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.

The lion sleeps tonight

Sen. Edward Kennedy, in many ways the most talented and influential of a talented and influential band of brothers, succumbed early this morning to the brain cancer that has kept him away from the institution he had been a member of for 47 years.

Kennedy, for many, was a caricature — the disoriented drunk of the Clarence Thomas hearings, the protection of privilege that was at the center of the William Kennedy Smith trial, his womanizing, Chappaquidick — and there is truth in the image.

But Kennedy’s legacy is his commitment to a kind of liberalism that had fallen out of fashion as the ’70s wore on and moved into the ugly, Reaganite 1980s. It was a commitment to universal health coverage, to education for all, to diplomacy and peace.

For decades, Kennedy was at the center of the most important issues facing the nation, and he did much to help shape them. A defender of the poor and politically disadvantaged, he set the standard for his party on health care, education, civil rights, campaign-finance reform and labor law. He also came to oppose the war in Vietnam and, from the beginning, was an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq.

Congressional scholar Thomas E. Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, described Kennedy’s mark on the Senate as “an amazing and endurable presence. You want to go back to the 19th century to find parallels, but you won’t find parallels. It was the completeness of his involvement in the work of the Senate that explains his career.”

The Post said the “list of major laws bearing his imprint … fills pages.”

In 1965, he led the successful Senate floor battle that passed what was popularly known as the Hart-Celler Act, landmark legislation that abolished immigration quotas and lifted a 1924 ban on immigration from Asia.

“This bill really goes to the very central ideals of our country,” Kennedy said on the floor of the Senate. The legislation, the most significant immigration reform in four decades, passed both the House and Senate by overwhelming margins.

He was long the Senate’s leading voice on civil rights, including the 1982 Voting Rights Act extension, as well as efforts to advance the concept of equality to include the disabled and women in the workplace.

In 1972, he was a key supporter of Title IX, an amendment requiring colleges and universities to provide equal funding for men’s and women’s athletics. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, he played an important though indirect role in the 1973 investigation of the Watergate scandal that led to President Richard M. Nixon’s resignation. In 1996 and again in 2007, he was the lead Senate sponsor of legislation increasing the minimum wage.

In the 1980s, when a Republican president and Senate mounted a major campaign to roll back programs he had championed, he led the fight to save them. Even in the minority, he worked to expand government’s role in providing health care to children, making loans available to college students and extending civil rights to the disabled, among many other embattled initiatives.

He voted against both Iraq wars and challenged the growing militarism.

Health care, however, will be his legacy. While universal health insurance has yet to become a reality, it is because of Kennedy that we are still talking about national health care and are likely to see it come to fruition.

Long before he fell ill, Kennedy made health care a major focus of his career, terming it “the cause of my life.” His legislation resulted in access to health care for millions of people and funded cures for diseases that afflicted people around the world. He was a longtime advocate for universal health care and was instrumental in promoting biomedical research, as well as AIDS research and treatment. He was a leader in the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and the 1996 Kennedy-Kassebaum Bill — with senator Nancy Kassebaum (R-Kan.) — which allowed employees to keep health insurance after leaving their job.

Health care reform is “a defining issue for our society,” Kennedy told fellow senators during a 1994 debate. “Do we really care about our fellow citizens?” It was a question he asked countless times, in one form or another, during his long Senate career. He faced opposition from most Republicans — and more than a few Democrats — who insisted that Kennedy’s proposals for universal health care amounted to socialized medicine that would lead to bureaucratic sclerosis and budget-breaking costs and inefficiencies.

Receiving a diagnosis in May 2008 of a brain tumor, Kennedy rose from his hospital bed that summer and cast a dramatic vote on the Senate floor in favor of legislation preventing sharp cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. Several Republicans were so moved by his presence that they switched their earlier votes on the bill, giving it a veto-proof majority.

It must have pained him to see the inertia that has stricken the Senate — and the obstructionist ways of an opposition party unwilling to work across the aisle to move anything forward.