5 ms·

For 50 years Ted Kennedy has been the US government's leading defender of the poor. If he hasn't impacted your life, you probably aren't poor.

by akd 17y ago

idlewords 17y ago
He was a remarkably ineffective leading defender of the poor, then. Compare income inequality at the start of his political career with income inequality now.
- akd 17y ago
  Income inequality is the wrong metric - the right metric is real income for the bottom 10% of America in 1950 vs. today. Of course there are many factors at work, but rising income inequality isn't bad if it's bringing everyone up. Also keep in mind that today's healthcare debate is one that he has been fighting for 50 years (along with many others), and that whatever does happen, whenever it happens, will have more of his fingerprint on it than Obama's.
  - idlewords 17y ago
    The decades after 1950 were times of huge growth in real income across the developed world for reasons that didn't have much to do with Senator Kennedy. I'm evaluating his accomplishments with a bias to what he did in his later career, when he was presumably at the peak of his influence. And there the answer seems to be 'was skillfully co-opted by the Bush administration'. I do agree that he was tireless in pushing health policy. I just don't think he was effective - but maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised by what comes out of the health reform meat grinder in a few months.
    - akd 17y ago
      Yes, you cannot attribute economic growth to Sen. Kennedy. That's why you have to look beyond the numbers to see his impact. You're incorrect if you think that the peak of his influence was in his later career, when the glamour of the Kennedys had largely passed, and the House, Senate, and White House were controlled by Republicans. The peak of his influence was in the 60s-80s, but from that day onward he has been pushing health policy, and although he didn't get the ball to the top of the hill he's pushed it farther than anyone else. To say that he was ineffective because the goal wasn't accomplished on his watch is like saying that Elizabeth Cady Stanton was not an effective suffragette because she died 20 years before women got the vote.

For 50 years Ted Kennedy has been the US government's leading defender of the poor. If he hasn't impacted your life, you probably aren't poor.

by akd 17y ago

For 50 years Ted Kennedy has been the US government's leading defender of the poor. If he hasn't impacted your life, you probably aren't poor.

idlewords 17y ago

He was a remarkably ineffective leading defender of the poor, then. Compare income inequality at the start of his political career with income inequality now.

akd 17y ago
Income inequality is the wrong metric - the right metric is real income for the bottom 10% of America in 1950 vs. today. Of course there are many factors at work, but rising income inequality isn't bad if it's bringing everyone up. Also keep in mind that today's healthcare debate is one that he has been fighting for 50 years (along with many others), and that whatever does happen, whenever it happens, will have more of his fingerprint on it than Obama's.
- idlewords 17y ago
  The decades after 1950 were times of huge growth in real income across the developed world for reasons that didn't have much to do with Senator Kennedy. I'm evaluating his accomplishments with a bias to what he did in his later career, when he was presumably at the peak of his influence. And there the answer seems to be 'was skillfully co-opted by the Bush administration'. I do agree that he was tireless in pushing health policy. I just don't think he was effective - but maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised by what comes out of the health reform meat grinder in a few months.
  - akd 17y ago
    Yes, you cannot attribute economic growth to Sen. Kennedy. That's why you have to look beyond the numbers to see his impact. You're incorrect if you think that the peak of his influence was in his later career, when the glamour of the Kennedys had largely passed, and the House, Senate, and White House were controlled by Republicans. The peak of his influence was in the 60s-80s, but from that day onward he has been pushing health policy, and although he didn't get the ball to the top of the hill he's pushed it farther than anyone else. To say that he was ineffective because the goal wasn't accomplished on his watch is like saying that Elizabeth Cady Stanton was not an effective suffragette because she died 20 years before women got the vote.