A 1960's Conservative's View: Turning The Page On The Kennedy Era

Betsy Ross August 29, 2009

As a 1960's era Conservative, who has become even more so in my elder years, the hoopla surrounding Ted Kennedy's death this week simply has been too incredible to believe in both its scope, and also the coverage given by the mass media of his life and funeral.

Ted Kennedy was the patriarch of a truly controversial family, after all, in the history of America from any real factual or logical perspective. The Kennedy myth has been contrived and contributed to much over the years by the liberal leaning press most of all. And they responded to his death true to form.

Much inaccurate spin has also been done in the media using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" when describing both political beliefs, and those that now serve in all levels of government, both on the Hill and at the state level.

A liberal to a 1960's era Conservative or by "pure" definition, simply is one who believes the federal government is "sovereign" and above the state government (and people even when acting outsided their "legal" sphere) in powers and duties, and also believes that the Constitution is a "living document" which can be molded and shaped by governmental officials in any of the three branches on public opinion alone, or contrary to public opinion if it so suits them or their special interests, without going through the formal amendment process contained within the Constitution itself.

A true conservative is merely one who believes that the document that was created between both the federalists and the anti-federalists and executed that hot summer day in Philadelphia, created the most unique and free government than which before that time had ever existed, and which recognized no "class of citizens" above any other - especially not government officials.

Other than the slavery issue, which was rectified by the 13th and 14th amendments, the rest was pure genius and insured liberty for all - not simply a select few - and protection against governmental overstep at both the state and federal levels.

Since the 9th Amendment even preceded the 10th, it left any and all further changes to its provisions needing the "consent of the governed" not in simply poll results, or unlawfully enacted federal statutes and legislation, but actual voting and "express consent," of the governed, the people in the several states themselves through their state governments during the ratification process which does, after all, take then 3/4's of the states and their citizens to agree.

Mr. Kennedy's family's legacy is that of liberalism, to the point of socialism and that government is sovereign and the rights of the people respected according to their class distinction most of all. While representing mostly blue collar and minority Americans publicly, much of the liberals agendas have actually harmed, and not helped, those minority groups progressively.

Since the attack right now is on the middle class working poor actually most of all under both the liberal agendas now in Washington - those of the Republican big business liberals, and the Democratic big business liberals - with simply a change in "corporate" groups of benefactors.

While occasional mentions were made of Chappaquiddick, and that horrible incident in 1969 one year after the untimely end of another Kennedy, the spins continued in that regard also.

As one who does remember it well, at the time members of both political parties were aware that some deals were struck in that incident in order that Mr. Kennedy be afforded to enter a plea to a lesser charge than the charge for which he was clearly guilty - involuntary manslaughter.

A tragic accident, given also the timing when most individuals that had suffered losses the degree to which he personally had less than a year before, the methods he used to cope by any standard were not healthy and actually personally more harmful for him and clearly those within his circle of friends and family, but understandable.

But in an equal society of "justice for all" such a "privileged" action would not have been the case. His liberalism also served him well in that instance, but not the American people or the victim's family if taking an accurate poll of those who remember when.

His bargain with the devil did ultimately cost him his favor with the American people, by and large, except his most ardent supporters even to this day. With the exception of his loyal constituency in Massachusetts also, of course, fundamentally one of the most liberal states of all.

The American people got their justice and never quite trusted the Lion in the Senate long before the current status of displeasure a great many of this country now have for the direction it has taken even progressively since that time.

John Kennedy's liberalism took us into Viet Nam, to begin a history now of over 40 years of engaging in more and more non-defensive wars on foreign soil in countries engaged in civil wars.

I wonder if Lincoln would have appreciated such interference in America's own back in 1865?

I for one who lived through both the highs and lows since the time the Kennedy family burst on the political scene, feel for the personal loss of Mr. Kennedy's family as one who was, by default, left with an enormous responsibility as the patriarch of a large Irish-Catholic immigrant family while also tragically having to also cope with his own enormous individual losses.

May he now rest in peace.

But the myth, after all, was just a myth. And feel we have lost much more than we, as a nation, have gained in those forty years.

And the hope I feel and changes I would like to come can only be done in moving backward, not forward, into more and more liberalism.