The Kennedy Myth

Much like the Camelot of Arthurian legend, the Kennedy family's American Camelot has flourished as mostly a myth.
With the death of Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy, D-MA, the grandiose chapter of a saga that has been "Camelot" for nearly a half-century is finally coming to a close.
Edward was the youngest, and last surviving, of patriarch Joe Kennedy's children. He's got two sons of his own, along with a nephew, Robert Kennedy, Jr., and niece, Caroline Kennedy, that will continue to carry on the family title. And undoubtedly, their own children will do the same one day, too.
The Kennedy saga will continue, of course, but Camelot just won't be the same without its original rulers.
Then again, Camelot was never the same after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Much the same way the Camelot of Arthurian legend was never the same after Arthur.
JFK made Camelot what it became; not Robert, not Ted, not even Eunice, whose contributions to the betterment of society were greater than all of her brothers' efforts combined.
Robert did not live long enough after Jack to wield the scepter of Camelot as effectively as his brother had in just the three short years he held it.
And Edward, well, he could never get his hands on it in the first place.
In fact, if the truth is known, Teddy contributed most to the Kennedy myth, and least to its glory.
It was Edward whose delinquency threatened to deface Camelot on more than one occasion; none more controversial than Chappaquiddick.
While Jack was the embodiment of courage and bravery, having distinguished himself as a gunboat commander in the Pacific theater of World War II, his youngest brother, Edward, was his antithesis.
Teddy's behavior reflected every bit the spoiled rich kid that he was. Unlike John, Edward did not serve his country in the Armed Forces. Instead, he fled for the safer and more comfortable surroundings of Washington, D.C., politics as his contribution to a lifetime of public service.
I'm not saying Teddy was a coward. But an argument certainly could have been made after Chappaquiddick.
I am also compelled to wonder about Edward's connections after both his older brothers were assassinated. Both were at or near the top of the political spectacle, highly visible leaders who had been known to take some controversial, and unpopular stands.
Oddly enough, Teddy Kennedy was mostly silent, working quietly behind the scenes in politics during the tenure of his older brothers, and he outlived them both to a ripe old age.
Again, I'm not saying Edward was given security by the underworld in exchange for his silence. But then again, the Kennedy fortune was built around the gangland mob of Prohibition days.
Old Joseph Kennedy, the family patriarch who started it all, made his money illegally as a bootlegger during 1920s Prohibition. He dealt rather closely with mobsters and mafia, who controlled the flow of black market goods, including and especially alcohol.
It is widely speculated that the mob was at least partially responsible for the deaths of Jack and Bobby Kennedy, because (1) they were in the very seats of political power, and (2) they had threatened on more than one occasion to get tough on crime and criminals; including and in particular, the underworld.
There is also speculation that Edward may have been approached at one time by representatives of the mob and was either bribed under the table to keep his mouth shut, or else told in no uncertain terms that anything less than total silence would mean an untimely death just like his brothers.
If such speculation is true, then Ted probably did both to (1) feather his own nest, and (2) to ensure for himself a long and secure life in public service. Any bribery at all would have come in the form of power and not profit, because Teddy had no need for money; he had plenty of his own from the family inheritance, and it came easy to him once elected to the U.S. Senate.
What's more appealing to a powerful aristocrat than more power, and a means to protect and ensure it.
The family's underworld connections could easily provide both.
And, frankly, the results speak for themselves. Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy served 47 years in the U.S. Senate from the same district, and went largely unchallenged. Whenever he was challenged, he always managed to come out on top. No doubt thanks to friends in both high, and low, places.
What's more, I never heard the late, great senator from Massachusetts talk tough on crime as his brothers once had. In fact, social justice became hs rallying cry; not crime control.
Coincidence perhaps? Or maybe just political pay back for some of his less legitimate supporters.
In the weeks that have followed Teddy's passing, the public has been fed nothing but filtered propaganda about the last of the original Camelot heirs.
