The “Chappaquiddick Incident” was damaging for all involved, and the death of Mary Jo Kopechne was a horrible tragedy. I do not believe, nor am I arguing, that Kennedy intentionally harmed her, nor did he “make political hay” out of her death.
I am starting to believe, however, that, absent Chappaquiddick, Ted Kennedy would have been less influential. Without that tragic incident, Ted would have tried to run for president and likely failed. He may have done better than McGovern in 1972, but it would not have been enough to even come close to Nixon’s huge lead (Nixon trounced McGovern 520 electoral votes to 17). His best chance to win would have been in post-watergate 1976, in the place of Jimmy Carter. He may have beat Ford, but I don’t believe he would have survived the same set of problems that eventually sank Carter’s effectiveness. After that, I don’t see any election he could have won for president.
Chappaquiddick pushed him into the Senate, and I argue that his particular talents and role in the Senate made him far more influential, for a far longer period, than he would have been as President, or worse, a failed Presidential Candidate - even if he then became a Senator. (I can’t recall anyone who was more influential after that person lost a Presidential battle, at least in the last 150 years).
Maybe you didn’t notice, but he DID run and fail in 1980, opposing Carter’s renomination.
Other than that, your point has been a widely-raised one. Being known to have no plans other than to stay in the Senate and devote himself to the job certainly gave him credibility. It might also be that the incident matured him.
I think you’re off base. Kennedy was of course already in the Senate. And you are postulating that he was a legislative powerhouse the whole time. That wasn’t the case - his output was quite uneven. From the mid-1980s to the early-1990s he was slowed a bit by his personal life - which included more than one man’s share of drinking and womanizing. This was reined in considerably after he remarried.
Becoming President would certainly have limited his future influence in the Senate. To say that Chappaquiddick stopped that process is somewhat accurate but doesn’t take into consideration his other public shortcomings. It would depend how aggressively he was pursued by the media. He was loved locally and got legacy votes due to the family name but that wouldn’t necessarily translate on a national level.
You mean Mary Jo’s death wasn’t in vain? Her parents would have been so proud! Yay Teddy!
Putting the irony on hold, yes, I think you have a point. I do believe though that he would have won the Presidency but for Chappaquiddick and I also believe he would have been a one-termer and an unmemorable President. As a Senator his influence was extensive and long lasting. Though never mastering the Senate as LBJ did in the 50s he certainly made his mark there.
Chappaquiddick meant that his political career would be restricted to elections conducted in Massachusetts (though it may have taken the notably unsuccessful 1980 presidential run to convince everyone of that). Given that he’s now widely viewed as an influential and effective senator, and given that Chappaquiddick locked him into that role, I’d say the OP’s thesis is valid.
Actually, Kennedy was quite effective as a Senator during the time you mentioned (mid-80s to early 90s) despite whatever personal problems he had at the time.
I’d say Nixon had a pretty huge influence on the country after losing to JFK in 1960.
Charles Evans Hughes became Chief Justice after he lost in 1916. Taft became Chief Justice as well, after his loss in 1912.
FDR lost as the Democratic VP candidate in 1920.
Since RFK and JFK both died young, there’s no real template with which to speculate as to how Ted would have spent his years after a presidential bid (failed or successful). There’s plenty of precedent, though, for candidates who do not take presidential office to continue on to have an equally or more influential political career.
So if Kennedy felt his effectiveness was being hurt by his private life, why should we dispute this? I am not saying he was a terrible senator - I am saying his bouts of drinking and womanizing affected his reputation and his work. I really don’t think that is a terribly controversial thing to say.
While I do think one or eek two terms of a Pres. EMK Administration would have greatly affected the country, a lot of it could be undone or counter-acted by later Administrations, whereas his work in the Senate is probably more enduring due to the length of time, amount & significance of legislation he has worked for/against.
don’t discount the 0 year curse idea before 1980. there were many musings that by running in 1980 sen. kennedy was tempting fate.
would he have survived what reagan did? reagan made it but it was very dicey.
i don’t think chappquiddick made him more influential, i do think it had a large impact on his life. his public and senatorial life aside, i think it weighed on him in the wee hours of his life. the hours where the things you did and didn’t do pull on you and are laid bare.
That’s the impression that I have had also, rocking chair. But I couldn’t have said it so well.
But Kennedy did say that his effectiveness was being hurt. He didn’t say that his work was being affected. Reread the quote that you posted. He speaks of taking responsibility for his conduct in his private life. The author of the article has interpreted something Kennedy said as refering to his performance on the Judiciary Committee, but that is not evident from the selected quote.
Kennedy is remembered for his incredible productivity. Those years were no exception.
Chappaquiddick was in 1969. He did campaign for the presidency in 1980. But politics is never just about the elections themselves. Kennedy has been considered a national figure since 1962 if not earlier.
My 96 year old mother says she can’t remember him looking any other way but old. I’m going to take her the copy of Look magazine that I’ve had since about 1962. “My, he was yar!” I could name all of Joseph Kennedy’s kids back then. Still can. (I was a very silly 19 year old.)
I think in the long run that Teddy has been in the right place all of these years. It took someone pointing it out that he accomplished more by almost a half century in the Senate than he could have by serving as President.
If he was purused by the media they were holding flowers while doing it. there is no way he would have survived chappaquiddick under a full court press.
the press was quite different with politicians pre- watergate. many things were known but not reported as it wasn’t deemed seemly.
after vietnam, watergate, and the question authority movement reporters are more likely to dig into and point out failings.
if chappaquiddick happened in 1979 he would have had to resign, never to run for any office anywhere. the probability of him dying from alcohol intake would have skyrocketed.
