If the Dems "use" Kennedy's death as a political or PR tool, that's not good. But if David Brooks talks about him and then pundit-hits some conswervative talking point in there, that's worse.
The Great Gradualist
In the days since Ted Kennedy’s death, the news programs have shown and re-shown the unforgettable ending of his 1980 Democratic convention speech — the passage from Tennyson and the beautiful final lines: “The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.” also the title of a book about Teddy, "The Dream That Never Died."
David Brooks
But if you go back earlier into the heart of that speech, you see how bold (you mean how normal for political left, and not nearly as far from centrist, traditional American political beliefs as you would have us believe Mr. Brooks) Kennedy’s agenda really was. His central argument was for a policy of full employment (An intolerable situation for the bourgoise to be sure; cheap labor comes from high unemployment rates, where people are desperate for jobs enough to live their careers out at the Wal-mart near you). Government should provide a job for every able-bodied American. His next big goal was what he called “reindustrialization.” The computer revolution was just getting under way, but Kennedy called on government to restore the industrial might of America’s cities (unfortunately, due to our high standard of living, even the poor among us won't tolerate working conditions or churn out handi-crafts as fast as children in Bangladesh (?) or people in China, so our computer revolution was built by their hands instead of by the hands of a wont-of-growing American Middle Class).
The third big goal was national health insurance. “Let us insist on real control over what doctors and hospitals can charge,” Kennedy cried. (Public Option, cried back a Senator and President from the next generation).
There were other proposals. He vowed to use “the full power of government to master increasing prices.” (Probably perscription drug negotiations for elderly Medicare recipients - whoops, no our country didn't do that - you're still better off getting them in Canada where the politicians don't enact laws written by Big Pharma and his Fountain of Pharma Phun Lawyers - or maybe it just happens a little less there.) Kennedy was proposing to fundamentally transform America’s political economy (This is David's cute little way of calling Teddy a socialist without calling him a socialist. FYI, socialism is an economic system which, if paid attention to in our current situation, and incrementally as your title, was applied to our nearly-fascist Military/Industrial Complex-ocracy, would single-handedly make drugs cheaper for old people who will die without drugs and many of whom are choosing between food and medicine). He knew he had lost the nomination by this time, and his liberalism was unbound. (He knew he still had a chance to bring much needed change to Washington and his honest critique of the Status Quo was called out by that last ditch effort to stand up for the lowest among us.)
The speech was radical (is it just left that is radical, so Reagan probably wasn't radical, just ass-backwards; ass-backwards being the name of a radical-right viewpoint), and he could have gone back to the Senate, content to luxuriate in his own boldness (I outta slap David in the mouth for implying that Teddy's political opinions were merely a matter of self-satisfaction and superficiality). He could have excoriated his opponents for their villainy and given speeches about dreams that would never come true (because standing up for the least among us is purportedly so far off the map that David doesn't think it will ever happen in our lifetime, though I think David doesn't understand American history like I do, where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are gradually, incrementally bestowed on all those who yearn for it and work for it).
But Kennedy became something else. He became a compromiser (sounds less potent than being the "decider"). He became an incrementalist.
Those words have negative connotations. But they shouldn’t. Kennedy never abandoned his ambitious ideals, but his ability to forge compromises and champion gradual, incremental change created the legacy everybody is celebrating today: community health centers, the National Cancer Institute, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Meals on Wheels program, the renewal of the Voting Rights Act and the No Child Left Behind Act (What parts of NCLB did Teddy sponsor or advocate?). The latter law, by the way, has narrowed the black-white achievement gap more than any other recent piece of legislation (Random thing to say here, and without any source citation for this fact, hmmm.).
Kennedy’s life yields several important lessons. One is about the nature of political leadership. We have been taught since, well, since the days of Camelot to admire a particular sort of politician: the epic, charismatic Mount Rushmore candidate who sits atop his charger leading transformational change.
But the founders of this country designed the Constitution to frustrate that kind of leader (So Washington, Roosevelt, Lincoln and ?? were all frustrated by the Constitution? Is lowering the cost of health care epic transformational change?) . The Constitution diffuses power, requires compromise and encourages incrementalism (or at least a Congress that does little as possible so as not to be not re-elected would like you to think that slow incrementalism is the way to go). The founders created a government that was cautious so that society might be dynamic. (Yet if the government is so cautious that the industrial dynamics usurp the liberties of the people, eventually taking their livlihood, denying their claims, then government no longer has the ability to uphold the Constitution by upholding the life liberty and pursuit of happiness of the People).
Ted Kennedy was raised to prize one set of leadership skills and matured to find that he possessed another. He possessed the skills of the legislator, and if you ask 99 senators who was the best craftsman among them, they all will say Kennedy. He knew how to cut deals. He understood coalitions and other people’s motives and needs.
I once ran into John McCain after a negotiating session with Kennedy on an immigration bill they had co-sponsored. McCain was exhausted by the arduous and patient way his friend negotiated. In my last interview with Kennedy, I asked about big ideas, and his answers were nothing special (yeah, you let me be the judge of that - which interview was that? I'm looking it up). Then I asked about a minor provision in an ancient piece of legislation, and his command of the provision and how it got there was jaw-droppingly impressive.
There is a craft to governance, which depends less on academic intelligence than on a contextual awareness of how to bring people together. Kennedy possessed that awareness.
A second lesson involves the nature of change in America.
We in this country have a distinct sort of society. We Americans work longer hours than any other people on earth. We switch jobs much more frequently than Western Europeans or the Japanese. We have high marriage rates and high divorce rates. We move more, volunteer more and murder each other more.
Out of this dynamic but sometimes merciless culture, a distinct style of American capitalism has emerged ( a merciless one that increases the wealth-gap faster than anywhere else, yet gives us a higher infant-mother mortality rate than most every other industrialized nation). The American economy is flexible and productive (except of course where it is inflexible and not-productive for all but the upper eschelons of our economy). America’s G.D.P. per capita is nearly 50 percent higher than France’s (yet our per capita GDP growth is 107th as of 2007). But the American system is also unforgiving. It produces its share of insecurity and misery.(Especially since we live in a media culture driven by sex, consumerism, and fear. That tends to produce a lot of insecurity and misery in the populous. Not to mention factory-farmed and processed foods.)
This culture, this spirit, this system is not perfect, but it is our own (so we should stay the miserable course?). American voters welcome politicians who propose reforms that smooth the rough edges of the system. They do not welcome politicians and proposals that seek to contradict it (deep reform only feels like contradiction, but if we want this nation to go on, we must contradict decisions and policies of the past, even if it frightens our paranoid and mal-informed conservatives). They do not welcome proposals that centralize power and substantially reduce individual choice (Health care power currently resides in the hands of private corporations regarding your new life-saving stint or drug therapy. Reducing company profits by increasing the number of people who receive health care benefits may reduce the marketplace somewhat, but in exchange we'll all enjoy lower premiums from the uninsured no longer giving us a hidden tax, and we'll live in a world where your grandmother won't be choice-erradicated upon by a an insurance company that doesn't want to pay). They resist proposals that put security above mobility and individual responsibility (Do they also resist proposals that will prevent the much lauded GDP of the U.S. being spent .80 to the 1.00 on Health Care by the year 2080, because that seems like a pretty big mobility and security issue. And, individual responsibility is in no way affected by the government creating a new Health Care Exchange for Americans who can't afford what's already out there or can't quit the job they hate because it's the only one that makes sure their family is taken care of).
