Unorthodox compromising Senator Ted Kennedy extended social justice ideals beyond American borders

In May 2007, in his effort to put history in its proper perspective, Senator Ted Kennedy voted that the President should accurately acknowledge the Armenian genocide of the early 1900s. While the Turkish government along with its lobbyists were opposed to the passing of the U.S. Armenian genocide resolution by the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs in 2007, S. Res/H.Res.106, American Genocide Resolution, was passed by a vote of 27-21. This resolution was cosponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy. That same year Senator Ted Kennedy urged Venezuela to re-open dissident radio and TV Stations in May 2007. He voted yes on ending the Vietnam embargo, no on strengthening the trade embargo against Cuba, and no on limiting NATO expansion to only Poland, Hungary & the former Czechoslovakia in 1998. He voted to limit the President’s power to impose economic sanctions, no on capping foreign aid at only $12.7 billion, and yes on enlarging NATO to include Eastern Europe. His Senate record speaks for itself and provides a glimpse at a Senator who believed in democratic ideals and principles, fought for checks and balances on the executive branch and against embargos that he deemed were ineffective (even given that his brother President Kennedy had expanded the Cuban embargo.)  Speaking in 2007, he said, 

"I believe the idea of isolating Cuba was a mistake...It has been ineffective. Whatever the reasons and justifications may have been at the time, now they are invalid."

And even while he regularly sparred with President Ronald Reagan, as the featured speaker at a forum sponsored by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library in 2007, he praised Reagan for his aggressive stance toward the Soviet Union that resulted in securing a better resolution to the Cold War. While there were certainly abstract differences that led both to have different views of the world around them, Kennedy found that Reagan's interest to win a point with a foe, didn't lead to a rhetorical style that was contemptible or that contained personal attacks.  Reagan to Ted Kennedy was not a loose cannon in the face of opposition.

“He was always a good friend and a gracious foe. He wanted to defeat his opponents, but not destroy them.”

Even so, Senator Ted Kennedy was very active on supporting a nuclear freeze and in 1982 proposed a nuclear freeze resolution to halt the nuclear arms race. He also actively opposed the Star Wars program. The author of the “Hydrogen Molecular Ion” who later became part of the Manhattan Project and the father of the first atomic bomb that was built in Los Alamos, New Mexico, Edward Teller had a very different perspective that year.

“I hope [the nuclear-freeze movement] will not become an important force. I hope more sense will prevail. If the nuclear freeze goes through, this country won't exist in 1990. The Soviet Union is a country that has had totalitarian rule for many hundreds of years, and what a relatively small ruling class there might do can be very different from what a democratic country can decide to do. The rulers in the Kremlin are as eager as Hitler was to get power over the whole world. But unlike Hitler they are not gamblers. If we can put up a missile defense that makes their attack dubious, chances are they will never try the attack. We can avoid a third world war, but only if strength is in the hands of those who want peace more than they want power.”

Even though he wanted to limit the use of sanctions as an instrument of foreign policy, in 1985, after a visit to South Africa, he introduced legislation to impose economic sanctions on South Africa. According to Randal Robinson, a renowned anit-apartheid activist, and currently a professor of human rights law at the Dickinson School of Law at Penn State University,

"What we did that resulted in the overriding of Ronald Reagan's veto -- the first time in the 20th century that a foreign policy veto of a sitting president had been overridden by the Senate -- that could not have happened without Ted Kennedy. He was not just a major force, he was the essential, he was the indispensable force."

Ted Kennedy’s vision of a just society didn’t end at the American border.

When he spoke about the Iraq invasion, he was apprehensive.

“In Iraq, we have acted nearly alone, and we are paying a terrible price,” Kennedy said. “We can and sometimes must defend democracy by force, but we cannot impose it by force. Democratic principles are universal, but democracy must find its champions within each country’s culture and tradition.”

While conservative columnists had a field day calling the American left morally bankcrupt as a result of Ted Kennedy’s public statements about Iraq and specifically about the Abu Ghraib scandal - "We are the most hated nation in the world," said Ted Kennedy, "as a result of this disastrous policy in the prisons" – now they see him as a good compromiser, pragmatic and a realist. Ted Kennedy was a bipartisan.

Speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations in 2004 on the Iraq issue, he conjured up John Adams,

“The nation is engaged in a major ongoing debate about why America went to war in Iraq, when Iraq was not an imminent threat, had no nuclear weapons, no persuasive links to Al Qaeda, no connection to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, and no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

Over two centuries ago, John Adams spoke eloquently about the need to let facts and evidence guide actions and policies. He said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” Listen to those words again, and you can hear John Adams speaking to us now about Iraq. “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.””

And in order to respond to the discrediting and the quickness to label Kennedy as a Senator acting and speaking against American interests, Ted Kennedy gave a speech at Johns Hopkins’ Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington D.C. that is a perfect example of his steadfast belief in the freedom of expression and his belief that the decision about war and peace is not one to be made in a back room on Capitol Hill.

“I have come here today to express my view that America should not go to war against Iraq unless and until other reasonable alternatives are exhausted. But I begin with the strongest possible affirmation that good and decent people on all sides of this debate, who may in the end stand on opposing sides of this decision, are equally committed to our national security.

The life and death issue of war and peace is too important to be left to politics. And I disagree with those who suggest that this fateful issue cannot or should not be contested vigorously, publicly, and all across America. When it is the people's sons and daughters who will risk and even lose their lives, then the people should hear and be heard, speak and be listened to.

But there is a difference between honest public dialogue and partisan appeals. There is a difference between questioning policy and questioning motives. There are Republicans and Democrats who support the immediate use of force – and Republicans and Democrats who have raised doubts and dissented.

In this serious time for America and many American families, no one should poison the public square by attacking the patriotism of opponents, or by assailing proponents as more interested in the cause of politics than in the merits of their cause. I reject this, as should we all.”

Although 34 radio stations have been forced off the air in Venezuela at the beginning of August under circumstances that are being debated and discussed, while licensing issues are being cited, Senator Kennedy tried to keep Radio Caracas Television (RCTV) open. It was closed in 2007 and since then it has been reported that independent stations have been threatened with greater frequency.

Finally, on the issues of the Cuban embargo, while President Nixon and Henry Kissinger were able to frame Cuba within a cold war context with enough success to win over much of Congress, Senator Ted Kennedy prominently voiced that the embargo was an “outdated and unrealistic” approach. He suggested that China and Cuba were more analogous. 

Ted Kennedy never apologized about his liberal values on domestic issues and foreign matters. According to insider Jay Doherty, an old friend of Ted Kennedy’s, Ted Kennedy worked hard at his job and he was aggressive at maintaining his friendships. Although he was attacked for his views that government has a responsibility to improve the lives of its citizens, he always believed in human rights and kept this belief at the core of his arguments whether they be on domestic or foreign issues. He found cruelty and anti-democratic crackdowns a call to action. He defied conventional wisdom when it came to nuclear attacks, and he took political risks that many would not take, ones that might be considered taboo or too soft. Senator Ted Kennedy challenged the reigning orthodoxy when it mattered most, when there were only prevailing dynamics and alternatives were discouraged and seemed few and far between.