Folks seem to be upset that Hillary has brought up the name of Robert F. Kennedy. What should really make Americans weep is a comparison of RFK to our current crop of politicians. Let’s look at a few facts about RFK:
- fathered 11 children, thus providing some of the new taxpayers that we needed to support a government that was greatly expanded in the 1960s, most notably with Medicare and Medicaid
- served in the military
- from within the Johnson Administration, opposed the Vietnam War that LBJ was committing America to
- as Attorney General, promoted equal rights and opportunity for Americans regardless of skin color (his statements on equal opportunity would have been out of step with our government’s current race- and sex-based Affirmative Action policies)
- traveled to South Africa in 1966 to lobby against apartheid
- prosecuted organized crime, thus reducing some of its drag on the U.S. economy (much worse in the old days due to the fact that Mob-dominated New Jersey and New York were proportionately more important industrially)
Sample quote from 1968: “Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product … if we should judge America by that – counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. …”
There may be a lot of good reasons for not bringing up RFK, but probably the best one is to avoid reminding Americans that they once were able to vote for a guy like him.
Note: I wrote a bit about RFK in an earlier posting about the JFK Library.
If you read the RFK bio on Wikipedia you will see that his life is a life of privilege:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy
Indeed the price of this privilege was a life of service to the nation as I believe was his father’s intention.
RFK was always on a upward trajectory from the beginning. That is not to say he did not accomplish anything on his own but one has to measure a persons accomplishment from where they began their life.
For example:
1) military – mostly training at Harvard, spent 4 months on the shakedown cruise in the Caribbean on the ship named for his father
2) Did not strongly oppose the Vietnam war until 1967
3) appointed to AG by his brother.
Many people had the moral strength to have the same opinions but few had the background that amplified their influence.
N: As I noted in the JFK Library posting (linked to), RFK lived in a great time to be male and WASP (the Kennedys were Catholic, of course, but they lived and yachted like WASPs); he didn’t have to compete with a Condoleezza Rice. That said, I’m not sure that he was as out of touch with the common man as today’s elite. Hillary talks about people having trouble with their mortgage. Given her post-presidential wealth and the fact that she lived in the White House and, before that, the Arkansas governor’s mansion, she would not have had to apply for a mortgage since the 1970s. John McCain’s toughest decision on a lot of days is which of his wife’s private jets to take to for a visit to some other super rich guys.
Anyway, nothing would stop our current candidates from putting forth coherent ideas rather than sound bites… unless they don’t have any ideas.
I saw nothing wrong with Sen. Clinton’s remarks.
One thing that has always struck me as being a bit odd is having people who are rich via inheritance (and RFK certainly was in that category) lecture that wealth accumulation shouldn’t be a priority in this country.
Beginning from a family of modest means myself, I have always wondered how those same people would feel about that subject if they didn’t already have wealth.
The Holy Bible tells us that it’s easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to gain entry to heaven. I’ll take my chances… 🙂