There are, too, second lives in
politics. From Alexander Hamilton onward,
wayward politicians have found ways to sufficiently redeem themselves,
regardless of the offense. In 1969, Sen. Ted Kennedy's compulsions and addiction caused the death of an innocent woman. Long a critic of
the power of the privileged classes, Kennedy found it very convenient, that
night, to be privileged.
In thinking about Kennedy's legacy, it is not sufficient to note that, by the time he died, he had won political redemption beyond his wildest fantasies. The fact outrages those who dislike Kennedy, and it is often accepted, even uneasily, by those who embraced him later. Do not equate political redemption with popularity. They aren't the same thing. Kennedy was very liberal, and seen as such, and he was never a universally revered figure. At most, about half of Americans had a favorable view of him.
Aside from ideology, which doubtless influences perception here, there is a brutal calculus at the heart of one's assessment of Kennedy: did his latter years make up for his serious, harmful transgression? How one answers that question, I think, is as much a matter of how one views redemption.
Mark Lilla, in The Stillborn God, describes two forms of rebirth: a "Jewish" redemption where one's works and deeds promote a redeemable soul -- one that awaits the Messiah -- and a Protestant "Christian" redemption, where the expiation of one's sins are entirely the province of God, and not necessarily intelligible or accessible in our earthly lives. At the risk of bastardizing Lilla's metaphor, and the complexity of Jewish and Christian theologies, it is sufficient to say that redemption for Jews is an active, continuing process, one where doing good will hasten the coming of the Messiah.
In America, mostly Christian, we're most fond of spiritual redemption, but successfully redeemed politicians have tended towards the Jewish model -- work, work, work, work, even if, as Kennedy certainly did, they identified as a Catholic or a Christian. (I realize there is a Catholic quality to this Jewish redemption of which I write, but Lilla's "Christian" redemption is Reformationist.)
Americans tend to be skeptical when
politicians, after being unmasked, put on different masks. Becoming a born-again
Christian is a necessary step for some politicians, but it usually is never
enough. If there's a redemptive best practice, it would be to cultivate an image of humility; be
humble and gracious; and plunge yourself into work.
It allowed Kennedy to rise above the limitations of his partisanship.
He became more influential among his colleagues than he was outside the
Senate, and yet -- that was enough.
In some ways, Kennedy is an exception to the norm. He was so famous -- and so much a part of the political narrative at the time -- and his deed was so shocking -- and his recovery and taming so complete by the time of his death -- that he defies characterization. The trauma of Chappaquiddick stayed with the Kopechne family, but Americans, having punished Kennedy by ending his presidential ambitions, seemed to move on. For a younger generation of Americans, Kennedy was, at worst, a punchline -- the inspiration for a character on the Simpsons. Kennedy's later carousing, which didn't end, by most reports, until 1992, was fodder for comedians. The soothing effect of the passage of time cannot be underestimated.
Redeemed politicians often find it hard to talk about their transgressions, and the public, while insanely curious to hear about them, doesn't seem to judge a politician who never quite meets the apologetic threshold. I think we enjoy hearing sinners grovel for the spectacle. The behavior that comes after the apology -- that seems to matter. Words mean less than deeds. Kennedy spent the rest of his life fighting against privilege. He knew his family legacy aided his career in so many ways; he knew that its wealth and influence probably helped him avoid legal penalty; he was already ambivalent about what the Kennedy name did to those who held the legacy -- his two brothers were assassinated -- but he seems to have realized, or believed, that he would always chase expiation, that he had tarnished the family, and that he could do nothing but work, work, work, work to give back the privileges that he was afforded. It is no accident that the working poor in America see Kennedy as their hero.
Former New York Governor Eliot
Spitzer's sins belong to a different category than Ted Kennedy's, but they
aren't trivial. He is guilty of hurting -- no, harming -- his family and of
political hypocrisy, and perhaps, if you are inclined to the view that
prostitution is a universally malevolent force, he participated in the promotion
of sex-trafficking. Legally, he seems to have violated the Mann Act. In
To hear the chatter, it is not out of the realm
of possibility that Spitzer will one day find himself in a position of political
authority, once again. Paraphrasing Abba Eban, political history teaches that
men behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. Spitzer was
humiliated, naked before everyone. And, having been so exposed, he has become a
politician unafraid to be himself.
Compared to his successor, David
Patterson, Spitzer didn't do that bad of a job. Compared to Patterson, Spitzer was less
reckless about his personal behavior, although he was more arrogant about it. Compared to, say, Rudy Giuliani ... Well,
you get the idea. It's
There may be a place for Spitzer.
Spitzer's aggressive prosecution of Wall Street's conflicts of interests were
seen as abusive at the time and largely prescient now. He has slowly re-entered
public life, and not ostentatiously.
Spitzer's redemption, if it ever comes, would have to be about more than the prostitution; it would have to be about his entire performance as governor, and that is much tougher.
Marc's bit here is consistent with what we see everywhere else: Kennedy worked worked worked for the interests of the poor.
But that's just a tendentious and partisan take on why some of us don't like Kennedy and the policies he pursued. For example, Kennedy time and again worked to raise the minimum wage. Idiots like Ambinder credit Kennedy's work as if it were some benefit to the poor. But policy analysis tells us that the best that can be said for the policy is that in some circumstances it doesn't hurt the poor very much. That's but one example, but it's indicative of his career, and of the crap that passes for political commentary.
