Contrary viewpoints — Part 1 On Sen. Edward M. Kennedy

I have some links to pass along today, progressives/liberals taking a slightly different approach to some of the issues in the news:

Part 1 on Ted Kennedy, in which Doug Henwood, editor of the Left Business Observer, takes on the Kennedy myth and reminds us that deregulation was a very bipartisan affair

Henwood, in his blog, stands as the scold in the room, taking on Kennedy from the left in a way that was all too absent during the week’s coverage of his death. Kennedy was an interesting character — personal flaws, old-fashioned liberalism, etc., and the occasional contradiction. Kennedy — “soul” of the Democrats, friend of the common man, Liberal Lion (and yes I know I trafficked in some of this last week) — was also a significant player in the late-1970s push for deregulation.

Often, we talk about the Reagan years when discussion deregulation but the reality is that Carter and the Democrats got the ball rolling.

Once upon a time, working for an airline or driving a truck was a pretty good way to make a living without an advanced degree: union jobs with high pay and decent benefits. A major reason for that is that both industries were federally regulated, with competition kept to a minimum. Starting in the early 1970s, an odd coalition of right-wingers, mainstream economists, liberals, and consumer advocates (including Ralph Nader) began agitating for the deregulation of these industries. All agreed that competition would bring down prices and improve service.

Among the leading agitators was Teddy Kennedy. The right has been noting this in their memorials for “The Lion,” but not the weepy left.

Why was Kennedy such a passionate deregulator? Greg Tarpinian, former director of the Labor Research Association who went on to work for Baby Jimmy Hoffa, once speculated to me that it was because merchant capital always wants to reduce transport costs—the merchant in question being Teddy’s father,
Bootlegger Joe. Maybe.

In any case, Kennedy surrounded himself with aides who worked on drafting the deregulatory legislation. Many of them subsequently went on to work for Frank Lorenzo, the ghoulish executive who busted unions at Continental and Eastern airlines in the early 1980s. (Kennedy’s long-time ad agency also did PR work for Lorenzo.)

And what was the result of all this deregulation? Massive downward mobility for workers.

I’d forgotten this connection (not the Democrats’ role, just the Kennedy role) and I suspect — given Nader’s involvement — that the issues were actually the Teamsters, the antipathy that both the New Left and the Kennedy family had for Hoffa and his union, and the growing consumer advocacy movement.

The federal takeover of the Teamsters, I think, shows that they were right to be wary of the union’s power. But the focus on consumers to the exclusion of nearly all else was foolish, as history shows; the assumption that opening these industries to an unfettered market would lower prices and cause no pain was not based in reality. Someone ultimately had to pay the cost of those lowered prices — otherwise the lost revenue would have resulted in lost profit. And it was obvious that it wasn’t going to be the CEOs.

Unknown's avatar

Author: hankkalet

Hank Kalet is a poet and freelance journalist. He is the economic needs reporter for NJ Spotlight, teaches journalism at Rutgers University and writing at Middlesex County College and Brookdale Community College. He writes a semi-monthly column for the Progressive Populist. He is a lifelong fan of the New York Mets and New York Knicks, drinks too much coffee and attends as many Bruce Springsteen concerts as his meager finances will allow. He lives in South Brunswick with his wife Annie.

2 thoughts on “Contrary viewpoints — Part 1 On Sen. Edward M. Kennedy”

  1. Watching George W. Bush at the funeral of Teddy Kennedy on Saturday was, to say the very least, amusing. It’s always great fun to witness the members of the vast right wing conspiracy confronted head-on with the theological flaws that are inherent in their philosophy. Watching that event with my pal, Kevin Swanwick, we both were mesmerized and just slightly overjoyed to be reminded yet again that the basic tenets of Liberalism are in perfect harmony with our Christianity – our Catholicism: feed the hungry, shelter the poor and clothe the naked. Oh, how I wish the camera would have cut to Bush’s face the moment he was confronted with the most famous line (and justly so) from the Gospel according to Matthew:“I tell you this: whatever you did to the least of these brothers of mine, you did to me.”Jesus of NazarethOne can only imagine how uncomfortable that passage from the scriptures must have made him feel. Or how about the Sermon on the Mount?“Blessed are the peace makersFor they shall be called Sons of God.”I imagine being confronted with the words of Jesus Christ might make old George just a tad uneasy. The prayers that were offered up by the youngest members of the Kennedy clan, in Teddy’s own words, were the most touching part of the entire day:“That human beings be measured not by what they cannot do. That quality health care becomes a fundamental right and not a privilege. That old policies of race and gender die away. That newcomers be accepted, no matter their color or place of birth. That the nation stand united against violence, hate and war. That the work begins anew, and the dream lives on. We pray to the Lord.”Lord hear our prayer.After the mass had ended, and Kevin and I headed into town to get a cup of coffee, I was almost stunned by the good cheer I felt. Ted Kennedy’s funeral was truly a joyous event. Truth be told, it was damned-near therapeutic! The politics of joy as opposed to the politics of fear. There ain’t nothin’ like it in the world, Baby!The stark contrasts between the ideals of the Progressive movement and the right wing’s backwards and greedy ideology were out in public Saturday for all to compare and contrast at Our Lady of Perpetual Comfort Church in Boston. The differences were so obvious, you could not have missed them had you tried.http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.comTom DeganGoshen, NY

  2. With all due consideration that Church is supposed to be apolitical. And not that I am a paragon of virtue, it occurs to me that using the guns of the gooferment to force your fellow man to do what you want to do. That some how fails the Prince of Peace's directive. YOU didn't feed the hungry; you put a gun to the collective heads of your fellow citizens to \”feed the hungry\” as you see they should be fed. That loses a little in translation.I agree that the Prince of Peace calls upon us to do these things. He doesn't call upon us to use FORCE on others. I hear PRIDE in the line \”the basic tenets of Liberalism are in perfect harmony with our Christianity – our Catholicism\”. I wouldn't be so bold as to claim \”ownership\” of a religion. I would no more think of claiming that Liberty was in perfect harmony with any religion\”. I would hope that TRUE CHARITY, done privately, with humble heart, is far better than anything done by coercion.

Leave a reply to reinkefj Cancel reply