I know exactly the hour when my opinion of Sen. Ted Kennedy permanently changed. I had remained very angry at the Massachusetts liberal for many years since his 1987 speech so unjustly vilifying the great conservative jurist Robert Bork:
Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution.
For 15 years thereafter I could hardly bear to hear his name spoken. Nor was my temper much improved by his rough handling of another great conservative legalist, Theodore Olson, at Olson’s confirmation hearings as solicitor general. I was always ready to laugh at the harsh jokes conservatives told about the senator’s legendarily self-indulgent personal life. It seemed a fair judgment on an unfair man.
Then came 9/11. Among the murdered was the brave and brilliant Barbara Olson. Ted asked some friends to help with the deluge of messages of condolence, and my wife Danielle volunteered for the job. Among the letters: a lengthy handwritten note by the senator so elegant and decent, so eloquent and (fascinatingly) written in so beautiful a hand as to revolutionize one’s opinion of the man who wrote it. It did not dishonor by ignoring or denying the political differences between the two families. It fully acknowledged them – and through them expressed a deeper human awareness of shared mortality, pain, and grief. Not all chapters of his life revealed it equally, but the senator was a big soul, and in his last years, he lived his bigness fully. He knew and he expressed the sorrow of human life, a sorrow so memorably captured by his brother Robert in a passage of poetry quoted upon hearing of the murder of Martin Luther King, and engraved thereby in the American political memory forever:
Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.
Rest in peace, leader of the liberals.
32 responses so far
1 ConArtist // Aug 26, 2009 at 11:00 am
Rest in peace. You didn’t have to accede to his politics to respect his ideals and influence. A champion of the downtrodden and a bipartisan force to be reckoned with. Nice personal touch in your tribute.
2 The Last Brother (Edward Kennedy 1932-2009) « Around The Sphere // Aug 26, 2009 at 11:13 am
[...] David Frum at New Majority (entire post): I know exactly the hour when my opinion of Sen. Ted Kennedy [...]
3 balconesfault // Aug 26, 2009 at 11:40 am
The other day, watching MTP, Orrin Hatch was lamenting that if Ted Kennedy had been active the last few months, there would have been someone on the left he could have spoken to about healthcare reform … and perhaps that could have moved the ball forward.
Ted Kennedy was a liberal – but he was also a legislator. One who was willing to work across the aisle with any number of conservatives – Hatch, McCain, even George Bush, who seems to share almost nothing with Kennedy except for New England money. And if those conservatives got a chance to advance a portion of their own agenda? Ted understand that this was how legislation gets done.
The question I’d raise for Mr. Hatch would be … instead of mourning the lack of another Democratic Ted Kennedy – who is the Republican Ted Kennedy? Don’t say John McCain – McCain is a “maverick”, a horse that bolts from the herd, and not a leader of the herd – John McCain can’t bring along fellow conservatives the way Kennedy could bring along liberals when he signed onto something.
The problem, I think, is that current Republican leadership has all been bred under the Grover Norquist slogan – “Bipartisanship is another name for date rape.”
4 Rodak // Aug 26, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Nicely said, Mr. Frum.
5 sinz54 // Aug 26, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Kennedy was my senator.
Though I disagreed with Kennedy on plenty of issues, I respected his ability to fight for his principles, while also working with Republicans to get real work done on issues like education and immigration reform.
As for what Kennedy said about Bork: It only illustrates what I’ve said all along, that wild hyperbole in politics is as American as apple pie. Charging that Bork was going to stop the teaching of evolution (a subject about which Bork never spoke a word, AFAIK) is just like charging that Obama is going to turn America socialist. A standard political ploy–once you get used to it.
Ted, you will be missed.
Rest in peace.
6 balconesfault // Aug 26, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Kennedy didn’t charge that Bork would stop the teaching of evolution … rather, the charge was that Bork’s judicial philosophy would empower local jurisdictions to outlaw the teaching of evolution, just as the would be empowered to outlaw abortion. Per segregated lunch counter, Kennedy noted elsewhere in the same speech “He (Bork) opposed the Public Accommodations Civil Rights Act of 1964. He opposed the one-man one-vote decision of the Supreme Court the same year.”.
All of those aren’t simply hypotheticals … we know there are locales that would ban abortion, would ban teaching of evolution, and most certainly segregated lunch counters would have continued for years more without passage of the Public Accomodations Act.
