Joyce Carol Oates: Was Suffocating Mary Jo Kopechne a "fortunate fall"?

When Melissa Lafsky—whose blog Opinionistas.com, I hear, "became internationally known for its relentless skewering of the corporate world"—wrote about Mary Jo Kopechne over at The Huffington Post the following hideous phrase:

Who knows -- maybe she'd feel it was worth it.

… I figured it must be link-bait. But now comes a better known writer, Joyce Carol Oates, to ponder the broken egg, and wonder if it didn't in fact help make the omelette of Teddy Kennedy's career so delicious.

Yet, ironically, following this nadir in his life/ career, Ted Kennedy seemed to have genuinely refashioned himself as a serious, idealistic, tirelessly energetic liberal Democrat in the mold of 1960s/1970s American liberalism, arguably the greatest Democratic senator of the 20th century. His tireless advocacy of civil rights, rights for disabled Americans, health care, voting reform, his courageous vote against the Iraq war (when numerous Democrats including Hillary Clinton voted for it) suggest that there are not only "second acts" in American lives, but that the Renaissance concept of the "fortunate fall" may be relevant here: one "falls" as Adam and Eve "fell"; one sins and repents and is forgiven, provided that one remakes one's life. […]

[I]f one weighs the life of a single young woman against the accomplishments of the man President Obama has called the greatest Democratic senator in history, what is one to think?

Though Oates (I think) is more ambivalent than this passage would suggest, the sentiment is a timely reminder of the seductive awfulness of political ideologies everywhere and always. The ends are always worth a few strangled means, especially to those wielding or sympathizing with power. If you're openly musing whether the unwilling, unjust sacrifice of an innocent is worth a broad set of alleged legislative improvements, you're not asking a morally challenging question, you're answering it.

Comments

[Nephilium]

Gods damn it... just when I didn't think I could become more cynical... These two cuntpickles think that the death of an innocent is good because it might have led someone down a path that matched theirs ideologically?

Nephilium

[SOFL Hockey Fan]

If Kennedy had died with Kopechne then it may have indeed been a "fortunate fall".

[Nipplemancer]

so... liberal policies are justified even if the innocent suffer? hmmm...

[Joe M]

I'm going to have indigestion for a while from all the bile that just brought up.

[Episiarch]

Let's see if this is just the beginning of a vomit-inducing trend. I wouldn't be surprised to see this start to propagate around certain circles.

[anarch]

[I]f one weighs the life of a single young woman against the accomplishments of the man President Obama has called the greatest Democratic senator in history, what is one has ceased to think?.

We have met the emetic.

[Brandybuck]

[I]f one weighs the life of a single young woman against the accomplishments of the man President Obama has called the greatest Democratic senator in history, what is one to think?

Holy fuck! This is yet another reminder of why modern liberals are not at all liberal. They're fucking fascists with a weepy attitude.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Yeah, I have to agree with the above. Are we actually pretending that the young woman's death was the catalyst to make Kennedy the great man his followers have deluded themselves into believing he became? I mean, seriously, wtf? As the senator's inclination to find humor in the incident suggests, Kopechne was barely a blip on Ted Kennedy's radar.

So, to sum up:

a) Kennedy, not a great man but, in fact, a self-important, self-serving dick.

b) The death of Mary Jo Kopechne meant very little to Kennedy, beyond possibly as a political nuisance.

[Mary Jo]

Oh, y'all, I'm just so privileged and grateful to have been of service to the Senator's career. Truly I am, truly.

[twv]

Oates does pose the comment as a question. Questions can be answered. Even in explanatory fashion.

Too much shouldn't be made of this passage. One should be able to answer how dangerous it is to weigh lives this way. When historical circumstance pushes you to ask such questions, one should begin questioning the circumstance, and reminding oneself that, living within history, and not "after" it, we are not morally honorable to phrase the question in this way. It tempts us to dangerous ideas. Ideas of sacrificing some for the sake of others.