Policy analysis doesn't come close to telling us that raising the minimum wage hurts the poor. Yes, there's a tendency for employers to hire fewer bottom rung workers, but the empirical evidence suggests that the effect is small if the rise in the minimum wage is moderate. At the same time, an increase in the minimum wage increases the buying power of lower income groups, a good thing at a time of high income inequality. In the end it seems to be an economic wash, and therefore I go with the side of decency, which was Ted Kennedy's side.
The decent thing to do is the right thing, all things considered, and saying something is a wash doesn't really tell us. Why we'd think the decent thing to do is deprive some poor people of a job to increase the buying power of other poor people--harm some to help others similarly situated--isn't clear to me, and you don't offer any argument for why it's right, much less decent. I suppose it's some consolation to the teenager without a job that your and Teddy's decency is not at issue.
As for the merits of the policy, I think you've considerably overstated them. But your position is a mess even without that.
Studies have been made on the effect of increases in state minimum wages on low income jobs in two adjacent states, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, only one of which increased the minimum wage. The studies showed no measurable effect, probably because the increase wasn't a big one. Following this, another study came out that purported to disprove the first one. Much has also been written, on both sides, about the effect of the minimum wage rise that took effect during the Clinton presidency. Hence, I said that economically it's a wash. A few teenages may lose their jobs, but a lot of minimum workers gain what is for them a significant increase in their income.
I also feel that your concern for the unemployed teenager is totally bogus, much like John Calhoun's view that slavery was a great benefit for the slave. John Kenneth Galbraith once said that one of the oldest pphilosophical problems is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. He got that one right, you betcha.
The fact that one study disagrees with another doesn't make the whole thing a wash. One of those studies disagrees with almost all of the others, and those others show negative effects on employment.
Your lack of concern for those very real flesh-and-blood teenagers is not bogus, it's totally real. I'm just not sure why you dress up your lack of concern as some sort of moral high ground, or accuse me of selfishness for pointing out your callousness. I'm not an employer or a low wager worker; none of this matters to me personally. I'm just opposed to bad policies, and to people who adopt policies that hurt real people to make themselves feel better. Isn't hurting other people to make yourself feel good a selfish thing to do?
"One of those studies disagrees with almost all of the others, and those others show negative effects on employment."
According to Wikipedia, it's more mixed than you think, and the rate of job loss among teenagers is miniscule. That's the reason it doesn't concern me that much.
"Isn't hurting other people to make yourself feel good a selfish thing to do?"
That's what I think you're doing. And as far as motivation goes, I won't benefit in the slightest from an increase in the minimum wage or from any other of Kennedy's goals. I think they're best on a utilitarian basis, and I feel that a democracy can stand only so much inequality. Obviously we differ, particularly about inequality.
Stan--yeah, look at wikipedia. You'll find this:
"David Neumark and William L. Wascher described their analysis of over 300 studies on the minimum wage.[3] The studies were from several countries covering a period of over 50 years, primarily from the 1990s onward. According to the Neumark and Wascher, a large majority of the studies show negative effects for the minimum wage; those showing positive effects are few, questionable, and disproportionately discussed.
"Based on the published studies they considered, Neumark and Wascher conclude that the minimum wage is not good social policy. They emphasize three especially salient conclusions: First, while acknowledging Card and Kreuger, they found that studies since the early 1990s have strongly pointed to a "reduction in employment opportunities for low-skilled and directly affected workers." Second, they found some evidence that the minimum wage is harmful to poverty-stricken families, and "virtually no evidence" that it helps them. Third, they found that the minimum wage lowers adult wages of young workers who encounter it, by reducing their ultimate level of education."
Based on this evidence you've decided that the decent thing to do is to raise the minimum wage. Your utilitarian account of decency is no better than your non-utilitarian account.
If you want to reduce inequality, there are other, better ways. For example, the EITC. There's no reason--none at all--to cause unskilled workers to lose their job, except for your indecent sense of decency.
Good, thoughtful essay.
Good food for thought. One thing writers are not addressing: the difference between a Vitter, Sanford or Ensign and a Clinton or Kennedy is that the formers preach and moralize about family values as an American ideal which all "true" Americans must adhere to. It's easier to redeem oneself after screwing up when you haven't openly mandated that others live up to your holier-than-thou moral standards prior to your offense. A good reminder to conservatives: Pride cometh before the fall.
Godspeed Senator Kennedy and thank you for your work, work, work.
debbie, are you under the mistaken impression that Kennedy favored the decriminalization of manslaughter? The decriminalization of drunk driving? As far as I know, he favored mandating that other people live up to the standards he refused to abide.
Showcasing an exciting collection of exquisite Judaica, where each and every item is a masterpiece produced for you by the leading artists of the world-acclaimed ArtChazin.
Relax as you browse and shop our exclusive gallery of spectacular lithographs and original paintings available on either highest-grade canvas or parchment paper, and in both antique and modern styles.
http://www.artchazin.com/ketubah.htm
Showcasing an exciting collection of exquisite Judaica, where each and every item is a masterpiece produced for you by the leading artists of the world-acclaimed ArtChazin.
Relax as you browse and shop our exclusive gallery of spectacular lithographs and original paintings available on either highest-grade canvas or parchment paper, and in both antique and modern styles.
http://www.artchazin.com/ketubah.htm