As for the Obama-socialist thing … if one wants to argue that Obama might increase the amount of socialism in America, that’s a reasonable argument, since it acknowledges that many programs are already socialist in nature. But “turn America socialist” would suggest, with any level of intellectual rigor, that Obama is ready to nationalize ExxonMobil. I don’t think anyone finds this realistic.
7 Observer // Aug 26, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Ireign: “You shouldn’t trample on someone’s grave but how about just not posting anything?”
…because maybe it’s for America to do better than that?
8 ottovbvs // Aug 26, 2009 at 5:06 pm
5 ireign // Aug 26, 2009 at 12:17 pm
“You shouldn’t trample on someone’s grave but how about just not posting anything?”
……..because it was an interesting, insightful and sympathetic anecdote about one of the biggest figures in US politics over the last 50 years who died last night……..as for your typically petty response that was just what we’ve come to expect from you
9 sinz54 // Aug 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm
balconesfault sez: “the charge was that Bork’s judicial philosophy would empower local jurisdictions to outlaw the teaching of evolution”
Which is nonsensical.
Local governments cannot “outlaw” the teaching of evolution.
Bork NEVER said that governments had a right to impose religious views on those who didn’t want it. That would be a total violation of the Establishment Clause. Give the guy some credit for being brighter than that.
You obviously don’t know what the fight over evolution has been about. It’s about being allowed to teach creationism alongside evolution as an alternative theory of origins. It’s nonsense of course. But not even the creationists are demanding that teaching the theory of evolution be banned in public school on religious grounds. Give THEM some credit for being brighter than that too.
10 sinz54 // Aug 26, 2009 at 5:23 pm
ireign sez: “He was by all accounts an affable man but one with many faults and who resorted to unfair personal attacks.”
In other words, he was a POLITICIAN.
If we refused to say anything nice about any politician who had faults and who ever engaged in personal attacks, there would be precious few politicians to say nice things about. Even Reagan stooped that low once or twice.
Wild hyperbole and unfair personal attacks and smears have been part of American politics since the first days of our Republic. Here, learn something about the Presidential campaigns of 1800. One of the first Presidential elections in America, was also one of the dirtiest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1800
Yet we honor and revere these men. Don’t we?
11 pnwguy // Aug 26, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Sinz54:
>>Local governments cannot “outlaw” the teaching of evolution.
Forgive me if my history was wrong, but wasn’t the Scopes trial about the STATE of Tennessee outlawing the teaching of evolution? And Scopes was found guilty under state law? This issue of federal constitutional power over state and local government action gets to the heart of a lot of serious legal matters. So the differences in Bork’s judicial philosophy, related to things like the Establishment Clause were pertinent ground, even if his views were distorted maliciously.
12 ottovbvs // Aug 26, 2009 at 6:14 pm
sinz54 // Aug 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm
“Which is nonsensical.
Local governments cannot “outlaw” the teaching of evolution.”
……Wrong again……Check out Dover, DE, board of education, they tried and failed
13 Hot Air » Blog Archive » Wow: Kennedy didn’t dabble in petty personal attacks, says David Shuster // Aug 26, 2009 at 6:30 pm
[...] Kennedy warmly today for his decency towards Ted Olson, felt compelled to note that he could barely stand the thought of him for 15 years after the Bork hearing, so loathsome was his behavior. I can only assume that this [...]
14 ottovbvs // Aug 26, 2009 at 6:42 pm
ireign // Aug 26, 2009 at 6:29 pm
“Ottobs-I am sure you advocated posting nice things about Strum Thurmond the day after he died as well. Because consistency and logic is obviously your forte:-)”
…………..And inventing stuff is obviously your forte…….it was Strom Thurmond btw( he wasn’t a make of guitar)……..unlike you when someone from the other side falls off the perch I either say nothing or praise them like Marc Anthony
15 ottovbvs // Aug 26, 2009 at 7:00 pm
ireign // Aug 26, 2009 at 6:45 pm
“Wow, you discovered a typo, good job sleuth!!!
Doubtful but that is exactly what I advocated — saying nothing.”
………….I have a weakness for getting people’s names right unlike you apparently…….Frum having some social graces found something to praise……social graces…..know what they are?