There are utilitarians who would even argue against this kind of thing.

And Oates no doubt knows this. Her readers? Who knows?

[anarch]

Sacrifice is fine so long as it's voluntary.

Laura Bush killed some guy in high school.

[FermatsLastFlameWar]

Looking forward to see the spin that Tony puts on this.

[anarch]

The lamps are going out all over Princeton.

[Robert]

Questions like this depend enormously on what it's like to be dead. The big unknown. When somebody succeeds at answering that one reliably, it will probably have a greater effect than any other discovery to that time.

[plutosdad]

So, their theory is he felt so guilty at abandoning someone to die by drowning that he devoted the rest of his life to become a rampat statist forcing everyone to be as good and sacrificing as he should have been?

You know, I can understand a person might panic and save themselves and leave someone to die, (I can't understand not dialing 911 after, or doing anything at all). But even then, people who panic and abandon girls to die are not the sorts that make good leaders. They might be an average cowardly person, but not a leader.

[Episiarch]

I can't understand not dialing 911 after, or doing anything at all

Because he was wasted? They didn't call the cops for something like 10 hours...just the amount of time one might need to sober up.

[John C. Randolph]

If you're openly musing whether the unwilling, unjust sacrifice of an innocent is worth a broad set of alleged legislative improvements, you're not asking a morally challenging question, you're answering it.

I would go rather farther than that, and say that if you're wondering whether the death of an innocent is less important than a politician's career, you're hopelessly depraved.

-jcr

[anarch]

When exactly did the Golden Rule become pass

[The Libertarian Guy]

Wonder if Oates factored in that Mary Jo's death kept Teddy out of the White House...

Meh, Oates was never the same after the split with Hall.

[mark]

It's sickening that some people think of Ted Kennedy's "guilt" over the incident was somehow "redeemed" by his expansion of the welfare state, making the connection in their heads that this somehow corresponds to the redemption of America's "guilt" of being a capitalist country.

[Rhywun]

The whole article is indeed more "ambivalent" than the quoted passage would suggest... but the quoted passage (and several others) are so fucking vile that it doesn't matter. The whole "he was a bad guy but shit, he was the bestest liberal ever" meme is just revolting. On every level.

[P Brooks]

[I]f one weighs the life of a single young woman against the accomplishments of the man President Obama has called the greatest Democratic senator in history, what is one to think?

I need to drop my irony meter off at the shop in the morning.

[P Brooks]

That statement made me want to laugh out loud.

[smartass sob]

I can't understand not dialing 911 after...

The 911 service did not yet exist in those days. But of course, he could have called the Law.

[iowahawk]

Did somebody say link bait?

"Lion of Leinenkugel" Norm Snitker Laid to Rest

[D.R.M.]

They didn't call the cops for something like 10 hours.

More precisely, Ted Kennedy didn't tell the cops about driving his car into the water until after he personally saw that Ms. Kopechne's body had been discovered in his car.

[Tulpa]

And all that stuff wouldn't have happened if Teddy's big brothers hadn't been murdered either. Will liberals take the view that Lee Harvey Oswald acted for the greater good, too?

Now I can see how you can weigh the life of an innocent against some terrible global catastrophe that you know can only be prevented by that innocent's death -- a sort of "City on the Edge of Forever" scenario. Problem is you don't know that's the case at the time you have to make the choice, and, barring the intervention of a pointy eared safe cracker, you won't know in the future either.

[Murderous Kennedy Tuesday]

Christopher "Huck" Look was a deputy sheriff working as a special police officer at the Edgartown regatta dance that night. At 12:30 am he left the dance, crossed over to Chappaquiddick in the yacht club's launch, got into his parked car and drove home. He testified that between 12:30 and 12:45 am he had seen a dark car containing a man driving and a woman in the front seat approaching the intersection with Dike Road. The car had gone first onto the private Cemetery Road and stopped there. Thinking that the occupants of the car might be lost, Look had gotten out of his car and walked towards it. When he was 25 to 30 feet away, the car started backing up towards him. When Look called out to offer his help, the car took off down Dike Road in a cloud of dust.[5] Look recalled that the car's license plate began with an "L" and contained the number "7" twice, both details true of Kennedy's 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88.

