Sunday, August 16, 2009

The Democratic Party -- What Might Have Been

A very interesting compare and contrast exercise (H/T: Ten Reasons):
On July 20, 1968 -- just weeks after RFK's death -- Eunice convened the first Special Olympics, a movement of dignity and hope for mentally disabled children. It was born of Eunice's love for her mentally disabled sister, Rosemary; her firm defence of the dignity of every human life; and her deep Catholic faith. Eunice and Sargent (who also founded the Peace Corps and was the architect of many of the Great Society programs for the poor) changed the way we think about people with special needs.

Almost a year to the day after the first Special Olympics, Ted Kennedy drove Mary Jo Kopechne to her death at Chappaquiddick, Mass. From that point on, two paths diverged from the Kennedy compound. The Senator took the ignoble path of indulgence and irresponsibility. The Shrivers used their fame and wealth for the service of others, especially those at the margins.

In the 1970s, the Shrivers were a major political force. Sargent was the Democratic vice-presidential candidate in 1972, and subsequently entertained both presidential and gubernatorial bids. Meanwhile, Ted marinated in the Senate, finally running for president in 1980 without any ostensible reason for doing so other than the fact that, as a Kennedy, he was entitled to it.

The Shrivers represented the old Democratic Party -- economically liberal and culturally conservative. They were routed by the new Democratic Party -- economically liberal and culturally libertine -- of which Ted became the poster boy. The tortured relationship of the Catholic Church with the Democratic Party mirrored that cleavage. Eunice was the ideal of the Catholic in public life -- passionately committed to the poor, defender of the weak, prolife, morally upright and a woman of faith and family. But the party followed Ted.

The Shrivers were devout Catholics who lived their faith with integrity privately before bringing its implications to the public square. Before Alzheimer's took its toll on Sargent, he was a daily communicant, attending Mass either in Maryland or in Hyannis, Mass., a well-worn rosary often in hand. He shared his Marian devotion with his wife; in a statement upon Eunice's death, her family noted that "she was forever devoted to the Blessed Mother. May she be welcomed now by Mary to the joy and love of life everlasting, in the certain truth that her love and spirit will live forever."

Such lines will not be written of Ted Kennedy who, as one of America's most prominent Catholics, blazed the trail of making religious belief an entirely private matter. His debauchery was the opposite of the Shrivers' piety. Having broken up his own family, he degenerated into a dissoluteness that reached its nadir on Good Friday, 1991, when instead of doing the Stations of the Cross at the local parish, he took his son and nephew out for a night of bar-hopping and skirt-chasing. The details of Ted's behaviour that night were embarrassingly sordid. It gave rise to the joke that Senator Kennedy's religion was so private he refused to impose it on himself.
Be sure to read it all.

11 comments:

Jake said...

From Wikipedia, which is just a brief summary of some of his work
"Kennedy has played a major role in passing many pieces of legislation that have affected the lives of all Americans, including the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, the National Cancer Act of 1971, the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, the COBRA Act of 1985, the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Ryan White AIDS Care Act in 1990, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, the Mental Health Parity Act in 1996 and 2008, the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002, and the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act in 2009."

Hardly the work of a man who is quoted as "The Senator took the ignoble path of indulgence and irresponsibility."

Like him or not, it cannot be denied the impact, for the betterment of mankind, he has had on Americans.

Paul, just this guy, you know? said...

Don't forget, he also bought his way out of responsibility for the Chappaquiddick incident, cheated on his wives, drank to excess, lied about Robert Bork, and supported unrestricted access to abortion, all while claiming to be a devout Catholic.

paladin said...

No Child Left Behind Act in 2002

Jake, you're actually in *favour* of that? You're certainly an atypical liberal, if so... but if not, I don't understand why you'd use that in a list of "accomplishments" by which Ted Kennedy might be lionized...

Jake said...

Hey Paul, what is your point? I think I was trying to state that Kennedy has done more for man kind than you or I. Is he a good Catholic? Who gives a *)&%? I certainly don't. If I elected my representatives based on their Catholicism than I would think like you. Thank goodness I don't.