16 Churl // Aug 26, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Otto:
Since you mention social graces, herewith an article that contains some eyewitness accounts of social graces as practiced by the late Senator.
http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_5585
17 ottovbvs // Aug 26, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Churl // Aug 26, 2009 at 7:47 pm
“Otto:
Since you mention social graces, herewith an article that contains some eyewitness accounts of social graces as practiced by the late Senator.’
…….Made you feel better did it finding that link?……..Just because Kennedy made ***hole of himself from time time doesn’t give you and irreign a pass to behave in the same way?……..I’m no apologist for the guy but people like you and irreign are so small we can’t see you
18 JJWFromME // Aug 26, 2009 at 8:44 pm
This post is tasteful and written with with an open heart. Thank you for that.
19 Churl // Aug 26, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Otto, Kelly’s article doesn’t make me feel better or worse about anything. I present it merely to suggest that people might want to restrain their urge to publish obsequious, hagiographic gush about the late Senator.
20 blake.seitz // Aug 26, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Hey, whaddaya know, this piece got a shout-out on politico:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26475.html
A very nice piece, though, David–it shows great maturity (not to mention societally-acceptable tact) to write about your enemies.
21 pnwguy // Aug 26, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Ottovbvs:
>>……Wrong again……Check out Dover, DE, board of education, they tried and failed
To be consistent on details, I think you have this example wrong. I will assume you meant the Dover PENNSYLVANIA case, and it wasn’t to ban the teaching of evolution. The board voted in the teaching of “intelligent design” to contradict macro-evolutionary theory as the only plausible explanation of earth biology.
In the famous Scopes case, Tennessee had passed the Butler Act in 1925, which DID specifically outlaw state funded schools from teaching human evolution. And Scopes, backed by the ACLU, deliberately challenged it.
As for the subject of David’s piece, I too congratulate Mr. Frum for being gracious and recognizing the common humanity with a personal antidote. We can and should have our differences with other Americans politically. But constant demonization of opponents is seldom useful for a nation. There are enough examples of tribalism destroying the fabric of society throughout the world. Part of the attractiveness of NM is the mostly civil tone of discourse here.
22 pnwguy // Aug 26, 2009 at 10:25 pm
oops. ……..with a personal ANECDOTE. I’ll try to correct my own grammar and spelling mistakes as I go.
Too bad this site doesn’t give you edit capability for your own comments. I’ve seen some that give you an hour or two to correct or retract something, then they are locked after a set time. Food for thought, David.
23 balconesfault // Aug 27, 2009 at 4:13 am
pnwguy – good comments
a) right on point about the Dover case. Though there are other examples – eg the Kansas School Board voting to outlaw mention of Darwin in their curricula in the late 90’s.
What I think was safe to say about Bork is that he wouldn’t have upheld any challenges to incorporation of religious teachings into the curricula, even when done so at the expense of scientific consensus as in the case of evolution. Bork rejected all three parts of the three-part test defined in Kurtzman for evaluating First Amendment violations – 1) the government action must have a secular purpose; 2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion; 3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion. On the latter part, Bork argued “it is impossible to satisfy … government is inevitably entangled with religion”.
I don’t see how a successful challenge to a state education board which mandated replacement of evoluationary teaching with creationism could be mounted under Borks views.
b) I’m with you on the edit function. Particularly when there’s no preview function.
c) I wholly agree with you on the attractiveness of NM being the generally civil tone, and the meeting place in the center. There are conservatives here who seem to believe the pathway for the Republican Party to retake the majority isn’t to modify the dominant ideology to appeal to a broader spectrum of people … but rather to just yell louder. These people are bothered not only by posters who offer liberal opinions, but even by posters who offer centrist opinions on certain topics, defenses of the majority opinions in America.
To the extent that right-leaning ideas can be offered by various authors here and tested by commentors across the ideological spectrum, I think this can only help those authors improve those ideas. It’s a tribute to Frum that he attracts this spectrum, and that we don’t see censorship or banishment on ideological grounds (I’m always fine with those measures being implemented if a commentor is outright abusive or offensive in their comments). Go to Redstate and make some liberal arguments, and you’ll quickly be removed from the board, no matter how civil your tone. Go to Kos and make some conservative argument, and you’re going to get buried under a pile of aggressively negative responses. Here, there is room for dialogue.