Kennedy later recalled that he was able to swim free of the vehicle, but Kopechne was not. Kennedy claimed at the inquest that he called Kopechne's name several times from the shore, then tried to swim down to reach her seven or eight times, then rested on the bank for around fifteen minutes before returning on foot to Lawrence Cottage, where the party attended by Kopechne and other "Boiler Room Girls" had occurred. Kennedy denied seeing any house with a light on during his journey back to Lawrence Cottage.[7]

In addition to the working telephone at the Lawrence Cottage, according to one commentator, his route back to the cottage would have taken him past four houses from which he could have telephoned and summoned help; however, he did not do so.[8] The first of those houses, referred to as "Dike House", was only 150 yards away from the bridge, and was occupied by Sylvia Malm and her family at the time of the incident. Malm later stated that she had left a light on at the residence when she retired for that evening.[9]

[The Libertarian Guy]

Can we refer to the burial as The Big Dig II?

[Tulpa]

According to his own testimony, Kennedy swam across the 500-foot channel, back to Edgartown and returned to his hotel room, where he removed his clothes and collapsed on his bed.[12] Hearing noises, he later put on dry clothes and asked someone what the time was: it was something like 2:30 a.m., the senator recalled. He testified that, as the night went on, "I almost tossed and turned and walked around that room ... I had not given up hope all night long that, by some miracle, Mary Jo would have escaped from the car."[13]

Back at his hotel, Kennedy complained at 2:55 am to the hotel owner that he had been awoken by a noisy party.[2] By 7:30 am the next morning he was talking "casually" to the winner of the previous day's sailing race, with no indication that anything was amiss.[2] At 8 a.m., Gargan and Markham joined Kennedy at his hotel where they had a "heated conversation." According to Kennedy's testimony, the two men asked why he had not reported the accident. Kennedy responded by telling them "about my own thoughts and feelings as I swam across that channel ... that somehow when they arrived in the morning that they were going to say that Mary Jo was still alive".[13] The three men subsequently crossed back to Chappaquiddick Island on the ferry, where Kennedy made a series of phone calls from a payphone by the crossing. The phone calls were to his friends for advice and again, he did not report the accident to authorities.[2]

Well, the part about the wishful liberal thinking seems about right. Just hope hard enough that the girl you dumped in the drink would be rescued and maybe she will be.

[Dagny T.]

I like the phrase "seductive awfulness," Welch.

From the Booklist review of Oates' Rape: A Love Story on Amazon.com:

Men as predators preying on girls and women have always piqued Oates' depthless imagination, and her home ground, beautiful but backward rural New York State, is often the setting for her tales of demented bloodlust.

OK, Joycey, we need to distinguish between the fictional violent fantasies and actual violence.

[PapayaSF]

#: Laura Bush wasn't drunk. She didn't leave anybody to slowly die while she sobered up and didn't get help. She didn't cover anything up. She didn't run for office. She didn't promote herself as some paragon of righteousness, helping the downtrodden with massive federal programs. She is not lionized by the usual suspects as some sort of modern Solon.

But other than that, the situations are exactly the same. Kudos on your hypocrisy detection skills.

[Michael]

I'm sorry if this offends anyone (actually, I'm not), but you could affix that particular surname to a fucking tapeworm and in a few decades you'll have "arguably the greatest Democratic senator of the 20th century."

[Lester Hunt]

Utilitarianism is showing its cannibalistic underside.

[Tulpa]

beautiful but backward rural New York State

yo, fuck Booklist.