Hey Paladin...read my post again...I simply cited his accomplishments from wikipedia. You will never know how I feel about each of the small sampling of things this man has accomplished. My point is...and pay attention here, I don't want to lose you here...is that this man has done more in his life than any of us posting on this blog. To call him out because he hasn't been a good Catholic is ridiculous. Who cares if deserves to eat the wafer every Sunday? I don't. Actually, I prefer he doesn't

Jake said...

Sorry, meant to say "who cares if HE deserves to eat the wafer every Sunday"

paladin said...

Jake, your snide, snarlingly trollish lack of manners is noted, thank you; you needn't reinforce the point. Would it really kill you to try to be civil?

So you think "doing things", regardless of whether they're good or bad, is meritorious? (Otherwise, why would you be so impressed by his long list of "accomplishments"?) That's... an interesting view. Decades of disastrous action is, in my humble opinion, *worse* than doing nothing... just as losing $100 per week is worse than no income change at all. I don't say that he's done no good at all; but he's certainly done a great deal of damage, even (since you didn't answer my question negatively) by your standards.

By that insane standard, Hitler and Stalin "did more for mankind" than all the senators in the history of the USA; none of them made such a mark on the world than did those two, yes?

Jake said...

Again paladin....try reading what I wrote. I will repeat it again for you..."Like him or not, it cannot be denied the impact, for the betterment of mankind, he has had on Americans."
Notice the betterment part of the statement. He accomplished so much for so many, and to criticize him for not being a good Catholic is ridiculous. Listing some of his accomplishments was an attempt to show how he accomplished this. Putting a partisan spin on it by pointing out "no child left behind" is pretty amusing, and typical of the religious right.

paladin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
paladin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
paladin said...

Apparently civility isn't yet one of your strong points, Jake. Get a grip on yourself, will you? Adults can argue facts without sneering at each other; several good examples are on this blog--can't you? At this point, people will remember nothing of what you wrote, and everything of how you sneered at everyone who dared disagree with you.

As to your point, you wrote: Like him or not, it cannot be denied the impact, for the betterment of mankind, he has had on Americans. I pointed out that your Wikipedia-gleaned list is (and you are) oblivious to whether the individual items were to "the betterment of mankind", even by your own standards--so I (and other reasonable people) most certainly CAN deny your claim, based even on what *you've* said. Certainly, your statement: Hardly the work of a man who is quoted as "The Senator took the ignoble path of indulgence and irresponsibility." is provably illogical, since even a mountain of good works don't cancel out indulgence and irresponsibility in other areas... or did you miss the fact that the original author didn't say "and NOTHING BUT indulgence and irresponsibility"?

Test case: would you also champion President George W. Bush for the following list of remarkable achievements?

1) The defense of our country, especially after 9/11 (in which not one terrorist attack succeded after that, to date, despite innumerable attempts)

2) The passing of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which forbids the euthanasia of babies who survive abortions

3) The passing of one of the greatest tax cuts in US history

4) The appointment of justices of the SCOTUS who freed states to criminalize partial-birth abortion

5) Contributed more to the AIDS relief efforts in Africa (including the support of chastity education, which has reduced HIV infection rates remarkably--see here for details--I think the Washington Post is safe from accusations of being "a paper with a conservative agenda")than has any other President in US (or world) history, as attested by numerous African national leaders

6) established and expanded the Faith-based initiative, so that religious charities could partner with the US govt. to offer relief to those in need, without fear of excessive governmental interference with their constitutions

7) removed the Taliban from power

8) removed Saddam Hussein from power

9) established a democracy (albeit a new and struggling one) in the midst of a democracy-hostile Middle East, and expanded the rights of women almost unimaginably beyond their prior condition, in those places (cf. Afghanistan, etc.)

...and the list goes on. So: are you going to be consistent, and celebrate President Bush for his many remarkable feats which were for the betterment of mankind? Or are you going to object that you don't find one or more of them to be "for the betterment of mankind"?

Bookworm said...

If only Eunice Kennedy Shriver had been the first Catholic (and woman) president... imagine how much better off the culture of life might be today! :-)