life or Kennedy's political ambitions.
the truth is, kennedy was not having an affair with mary jo, he was very drunk, and crashed his car. his mistake was leaving the scene, which i do agree he got off very lightly....
It's really irrelevant whether he was having an affair or not. I agree he left the scene and, as I understand it, there was no evidence he tried to help her either.
Regarldless of whatever you suppose Kopechne's thought process would have been at this moment in time as it pertains to the career of Kennedy, the fact remains his negligent actions resulted in her death. This is a hypothetical we should never have the opportunity to ponder. But, because Kennedy's wealth and influence allowed him to walk away from an event in which any of us would have had to serve serious jail time and ruin any career in public office, he was able to stay on for the rest of his life and vote for things people like Melissa like. The idea that the victim of a possible negligent homicide would be ok with the perp legislatively advancing what we can only extrapolate would be their shared ideals for the next 47 years is absurd. But, let's examine the hypothetical anyway:
People change over their lifetime, so assuming she would support all or most of what Kennedy did in Congress is ridiculous. Ted was ardently pro-life back then. What's to say between her party's disregard of nascent human life and hers, she wouldn't have switched parties?
Also, drowning is one of the most terrifying ways to go, especially when you have to wait to do it, as Kopechne did. So, even if her political ideals followed the same track as Kennedy's, when you look at the way the Democratic party has extoled his life with nary an afterthought about her, perhaps she would rather have seen him face justice.
Rightfully heralded huh? If I asked you to jump off a bridge and kill yourself in order to save hundreds 10 years from now would you do it? Is it even right to ask? I don't know who Melissa Lafsky is but running across this little post I am left wondering whether she is being clever or simply revealing. The greater part of all of you have fallen into the trap of the latter. Believing that power or expectation, can or should, excuse a sin of the present or past, is a manner of thinking that often knows no political boundary of left or right. One might argue that the line divides good and evil. If you posed the question to Mary Jo Kopechne, on some dark lonely night out on a bridge, I suspect she would have looked you straight in the eye, a bit teared up, and choked out the response, "I want to live".
As a committed moral relativist (I know; oxymoronic, isn't it?), the paradoxes the author dredges up are interesting and thought-inspiring. Too many ifs, though, for me to ponder with any sense of fruition from the exercise.
"No evidence he was drunk. "
-------
By his own admission in the inquest he said he had been drinking beer that day and that he had had "two rum and Cokes" at the party. Did he stop at two? A man who had a drinking problem? Be realistic. It explains WHY he waited 10 hours to call police and shows he put himself above her life.
The judge at the inquest did not believe Kennedy's version of events. He noted that Kennedy claimed to have mistakenly turned onto the road toward the bridge (which led AWAY from the ferry). The road he "mistakenly" turned onto was a DIRT road. The road leading to the ferry was paved. Wouldn't that be a clue to anybody? The judge also said the bridge (and you've seen from the pictures) had no guardrails and was at a 27 degree angle from the road, only 10 feet 6 inches wide, and noted that it would have been negligent and criminal to operate a car as large as Kennedy's Oldsmobile even at 20 mph on that bridge.
He got away with this because of his family connections. I admire his contribution in the Senate, but NO I don't believe that we should say that it is "worth it" to recklessly take somebody's life. I cannot even believe a person would make such an assertion. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- unless you are an impediment to somebody's career aspirations?!!!! Geez, Louise!
In regards to Chappaquidick Teddy said that he tried to save Mary Jo. As regards to him leaving the scene and not reporting it till the next day, the sad truth is that this would not have changed the outcome. Mary Jo was a drowning victim. There were no cell phones back then. There was not even a 911 emergency system. To dial the police, you had to know the police number. So Teddy walked away from the accident. Was he supposed to just sit there? The next day, Teddy told Mary Jo's family of the tragedy himself.
I read something not too long ago that put this whole thing into a new light for me. I don't believe it was a local case. A mother was in an accident that killed her son (I believe he was in his teens or 20's) . She was the driver, and she also walked away, and didn't report until the next day. I don't remember, if alcohol was involved, but it sounds like she loved her son, so there wasn't a hint of foul play. She was banged up, and not everyone processes extreme emotional distress in the same way. As a person with bipolar disorder, I can definitely testify to this.
To Wilray: Your presumed logic in regards to this tragedy is simply not realistic. I agree that there were no cell phones then and also no 911 to notify police but why would he wait all of ten hours before notifying anyone? It is not like he tried to save her, failed, then went home and waited until a phone was available!!! Don't you think that her family was extremely worried during those TEN hours of waiting? Not to mention, you are taking the word of a man who had a drinking problem and was most likely to have been drunk at the time. What exactly did you expect him to say? Yes, I was drunk so I didn't even try to save her. To your question "Was he supposed to just sit there", your damned right he should have! There is no way anyone could have known that no other cars would have driven by!!!! No, it probably wouldn't have changed the outcome if he really did try to save her but that is really not the point, now is it! This horrendous behaviour by him is a fact as to his morals at that particular time in his life. I also take great offense by your usage of a mental disease, as I am bi-polar myself, for this kind of action. This is one reason why so many ill informed people stereotype others suffering from bi-polar. Shame on you for continuing to propagate these negative beliefs!!!
wilray am i missing something? Did Kennedy have bipolar disorder? and how would that have precluded his actions that night?
I have never driven off a bridge with someone in my car and then not reported it for 10 hours, so I can offer no personal experience of his actions. I have however hit someone with my car who walked out into an intersection into traffic against a red light. It was a very sobering experience and I immediatelyt stopped and called the police and rescue services and offered as much assistance to the man as I could. This was in the days of no cell phones but I ran 2 blocks to a pay phone to make the call after another person had stopped to help.
The only thing I can say is that it is painfully obvious that Keneedys' actions were negligent at best and criminal to any sane thinking person.
The fact that he comes from money had everything to do with him suffering no legal consequences.
Wiray - Character is the most important trait of a man. Character consists of what a guy does when he thinks no one is watching. Ted Kennedy thought ONLY of his political career that night, and what effect the death of Mary Jo would have on THAT. He crashed another party that night in order to try to establish an alibi as to his whereabouts during the crucial time period. THAT'S the kind of man Ted Kennedy was. He was not, nor has he ever been, a hero. Kennedy thought he could get away with something that night... and in a sense, he did...at least, until now.
To Wilray: Hey you got kids? Cause you are saying that is ok to kill someone and then report it the next day. The story you gave that was a mother and son not someone killing your daughter.
"...worth it..."......unnecessary hyperbole, imo.
I believe she would say, "He tried to save me, for god's sake. Get over it!"
C'mon chandis.
Admit that you are a fan of the Kennedy clan and that in your eyes they can do no wrong. No one except Teddy knows what he may have done or not done to try and save this woman.
To think that Ms Koepechne would have said "get over it" is ludicrous.
Agree.
No evidence he did try.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