[Hugh Akston]

[I]f one weighs the life of a single young woman against the accomplishments of the man President Obama has called the greatest Democratic senator in history, what is one to think?

One is to think that such moral calculus goes out the window like an emptied bottle of twelve-year-old scotch once we start weighing lives against votes.

[Schempf]

Nephilium - thanks for cuntpickles - I will use it often!

[Will]

If a libertarian is coyly mocking the "seductive awfulness of political ideologies everywhere", he's not raising interesting political questions, he just doesn't like looking in the mirror.

[Umbriel]

If I weighed the life of a single ant against the accomplishments of Ted Kennedy, I, for one, would welcome our new insect overlord.

[Abdul]

Joyce Carol Oates must be regretting that the Boston strangler never ran for office. With thirteen victims, he woulda been thirteen times more awesome as a Massachusetts senator.

Albert DeSalvo, we hardly knew ye.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Ooh, very clever Will! I'm sure no one ever thought of that! That must be the most insightful observation ever! Do they give you a MacArthur genius grant to comment on blogs?

[oncogenesis]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. So I have been told...

[anarch]

Wiki's plot-summary of Oates's noveliztion:

At this point, The Senator uses Kelly's body to jettison himself upwards,out of the driver's side door. She tries to hold on to him to pull herself free; he kicks her, leaving his shoe in her hand. Kelly, badly injured and delirious, continually imagines that he will come back to "save" her, and also that he has gone for help. She repeatedly imagines seeing him outside of the car, or that she feels the car shaking as he tries to get her out. She trusts The Senator until the very end of her life, certain that he will save her; it is possible that, because of this, she misses out on highly important lucid moments in which she could possibly save herself.

In reality, the senator has stumbled to an outdoor phone booth, carefully staying out of sight of passing cars, to call Ray Annick. He Tells Annick that Kelly became emotional and pushed the wheel because she was drunk, thus causing the accident, and that she is already dead.

Meanwhile, Kelly is following an ever-shrinking bubble of air to the top of the car as is fills with water. She becomes more panicked and delirious, and imagines that she is rescued...

Who would have guessed that Oates writes allegories about Keynesianism?

[Anonymous]

Collectivism means individuals never having to call emergency services.

[\"Markets Are Magical!\"]

"If you're openly musing whether the unwilling, unjust sacrifice of an innocent is worth a broad set of alleged legislative improvements, you're not asking a morally challenging question, you're answering it."

It doesn't get any better than this. The same reminder that Matt is calling for is one that Libertarians seem entirely unmoved buy.

To Libertarians, the ends of deregulation, and other anti-government measures are worth whatever degree of suffering the less fortunate might experience, at the cost of individual liberty. After all, it's not their problem. This is a routine response to people who press Libertarians on the potential consequences of their policies, yet many of them seem conveniently put off by this utilitarian questioning. Now it's an important reminder.

It certainly says a lot.

[John C. Randolph]

Kennedy claimed at the inquest that he called Kopechne's name several times from the shore, then tried to swim down to reach her seven or eight times,

The car was only eight feet deep. I routinely dove fifteen feet deep to retrieve toys from the floor of swimming pools when I was only seven years old.

Teddy either couldn't swim, or didn't want to save her.

-jcr

[John C. Randolph]

To Libertarians, the ends of deregulation, and other anti-government measures are worth whatever degree of suffering the less fortunate might experience, at the cost of individual liberty.

Fuck you, you lying pinko sack of shit.

Libertarians know that individual liberty is the way to alleviate the suffering of the less fortunate. Go take a look at North Korea and tell us how the less fortunate are doing there.

-jcr

[mark]

Teddy either couldn't swim, or didn't want to save her.

-jcr

I'm still up and having read a bunch of material about this incident, it seems that the Senator was drunk and hit his head, and probably tried to rescue the girl once or twice before giving up. It's entirely possible that the current was too strong at the time.

