With the passing of Senator Edward M. Kennedy this week, Congress has lost one of its most dedicated servants, and the American people have lost an icon. Eulogies have poured out from both the left and right wings, praising Sen. Kennedy as an unabashed liberal who nevertheless reached out to right wing compatriots like Sens. Richard Lugar, John McCain, and Orrin Hatch to compromise and pass important legislation like the START treaty, the Americans with Disabilities Act and No Child Left Behind. Sadly, though, his undying focus was on health care, but his terminal illness left him unable to participate in the current healthcare debate. Pundits everywhere have noted his ability to work across the aisle and ask whether anyone currently in Congress can take his place as the great compromiser.
The answer, sadly enough, may be that it's not even possible at this time.
Senator Edward Kennedy was born in 1932. Though he grew up in the wealthy Kennedy klan and was the youngest son of Joseph Kennedy Sr., his upbringing was different from his elder brothers Joseph Kennedy Jr., John F. Kennedy, and Robert F. Kennedy, as well as his older sister Eunice Kennedy. Joesph Kennedy Jr. and John F. Kennedy were of the generation which came of age during the Great Depression and fought in World War II, and sadly Joseph Jr. died in combat during World War II. Edward Kennedy was only a teenager when World War II was fought, and he was literally just barely able to qualify to run for Senate when he replaced his older brother Jack in the Senate after Jack was elected President in 1960.
I mention Sen. Ted Kennedy's birthdate here, because of a groundbreaking study of generational theory which was posed by two University of Virginia sociologists William Strauss and Neil Howe in the 1990's, who expanded on their findings in the books, Generations: The History of Our Future (1993), The Fourth Turning (1997), and Millennials Rising (2002). Without getting too much into their theory, they posited that generations of people act in certain, predictable ways, and that every 18 to 20 years, each generation goes through a life phase which affects them and everyone else following them like clockwork. Also, each generation has its own archetype which differentiates itself from their elders and their younger generations. Some discussion of generation theory was diaried previously here.
The generation of Joseph Kennedy Jr. and John F. Kennedy was classified as the G.I. generation by Strauss and Howe, often referred to as the Greatest Generation. That generation was civic in nature, and they tended to pass policy as a collective unit. In its best form, they fought off the evils of Hitler and fascism, passed the G.I. Bill, built the Interstate highway system, and put men on the moon. Conversely, they were slow to fight off racial discrimination and to quick to send people into a disastrous war in Vietnam. Ted Kennedy was part of the Silent Generation, the generation that was more sensitive to the needs of those who were disenfranchised. At their best, they produced the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, and the START Nuclear Arms Treaty. Conversely, their need to compromise on all matters of political and social importance could get progress bogged down.
The baby boom generation which followed Ted Kennedy's generation was radically different than anyone else. They uprooted a lot of institutions and brought in heavy doses of ideology to all of the work they did. At their best, they brought an end to the Vietnam War, exposed the criminality of Watergate, and brought in rights for women, Hispanics, and gays. At their worst, they began the culture wars and viewed every social and political issue as a moral battle to be fought to the bitter end. Some of the worst aspects of this ideological bent of the baby boom generation began in 1993 when pundits like Rush Limbaugh began pontificating against the then-newly elected President Bill Clinton and his plan to raise taxes on the wealthy and pass healthcare legislation. It only got worse during the Republican congressional revolution of 1994 and the subsequent impeachment of President Clinton for essentially what was marital infidelity.
It got even worse with the election of George W. Bush, who staffed his administration with lackeys who were selected more for their ideological purity than their qualifications for their respective positions or their experience. This led to horrific results in the Iraq war and during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, as well as the financial meltdown last fall. He was assisted not only by an acquiescent GOP but by right wing media pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, and Fox News. People who disagreed with President Bush's policies were often demonized as unpatriotic or supporting terrorism.
Even after the American people rejected the policies of President Bush and the Republican party and elected Barack Obama president of the United States, the Republican party in Congress is still sticking to its ideological purity, insisting that their plans, when they have any, is the only real way to govern, and all they have done since the election is attempt to block all of President Obama's plans to help the country. Worse yet, these same media pundits who were so pleased to harp praise on the last President have done a 180 and labeled President Obama as a fascist, socialist, reverse racist, and a person out to kill all grandmothers with his proposed healthcare program. Worse yet, they are inciting people to believe outrageously false claims and commit violent acts to push their ideology. Despite Presdient Obama's best efforts to reach across the aisle, it's apparent that his efforts at bipartisanship are going to fail because he's dealing with a group of people who are attuned not to compromise on anything.
So for those who wonder who will take up Ted Kennedy's mantle in Congress, the answer may be that no one can possibly do this at this time. The Democrats currently in Congress may just have to flex their flabby political muscle and work to pass legislation on behalf of the people and not their corporate interests.