24 BoolaBoola // Aug 27, 2009 at 5:39 am
Oh brother. Bork got exactly what he deserved. Remember he was rejected by a REPUBLCAN-MAJORITY Senate.
If it were used properly, the verb “to Bork someone” would mean to read his writings and draw logical conclusions.
25 sinz54 // Aug 27, 2009 at 9:25 am
ottovbs: The Dover case was NOT about the banning of the theory of evolution. It was about teaching Intelligent Design as well.
And in any case, it’s irrelevant, because NO ONE has shown ANYTHING in Bork’s writings that could even support THAT goal of creationists.
What Kennedy hated about Bork was that Bork was a doctrinaire Constitutional originalist. And if the Supreme Court followed Bork’s arguments, they could strike down any new liberal social engineering as unconstitutional. In a time when Reaganite conservatism was on the ascendancy, liberals were scrambling to preserve the Supreme Court as a countervailing force. And they were prepared to do it by smearing conservative Supreme Court nominees.
Just setting the record straight, as usual.
26 sinz54 // Aug 27, 2009 at 9:33 am
Just one more point about the Bork nomination:
I’m not a strict Constitutional originalist like Bork. I see no way that black Americans could have had their civil rights restored to them in the 1950s and 1960s without the action of the Federal Government overruling the segregationism of state and local governments in the Deep South.
But just what are the powers of the Federal Government versus the states and localities where issues of individual rights are concerned has always been a difficult issue; there have been scores of Supreme Court rulings on it. For liberals to debate conservatives on this before the TV cameras during the Bork hearings would have been a great teaching movement for Americans.
Instead, liberal politicians like Kennedy chose demagoguery and smear tactics–perhaps because they didn’t think they could convince the public on the basis of their arguments.
Just as they’re doing now, with the health care issue. It’s been amusing to hear liberals at town hall meetings complaining that conservatives aren’t interested in debating with them–when they never wanted ANY debate in the first place. They wanted ObamaCare rammed through Congress in just 4 months with virtually no public debate whatsoever.
Only after the Town Hall protesters stopped ObamaCare in its tracks, and the public and politicians began to REALLY debate ObamaCare openly, are liberals wringing their hands.
27 Noli Irritare Leones » Blog Archive » And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs. // Aug 27, 2009 at 10:54 am
[...] columnist David Frum’s story about how his opinion of Teddy Kennedy was changed by the grace Kennedy showed toward his political foe Theodore Olson, in the wake of Olson’s wife’s death in 9/11, the personal touch he showed, [...]
28 Observer // Aug 27, 2009 at 11:28 am
The correct measure of the centre would be to include 2 and 3, surely? Staying at home in 2008 seems like it would have been a perfectly scrupulous and conservative way to have protested the GOP’s newfound sourness without compromising one’s principles.
29 joedee1969 // Aug 27, 2009 at 12:13 pm
ireign, GOP did lose its way and the people who want to take it back want to distance themselves from the talk radio Glenn Beck right. A lot of us don’t relate to these bomb throwers anymore and feel they are harming us more than anything. I like this site because it is not all right-wing insanity but ground conservatives who know there is a role for government. There are very few sites that are more down the middle of the road and not on the fringe. There are very few writers that stand up to the crazy way right.David and writers like C. Rich are a breath of fresh air to me. They seem to have a brain and won’t drink the kool-aid from conservatives but focus on what is right by it. The problem is as soon as you say something about Rush or Sean or any of them , people say your not conservative and David and a few others don’t live in fear.
30 Churl // Aug 27, 2009 at 1:10 pm
joedee1969, I thought that Rush Limbaugh was the Talk Radio Satan Incarnate. How did he lose his position to Glenn Beck?
31 joedee1969 // Aug 28, 2009 at 10:58 am
Good question Churl. I heard Fox is paying Glenn 30 million a year.
32 Weekend Opinionator: Kennedy, Bork and the Politics of Judicial Destruction - The Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com // Aug 28, 2009 at 7:43 pm
[...] seems, are willing to split the difference on such questions. Somewhat surprisingly, the person who made the strongest effort at it was David Frum, the Bush speechwriter of “axis-of-evil” fame who now runs the site New [...]
You must log in to post a comment.