I'm not saying he wasn't responsible, but criminally negligent? No.

[ransom147]

The Libertarian Guy | September 1, 2009, 12:13am | #

good lulz...

[A T]

If I take some leeches of my back, yes, I am depriving them of sustenance, my blood, therefore I cause them so suffer. Poor unfortunate leeches.
But I sure as hell didn't cause them to lose any individual liberty...

[anarch]

criminally negligent? No.

What about an obligation to get some help?

[davius rex]

teddy did the dirty work for bobby, and daddy
covered. that sounds plausible. did he bash her in the head first. that sounds plausible.
what did she know. what did she tell her parents? who threatened them? sounds plausible.
why do these backslapping shitbags go around praising each other all day? does obama want to be an elitist so bad that he will sell his soul for a chance to hob nob with the powerful?
it all sound plausible to me.

[davius rex]

nephilium,(did i get that right? and what does it mean anyway?
i will also use cuntpickle, but only in extreme
situations like this. i have never heard it.
it has a "nice" ring to it. i propose
beaverscratchers, kind of like a german compound.
davius rex

[Douglas Fletcher]

I still think Joyce Carol Oates is John Updike in drag.

[anarch of clerihew]

Joyce Carol Oates
Approves making rivers into moats,
And cars into boats,
Up from which truth, regrettably, floats.

[double-dactyl anarch]

Theodore Kennedy
Sailor extraordinaire's
Nephew Bill K. Smith
Too loved cars, girls, bed;

Handily chauffeured them
Littoralistically,
Cooing, "My uncle
Could drive you instead."

[The Frith?]

Nipplemancer: liberal policies are justified *especially* if the innocent suffer

[Nooge]

In the time it took Matt Welch to write his post, Oates wrote and published seven more incoherent novels.

[\"Markets Are Magical!\"]

"Fuck you, you lying pinko sack of shit."

Wow. That didn't take long.

"Libertarians know that individual liberty is the way to alleviate the suffering of the less fortunate."

Wait, what? Libertarians "know" what? Libertarians don't know that. That's merely an opinion. So, if someone were to ask you what would happen if your strategies were implemented, and increased poverty, what would you say?

Would you be prepared to abandon your Libertarian principles to address that failure? Or would you maintain those policies in obedience to your ideology?

Again, I'm speaking hypothetically here, since you're speaking out in favor of a hypothetical government.

"Go take a look at North Korea and tell us how the less fortunate are doing there."

This is suppossed to prove what? You're not even debating at the standard of a hack Libertarian. No, you're simply relying on the cloistered old fart rhetoric that makes you seem more like a narrow minded crank.

I could ask you to look at numerous Western countries that refute your poor analogy.

Libertarians seem to enjoy employing a form of Lawyer Logic, where they slip in these broad assumptions within their chain of logic that are suppossed to lead to an obvious conclusion.

Seth Finklestein explains this well in his essay: "Libertarianism Makes You Stupid."

http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php

"Libertarians are for "individual rights", and against "force" and "fraud" - just as THEY define it. Their use of these words, however, when examined in detail, is not likely to accord with the common meanings of these terms. What person would proclaim themselves in favor of "force and fraud"? One of the little tricks Libertarians use in debate is to confuse the ordinary sense of these words with the meaning as "terms of art" in Libertarian axioms. They try to set up a situation where if you say you're against "force and fraud", then obviously you must agree with Libertarian ideology, since those are the definitions. If you are in favor of "force and fraud", well, isn't that highly immoral? So you're either one of them, or some sort of degenerate (note the cultish aspect again), one who doesn't think "force and fraud must be banished from human relationships".

[Art-P.O.G.]

lol @Nooge

"Markets", if setting up strawmen makes a person stupid, then I'm guessing Finkelstein is now operating somewhere around the cognitive capacity of Forrest Gump. But, I mean, if you like sophistry then the guy's all right, I guess.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Finklestein*, damn...that doesn't count as a joe'z memorial law example.

