Ted Kennedy & the Future of American Liberalism

categories: Activism, Federal, Government, Health & Healthcare, Immigration, Inequality, Race Ethnicity Class & Gender

Published August 27, 2009 @ 02:31PM PT

In Boston, local news channels have been running live coverage of Senator Ted Kennedy's death since it was announced. A motorcade from Hyannisport through Boston has just wrapped up; Kennedy's body will lie in repose until tomorrow evening. President Obama will speak at the Senator's funeral on Saturday; all former Presidents will attend. This ceremony, in its pomp and public draw, is Reaganesque. And like Reagan's passing for conservatives, Senator Kennedy's death signals, I fear, the end of an era. As I watch, I wonder if we're also witnessing American liberalism's funeral.

The Reagan Revolution lived on under George W. Bush, but conservatism's "best days" were behind it. Senator Kennedy was a strident legislative opponent to Reagan, Gingrich's Contract for America, and Bush's Iraq War - even as he was credited with demonstrating great bipartisanship. In part by reaching across the aisle, Senator Kennedy in his 47 Senate years authored or co-authored almost 1,000 pieces of legislation - bills that emphasized humane immigration policies; equal protection and opportunity for women, racial/ethnic minorities and the disabled; greater access to health care and health coverage, including for kids; greater protections for workers; and better public education.

It is this championing of social equality and enactment of government working on behalf of its constituents towards the betterment of our lives - towards our emancipation - that defines American liberalism and is embodied in Sen. Kennedy's professional career. Even Kennedy's bi-partisan skill is part and parcel of American liberalism in its emphasis on pragmatism to achieving the ends of equality and opportunity for all.

As we mourn Kennedy - without dismissing his human frailties - I question if we're also mourning the end of American liberalism as we knew it. Do we still have stalwarts in Congress championing government as a tool of progress? Do we still believe in legislating equality and equal protection? Or have these values and ideologies died with Kennedy, or long before him? Obama is not a progressive; but does he embody liberal ideals and principles? Does he keep alive Kennedy's belief in public service and social progress for all Americans? What do you think?

(Photo of a DC vigil for Ted Kennedy by el.pilo)

Share this Post

Comments (3)

PS: This -

"The key to Kennedy's politics is his belief that Democrats must simultaneously advocate for the poor and the middle class at the expense of the wealthy and corporate America. As someone whose policies and politics are so well integrated, Kennedy knows that liberals win elections when the poor and the middle class vote together. And liberals lose when the suburban, indpendent middle-class votes with the upper classes."

- From an '02 profile in The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020325/newfield

Posted by Leigh Graham on 08/27/2009 @ 07:15PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Leigh
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
To answer your last question.... No. Obama campaigned on progressive rhetoric, but unfortunately he's ideologically impotent. You can say you want "change" all you want, but hiring defenders of the neo-liberal status quo, ie: Clinton, Geithner, and especially Emanuel will gimp any attempts to raise the living standards of the average Joe. Their ideology dictates that giving corporations as much leeway as possible betters society through trickle-down.

I would disagree. Granted, neo-liberalism (a.k.a., pure capitalism or free-trade or "deregulation, etc) is certainly affective at growing economies and advancing technology - but society needs more than that and benefits from a diversity of tactics (and certainly with almost 7 billion people, we can start to consider the disadvantages of growing economies.) We still need a strong public sector and a strong nonprofit sector. They provide a check and balance. They provide a specific quality of life that the private sector cannot - a human quality. Morality.

Posted by Jeremy Keith Hammond on 08/28/2009 @ 06:15AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Jeremy Keith
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
We need to act smarter than our medieval counterpart I checked it out the Middle ages were roughly between 450 and 1450 AD. People of higher rank, thought peasants, and their jobs,were Worthless. Any change there? I say Nada.

It is our job to pick up where Sen. Kennedy leaves off. Each person who cares about human justice needs to stand up and fight for the America dream.

I do not think Liberalism, is as effective as some thinks it is. The middle-classes think they have the answers, while they do not know the questions. They do not LISTEN to the poor, because if we knew what to do-We would not be poor.

Our allies with legal backgrounds still work to lift up a few people at a time. As SSI lawyers take on individual cases. They do not address the root causes. If they addressed the cause they would be out of a job.

Society has the resources we just need to dump a 1100AD idea, and treat all people well. All workers should make the price of living.

Posted by jan Lightfootlane on 08/29/2009 @ 08:20AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
Reply to thread
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by jan
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

Comment

Check Spelling

Email me when there are new posts to this thread
Comment Policy

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.

Author

Leigh is a PhD candidate in urban planning at MIT, and a consultant on U.S. Gulf Coast recovery. She sits on the Board of the Allston-Brighton Community Development Corporation in Boston, and has worked with non-profits, foundations and local governments on policies and programs aimed at reducing urban poverty and inequality.