Ted Kennedy has passed

[marshwren]

Yes, but did he only achieve more than his brothers because there is a "they" out there who let him live, whereas they killed his brothers? If he showed more promise as a politician for the people, would they have killed him too?

I see he was big on food kitchens, and such, but did his brothers threaten to usher in a world where the pauperization of common people in the first place would not be de facto US government policy, and is this the sort of thing that "bought them a bullet," as they say?

Well, it would seem that letting Tedward rack up one of the more enviable of legislative resumes would be somewhat self-defeating for TPTB; better to off him before he could save US capitalism from itself, would it not? What makes patrician families like the Kennedys, the Gores, the Rockefellers (as distinct from vulgar plutocrats like the Bushes) problematic is that they were trying to create a capitalism-friendly form of social welfare as the alternative to Communism, even if it meant adapting certain 'socialist' ideas or programs. TPTB seemed to live with this quite comfortably during the '50's when Ike was Pres. and the GOP controlled Congress. That started to break down after '64 and the GOP's Goldwater debacle; but not so much so as to prevent the election of Nixon twice (and holds the ironic distinction of being our last New Deal liberal Pres.)

What followed was Reagan, then Bush the slightly-less-obnoxious, who both used the GOP's rising base (fundies, no-choicers, anti-tax/immigration hysterics, recycled Cold Warriors in need of new enemies) to get elected, but not to govern--that would be Bush the lesser's role, to pander to the hard Right base. And in doing so, completed Gingrich's dream of an ideologically (and nearly racially) pure GOP; which also renders any comparison to the past as pretty much irrelevant.

[nathan28]

Yes, but did he only achieve more than his brothers because there is a "they" out there who let him live, whereas they killed his brothers? If he showed more promise as a politician for the people, would they have killed him too?

I see he was big on food kitchens, and such, but did his brothers threaten to usher in a world where the pauperization of common people in the first place would not be de facto US government policy, and is this the sort of thing that "bought them a bullet," as they say?

Well, it would seem that letting Tedward rack up one of the more enviable of legislative resumes would be somewhat self-defeating for TPTB; better to off him before he could save US capitalism from itself, would it not? What makes patrician families like the Kennedys, the Gores, the Rockefellers (as distinct from vulgar plutocrats like the Bushes) problematic is that they were trying to create a capitalism-friendly form of social welfare as the alternative to Communism, even if it meant adapting certain 'socialist' ideas or programs. TPTB seemed to live with this quite comfortably during the '50's when Ike was Pres. and the GOP controlled Congress. That started to break down after '64 and the GOP's Goldwater debacle; but not so much so as to prevent the election of Nixon twice (and holds the ironic distinction of being our last New Deal liberal Pres.)

What followed was Reagan, then Bush the slightly-less-obnoxious, who both used the GOP's rising base (fundies, no-choicers, anti-tax/immigration hysterics, recycled Cold Warriors in need of new enemies) to get elected, but not to govern--that would be Bush the lesser's role, to pander to the hard Right base. And in doing so, completed Gingrich's dream of an ideologically (and nearly racially) pure GOP; which also renders any comparison to the past as pretty much irrelevant.

What marshwren says here. Teddy & his ilk were what Betram Gross called "Welfare Capitalists." It's the Dutch approach: give everybody a couple hundred bucks a month to pay their rent with and buy groceries and suddenly the populace is extremely manageable.

I really do think it takes a far leap of understanding to realize why someone could be enough of an ideological fascist to feel that the Kennedys were a threat to liberal Capitalism, but then again, I'm not one of those people who ran for class president--I'm just a small-d democrat and a quixomarxist--so I really can't say I understand the motivations of the power-hungry... which is why I'll accept marshwren's explanation here, because I don't got one.

For the life of me I can't explain the JFK-RFK murder/coup, though, it really seems like a revenge plot by the official elements of the deep state (CIA) and unofficial (mob, Anti-Castro Cubans) that had personal vendettas or an overt fascist bent or both, or were just weirdos (Sidney Gottlieb, who is an e.g. of a weirdo with a lot of power, not a conspirator to my speculation). Likewise, it fits the milieu of assassination inside the US (e.g., Fred Hampton, MLK). Though you could call it a coup by the "vulgar plutocrats" and overt fascists (really, one and the same here in the US of A) maybe.

...

Anyway, as Kevin "Let's Get the Klan on Our Side" Phillips said, "the heart of the Democratic party carries a lunch box to work, but the soul works for a hedge fund." Ted was there for that, and maybe it's too much to suggest he could have stopped that, but it leads me to question his legacy.