[\"Markets Are Magical!\"]

"If I take some leeches of my back, yes, I am depriving them of sustenance, my blood, therefore I cause them so suffer. Poor unfortunate leeches.
But I sure as hell didn't cause them to lose any individual liberty..."

Well, at least your honest, and I don't have to drill you for a confession.

Now if only the others would have the guts to "come out."

[@]

the unwilling, unjust sacrifice of an innocent

Mary Jo Kopechne was innocent? She got in a car with a notorious skirt-chaser and boozer--but not just any skirt-chaser and boozer: a Kennedy--after a night of debauchery, for what reason? She made some choices herself that evening, of no small consequence, and paid the price.

[Art-P.O.G.]

"Markets", what A T said makes good sense. Sure, the analogy's kind of harsh, but it's pretty damn succinct.

[@]

John C. Randolph | September 1, 2009, 5:02am | #

The car was only eight feet deep. I routinely dove fifteen feet deep to retrieve toys from the floor of swimming pools when I was only seven years old.

At night? When you were drunk? With a hard-on?

[Art-P.O.G.]

Hmmm...be that as it may, @, drowning seems a tad unfortunate as a consequence.

[Art-P.O.G.]

damn, JCR, you're a way better swimmer than I am.

[\"Markets Are Magical!\"]

"Markets", if setting up strawmen makes a person stupid, then I'm guessing Finkelstein is now operating somewhere around the cognitive capacity of Forrest Gump. But, I mean, if you like sophistry then the guy's all right, I guess."

In other words, if someone has seen through your bullshit, then it's only because they're bullshitting, right? Of course,there was no attempt to address the arguments. Libertarians are too good for arguments. The truth should be self-evident, right?

Finklestein's deconstruction of the Libertarian sales pitch is hardly some obtuse rendering of Libertarian thought. He referenced the party's own website. I seriously doubt that you even read the essay, or you would have seen that your accusations were addressed early on by Finklestein.

It seems like only Libertarians can understand Libertarianism. However, according to many other Libertarians, they probably don't truly understand Libertarianism either. Talk about Sophistry.

The standards that Libertarians have set for others in debate, and the standards that they tend to live up to in debate, represent a truly cartoonish imbalance.

[Johnny Longtorso]

[I]f one weighs the life of a single young woman against the accomplishments of the man President Obama has called the greatest Democratic senator in history, what is one to think?,

When you say that the rules and standards that apply to others don't apply to those who agree with you politically, you're also saying the rules don't apply to you (its a tautology that you agree with yourself), and that Oats has just said she's allowed to kill to get her way politically. Being generous, I'll assume its only allowed if she can make a claim it was an accident.

The individual life of anyone reading this is expendable in comparison to her political goals. Never forget that. Joyce Carol Oats will literally kill you to get her way politically.

[\"Markets Are Magical!\"]

"Markets", what A T said makes good sense. Sure, the analogy's kind of harsh, but it's pretty damn succinct."

No, it doesn't make any sense at all. North Korea's culture, policies, and approach to government have nothing to do with the silliness that often is Libertarian reasoning.

What is being offered up is an either/or fallacy. People don't have to choose between a North Korea style government, or a Libertarian style government. Of course, you guys tend to see things in an either/or fashion. It's a personality type. You simply have a reasoning blind spot that may, or may not be correctable.

What surprises me is how poor these arguments are. I get the feeling that many of you are not used to being contradicted, and I think that is a direct result of the echo chamber effect that is a by-product of Internet discussion forums.

You're being manipulated by well funded Think Tanks. Some of you will grow to understand the importance of nuance, and some of you won't.

Whatever your path, good luck.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Yes, "Markets", because he sets up a strawman and preemptively defends it by saying that others will attack him by calling him out on his fallacy. How terribly clever.

