University of Virginia Library

Last Irish Heir To An American Dynasty

By DREW GARDNER

(The questions and answers appearing in
the following story are excerpts from a brief
interview with Senator Edward M. Kennedy
Monday night, following his speech at
University Hall–Ed.)

Three years from now the '76 presidential
campaign will be in its vital primary stages.
After coming in contact Monday night with
the Kennedy wit and charisma (and all
the other pedantic synonyms applied to the
enigmatic aura of "Kennedyism") one
wonders whether this fourth son will not be
in the thick of primary contention at that
time.

It is true that there is an electricity in the
mere presence of a Kennedy. From the initial
"How are you" to the strong parting
handshake and the warm "Good to see you,"
the Senator is a charmer. I am inclined to
place the cause of the mood he generates in
the realm of inexplicable phenomena. He is
a Kennedy. What more can one say to convey
the emotion that follows him about, and
woos his following? He is a young Irish heir to
the conceptually brief legacy of an American
royalty.

On stage at University Hall, and in the
crowded reception room after the speech,
members of this community were witness to
what might be considered the early rehearsal
of a final act in the drama of Kennedy
national politics. It may have been the
beginnings of the final triumph, or tragedy, of
a dynasty that spans six decades of American
politics.

That dynasty had its origins in an
October, 1914, marriage between the children
of two prominent Boston politicians, Rose
Fitzgerald and Joseph Patrick Kennedy. It
also had some origin in the extremely
competitive atmosphere in which this couple's
nine children were raised: the strict
disciplinarian attitudes of Rose Kennedy, and
the multi-million dollar smoothness of Joseph
Kennedy.

Within the last three decades, American
politics has witnessed Representative,
Senator and President John F. Kennedy;
Attorney General, Senator and presidential
candidate Robert F. Kennedy; and now
Senator and presidential contender, Edward
M. Kennedy.

CD/Bob Humphrey

"I will speak in the West, and in the East."

The Senator, according to his press
secretary Jim King (an amiable robust
Irishman) "is an extremely dedicated man." If
one could pinpoint indications of this
dedication, they might be found in his ardent
concern for the maintenance of the balance
of power between the branches of
government, in his outrage over much of this
administrations' foreign policy, or possibly in
his campaign to unite the recently fragmented
Democratic Party.

Q. "How do you see the present split in
the democratic party, following the 1972
landslide victory for the Republicans in the
Presidential election?"

A. "I think that the Democratic party has
shown itself to still be a national party. It was
remarkably successful in the Senatorial
and Congressional campaigns in 1972, and I
think we're going to build to that in '74,
hopefully to the future. I am very optimistic
about it."

Q. "Are you now making an effort to
return the south to the ranks of the
Democratic Party, and is this speech the
beginning of such a campaign?"

A. "The reasons I wanted to come to the
University of Virginia have more to do with the
long family associations here. I am hopeful
that the Democratic Party will continue to be
a national party. That has been its tradition
and its history. That's the way it has gathered
strength in the past, and provided such
important progress in this country. I'm always
interested in seeing that tradition maintained.
I think that a Senator should be able to travel
to different parts of the country. I will speak
in the West, and in the East, and I'll enjoy
speaking in the South too."

At this time the Democratic Party has
recently suffered through a national
Presidential election which ended in a fiasco,
having few equals in the history of this
country. Kennedy may have saved the party
from the recent disaster, and he may not
have. But then he knew not to get involved
personally on the National Democratic ticket
this year, possibly realizing that Nixon could
not be beaten, and that he had suffered
through enough personal and public tragedies
of his own in the past.

Senator Kennedy, as is common
knowledge, has lost two brothers to American
politics. When he stood before the gathering
at his brother's funeral, and in
painful eloquence solemnly
requested that the nation
remember Robert F. Kennedy
"as a good and decent man
who saw wrong and tried to
right it, saw suffering and tried
to heal it, saw war and tried to
stop it..." who would have
dared to entertain the notion
that he would one day run for
the same office that cost him
two brothers?

Now the thought is not so
remote. In fact many speculate
that the last Kennedy has
taken a place in line with his
brothers.

Later when Senator
Kennedy sat before a national
television audience and confessed
to leaving the scene of an accident at

Chappaquiddick, any who thought he might rebound from the
loss of his brothers, were then convinced that they had seen the
last of the Kennedy's national candidacy.

Yet only three years later he was the primary choice to a
the Democratic Presidential candidate for the vice-presidency, an
honor, that, in retrospect, he wisely refused.

'Kennedyism', it seems, does not die in scandal, or even in
assassination. Senator Edward M. Kennedy is the proof of this
statement. He is now the top Democratic contender for the
nomination in '76. Not necessarily the top candidate officially,
for no one legitimately involved with the Party would state such a
thing publicly. But in people's minds, and in impromptu political
discussion among laymen, he is the Party's choice already.

Some speculation that he knows this (which he undoubtedly
must) and has begun a subtle drive for the nomination- by toning
down his sarcasm of the Administration- has recently received
increased publicity.

Q. "Senator do you think the administration will cooperate
with the Senate's Watergate Investigation?"

A. "Well they keep saying they will. I don't know. I think
they're going to have to, and I think they're making a big mistake
if they don't."

This speculation, which has turned to criticism, claims that in
modifying his political posture he is abandoning, or at least
disillusioning his more idealistic supporters. This criticism loses
something if someone looks more closely at his remarks on
foreign policy.

"Concern is now building up about the Cambodia issue. They
stretched out the POW's release so long that it worked to the
advantage of the administration and their handling of foreign
policy."

Q. "Do you for-see a danger in bombing Cambodia as being
similar to our origins in the Vietnam intervention?"

A. "I don't think there is any question on this. It is very
similar. The continuation of the bombing had been justified for
the protection of American troops there. We don't have any
troops there. We don't have any prisoners of war there. So what is
the rationale, let alone the authorization for it?

"I don't see it. They talk about this being the ending of the
war, but it's entirely different. Cambodia wasn't even involved in

CD/Bob Humphrey

Senator Kennedy:

"In The Crush Of The Crowd After His Speech"