According to the neutral and objective news media, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy was a champion of the poor and down-trodden. He was a man of great compassion and generosity. He was a renaissance man for all seasons.
Heck, he might as well have been the best thing since sliced bread, which, incidentally, was probably his older brother Jack.
If you believe that Sen. Kennedy really helped the poor, and truly cared about them, then I know of a bridge you could buy.
And, no, it's not the one crossing the pond over the Chappaquiddick River.
In Teddy's nearly five decades in the U.S. Senate, the poor are still poor, some poorer than before, and there are more of them than when he was first elected.
More people are on welfare and unemployment today than there were when Kennedy first championed President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society vision.
And more people than ever before are dependent upon government subsidies for their livelihoods.
That is very sad.
Sen. Kennedy obviously did not believe in the wise, old axiom, "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime."
Instead, he believed in a patronizing, patriarchial government system that sustained people indefinitely.
And after more than 40 years of Great Society goodness, three generations have grown up under the protective, but watchful umbrella of Uncle Sam. And those of the last 30 years have known nothing better...like, perhaps, opportunity to follow their dreams, start their own businesses and become their own bosses.
How is keeping people poor helping them? What had Edward Kennedy ever done to lift the poor out of poverty and into his world of the wealthy elite, the American bourgeois?
Perhaps the senator gave to charity and that's fine. We average folks do that, too.
But Ted Kennedy was, first and foremost, a politician, who viewed the poor among us, first and foremost, as votes. He maintained his power, in part, because of all the promises he had made to the poor.
Near as I can tell, though, the poor are still poor. And I have yet to learn of any banquets given at the Kennedy Estate where the poor and hungry were invited. But many wealthy libs like Kennedy have eaten like kings there in honor of the poor.
The stark, cold reality is that Ted Kennedy was a social, economic and political elitist who lived high on the hog his entire life, never had to struggle to achieve anything, and had it all handed to him, including a matched set of silver spoons.
If that isn't enough, he had a nice, cushy federal pension and handsome benefits package that paid exponentially better than anything you and I could hope to get out of either Social Security or Medicare.
Did I mention that Edward Kennedy was also one of the biggest and boastful of political hypocrites in Washington, D.C.?
He was heralded as a champion of the poor. But neither his lifestyle, nor his voting record, nor his political career prove to me that he cared a wit about the have-nots.
In truth, Kennedy was a patronizing aristocrat whose idea of compassion was to put people on the government teat where they may sustain themselves but never prosper.
Among other things, Kennedy was also an irresponsible playboy, womanizer, hard drinker and alcoholic, and a harbinger of political, social and economic corruption.
The only gnawing regret I have over Kennedy's passing is that his propagandists in the mainstream press have succeeded in making him out to be the saint that he most definitely was not.
He has been unjustly canonized simply because of his relation to King Jack and Prince Robert.
The fact is, Edward had done as much if not more vile, contemptible things as a public servant as any other common, ordinary politician has; only he had a made-to-order cleaning service that conveniently swept everything under the rug for him, and a friendly watchdog news media that was willing to look the other way and pretend that everything around him was clean.
Meanwhile, scores of other politicians--in particular, Kennedy's political and ideological opponents--have been given routine anal exams by the same watch dog and run off the property.
Kennedy was at the helm of a very powerful political machine that is the Democratic Party. What he said went, which meant that whatever his handlers said also went.
What I just cannot understand is how a man with so much dirt under his finger nails could be placed on such a high pedestal of reverance.
Why does modern America insist on crown royalty after having fought so long and so hard to gain independence from a monarchy, and struggled over the past two centuries to keep it away?
And more importantly, why do we insist on casting our pearls before swine, when, time and again, they have turned to spite us?
You can put a gold ring in a pig's snout and a crown on its head. You can even dress it in the finest purple robes and call it royalty. But no amount of flattery or adornment will change the fact that the creature we have just transformed is still a pig.
Not that I'm calling the late Sen. Edward Kennedy a pig.
I'm just saying...