Libertarians are too good for arguments. The truth should be self-evident, right?

Where do you come up wih this stuff? From the mystical place whence trolls draw their dire powers?

[Art-P.O.G.]

You're being manipulated by well funded Think Tanks

Wow, no wonder libertarianism has dominated political discourse for decades. It all makes sense now.

From the incoherence of your post, I can only assume you're being ironic. Bravo.

[@]

well funded Think Tanks

There is something ironic about a "free minds and markets" publication being unable to exist on subscriptions and advertising. Not that there's anything wrong with having a sugar daddy.

[John]

Mary Jo was an only child. I doubt her parents were very happy to sacrifice their daughter. The same people who think it is horrible to waterboard KSM to stop a terrorist attack apparrently think it is laudable to drown an innocent woman to save a Senate career. Liberals are just sick. They really have lost it.

[Johnny Longtorso]

The same people who think it is horrible to waterboard KSM to stop a terrorist attack apparrently think it is laudable to drown an innocent woman to save a Senate career.

While I disagree about the waterboarding actually accomplishing anything, this is otherwise a good point.

[John]

It is not about whether you agree with the waterboarding or not. It is about the cognitive dissonance of people being outraged over the rough treatment of one of the most despicable human beings on earth finding the downing of an innocent woman to be a good thing when it benefits their cause. That is sick.

[Cabeza de Vaca]

Why do trolls think they can fool people just by changing their name? You keep coming back here repeating the same tired arguement. No one wants to debate with you, because we already have many times.

[Nick]

To Libertarians, the ends of deregulation, and other anti-government measures are worth whatever degree of suffering the less fortunate might experience, at the cost of individual liberty. After all, it's not their problem. This is a routine response to people who press Libertarians on the potential consequences of their policies, yet many of them seem conveniently put off by this utilitarian questioning. Now it's an important reminder.

Why would more people suffer with unhindered growth and wealth creation. More jobs that actually produce something lead to even more jobs, so the people that have them can buy food, shelter, healthcare, and whatever else they need with their own money.

There is a reason communism has failed everywhere it has been tried while capitalism has succeeded everywhere it has been tried.

[Juanita]

This is just disgusting, an innocent life isn't worth an ideaology.

[Brian Moore]

Wait, this isn't a joke? Please tell me this is a joke.

[Jonny Scrum-half]

I don't read the Huffington Post article as suggesting that Kopechne's death was a net positive, except in a sarcastic tone.

[R C Dean]

[I]f one weighs the life of a single young woman against the accomplishments of the man President Obama has called the greatest Democratic senator in history, what is one to think?

I need some help? I must be out of my mind? What is wrong with me that I would think that leaving some poor woman to die a horrible death should ever be weighed on the scales of a political career?

Men as predators preying on girls and women have always piqued Oates' depthless imagination,

Depthless = having no depth at all. I wonder if the reviewer meant such a brutal slam, or is only semi-literate?

[John]

"Depthless = having no depth at all. I wonder if the reviewer meant such a brutal slam, or is only semi-literate?"

Semi literate.

[The Libertarian Guy]

"Collectivism means individuals"

Collectivism abhors individuals.

[Tulpa]

I'm not saying he wasn't responsible, but criminally negligent? No.

Even if you believe his version of events (which is highly implausible to my mind, especially with the deputy sheriff's testimony quoted in the "Murderous Kennedy" post), at the very least he was driving way too fast for conditions (20MPH on a gravel road heading onto a wooden bridge at night!), failed to call for help despite numerous opportunities to do such, and this resulted in someone dying. If his last name is Koslowski instead of Kennedy he does time for manslaughter, at a minimum.

The car was only eight feet deep. I routinely dove fifteen feet deep to retrieve toys from the floor of swimming pools when I was only seven years old.

To be fair, trying to retrieve a possibly unconcious person from inside an overturned vehicle in murky water (a car slamming into the bottom is going to raise up a pretty nasty cloud of sediment), possibly dealing with a current, is not comparable to picking up a toy in the bottom of a crystal-clear swimming pool.

