"AN important chapter in our history has come to an end," Barack Obama said in his first public remarks on the death of Senator Edward M. Kennedy. "Our country has lost a great leader, who picked up the torch of his fallen brothers and became the greatest United States senator of our time.".... What Mr. Obama didn't say -- and perhaps didn't need to -- was that the closed chapter was the vision of liberalism begun by the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt, extended during the Great Society of Lyndon B. Johnson and now struggling back toward relevance. It holds that the forces of government should be marshaled to improve conditions for the greatest possible number of Americans, with particular emphasis on the excluded and disadvantaged. It is not government's only obligation, in this view, but it is the paramount one.
It's been with no small amount of amusement that I've listened to Conservatives trash the legacy and accomplishments of Edward Kennedy, a man whose jock they couldn't carry on the best of days. Say what you will- and many have- ALL Americans are better of for the 46+ years that Kennedy devoted to the Senate. His passion and commitment, as well as his devotion to making America a better place for all Americans, helped to make this country what it is today. Without Kennedy's drive and leadership, would we today be blessed with programs like SCHIP, Title IX, WIC, or COBRA? Would Americans be guaranteed fair housing, a minimum wage, civil rights, or voting rights? Perhaps. Kennedy's role in making all of these things and much more a reality are accomplishments that should and must be recognized.
Sadly, there are Conservatives far more willing to focus on Kennedy's human failings. Yes, Ted Kennedy was a flawed human being. Yes, he made mistakes. Does Chappaquiddick override and negate all the good that came before and after? Should Kennedy forever be defined by his mistakes and his human failings instead of his accomplishments? To those who would much rather tear down than build, the answer is clearly yes. As for me, I prefer to focus on the positive- his accomplishments, his legacy, and the impact he had on modern American life- rather than the negative.
The thing I'll remember Edward Kennedy for is the way he defined Liberalism as a concrete philosophy. Kennedy's Liberalism was the belief that Government can and should be an agent of change, a force for caring for the poor and the sick. It's the exact opposite of what seems to be the prevailing theme in America today- "Screw you. I got mine. You can damn well get your own." Kennedy's Liberalism saw America as a place of infinite possibilities, a place where those to whom much was given understood that much is expected of them. To Ted Kennedy, America was a place that could, and should, be a place that took care of it's own.
The belief in government as the guardian of opportunity and advancement is not a complicated one, but it is fraught with ambiguities -- including the risks incurred when government grows too large and also too expensive. Indeed, the peak years of Mr. Kennedy's Senate career, the 1980s and '90s, coincided with the ascendancy of a countervision, captured in Ronald Reagan's assertion: "Government is not the solution to our problem.
The problem with this attitude is that it's a cop-out, a lazy person's way out of addressing the very real problems that face sick and poor Americans. The problem continues to be, as Robert Kennedy once said, that Americans don't see the poor and the sick. It's easy to see the least among us, for lack of a better description, as someone else's problem. If you believe that people are poor because they choose to be, then it's not exactly a stretch to see the sick and the infirm as somehow responsible for their circumstances.
Ted Kennedy's Liberalism was defined by higher aspirations, by the belief that Americans can and should be caring for one another. We should be looking out for each other, and government's role was as an agent to smoothing the way for this to happen. After all, if we can fight two wars halfway around the world simultaneously, shouldn't we be able to find a way to guarantee quality, affordable health care to all Americans? Shouldn't we be able to rebuild New Orleans? Shouldn't we be able to ensure that the American Dream is something that only accrues to the haves, leaving the have nots waiting for whatever crumbs heppen to hit the floor?
lib‚ãÖer‚ãÖal‚ãÖism /Ààl…™b…ôr…ôÀål…™z…ôm, Ààl…™br…ô-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lib-er-uh-liz-uhm, lib-ruh-]
-noun
1. the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.
2. a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
3. (sometimes initial capital letter) the principles and practices of a liberal party in politics.
4. a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities.
There was a time when Liberalism meant that we we were all in this together, when efforts to create a safety net weren't derided as "Socialism". Government was viewed as a partner, helping to ensure that all Americans enjoyed equality of opportunity, and that those who needed a hand up got it. "Government", or at least the bogeyman defined by self-absorbed Reaganism, is not the problem. The problem is that too many on the Right are far too caught up in ignorance, reaction, and their own narrow self-interest. Our public debate has been dominated by ignorance, propaganda, and a pronounced lack of compassion.
Over the years, Conservatives have succeeded in painting Liberals as woolly-headed freak shows with their heads in the cloud and their hands in your wallet. The Mainstream Media perpetuated this myth without question, and before you knew it, what was once laughable and contemptible became established "fact". Looking at where we find ourselves today, it's not as if self-interested, greed-driven Conservatism has been a raging success. Then again, the one thing most Conservatives appear to lack is the ability to engage in honest self-reflection.
Edward Kennedy was an unabashed Liberal, who never ran from or attempted to massage his beliefs. He wore the label proudly, and he was one of the few old-guard Liberals not to attempt to repackage himself as a "Progressive". To my way of thinking, "Liberal" and "Progressive" are interchangeable. To some, it's a symbol of the way in which some Liberals have failed to display the courage of their convictions (to which I will plead guilty as charged). Kennedy was less concerned with labels than results, and he was never one to sacrifice his core beliefs in order to achieve consensus.
All of us- Liberal and Conservative- are poorer for Kennedy's passing. It may not be fashionable for some to admit this, but the reality is the same. We will not see his like again.