I don't blame him for not rescuing her himself; that's what the professionals are paid to do. Which is why you have to call the police when something like this happens... (The local emergency services diver testified that he would have been able to retrieve her within 25 minutes of recieving a phone call.)

[anarch]

I dunno - though it ain't depthless prose, or then maybe it be. Bothers me fewer than some other sillyschisms.

[Lee Ronstadt]

And if he had acted in a morally responsible way, he could just as easily reformed himself and gone on to have an influential political career. This was a woman's life at stake - and he chose the coward's way out.

[John]

Kennedy was drunk and taking a woman to the beach to bang her and took a wrong turn and ran into the water. HE couldn't get her out and she died. He then went back and failed to report a fatal accident (a felony) and waited to sober up before reporting it the next day. He was guilty of vehicular manslaughter and failing to report a fatal accident. He should have been convicted of two felonies and done at least a few months in prison.

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you're openly musing whether the unwilling, unjust sacrifice of an innocent is worth a broad set of alleged legislative improvements, you're not asking a morally challenging question, you're answering it."

Good hit!

[rc]

Tulpa: "I don't blame him for not rescuing her himself; that's what the professionals are paid to do."

We don't pay emergency services people to be human beings, just so we don't have to be. People who become senators aren't so good at rescues, unless you're Bob Dole or John McCain.

You can be a wimp and still be elected a Democtratic Senator. As Democratic Senator 'Stewart Smalley' would say: and that's... ok.

[Nick]

Aren't liberals the ones who are always saying that by NOT helping someone, you are in fact, hurting them? That by being able to help people, we have a duty to do so and it is worth the sacrifices? Yet they defend this scumbag every chance they get. Hypocrites.

[Joan of Argghh!]

Teddy's real legacy:

"Every uncorrected error and unrepented sin is, in its own right, a fountain of fresh error and fresh sin flowing on to the end of time." -C. S. Lewis

He lived long enough to prove Lewis right.

[DoDoGuRu]

one sins and repents and is forgiven, provided that one remakes one's life.

Was the "repentance" bit before or after Teddy went around asking people, "Have you heard any more hilarious jokes about the time I killed that chick?"

[Charlotte]

This is so vile and disgusting it defies words. Gee....how nice to be that "lucky woman" who got to be sacrificed by a selfish asshole who couldn't see his way clear to fucking make a phone call. WOW. The whole story would be totally different had he thought of anyone but himself and his dick.

You can argue all you want about all the "good" he did, however, you cannot change the fact that he was a pig. (and that's insulting pigs, actually)

He was a murderer. The fact he made jokes, and collected jokes about Chappaquidick makes my point with no additional verbiage.

[Charlotte]

Cuntpickles...I am LOVING this word and it has so many applications....thank you so very much. 🙂

[JD]

God bless Mary Jo. These f*&^ing morons who are singing Uncle Teddy's praises- Do they think Mary Jo was worried about the future political career of Ted while she was drowning! Unbelievable.

[LogicalUS]

The freaking "Elephant in the Room" is what kind of nut would want Leftists who have so little morality that they would openly wonder whether the death of this young women was inconsequential against advance of the Leftist agenda to be given complete control of our nation's health care?

That sure is a group of people who I would want making such decisions. People who think they are being just too clever by belittle the death of a young woman against the "vast accomplishments of the Leftist agenda".

No freaking thanks, you damn jackals.

So whom and what people would they be willing to sacrifice so that Obama or the next Kennedy can be glorified as the Marxist messiah and to have their Leftist utopia?

[Danny]

Wow, that Seth Finklestein essay (from 1997) was a hunk of crap. The math exercises were fun, though, and I'm definitely going to add them to a book I'm creating of exercises for my kids to try when they get older.

Hint: The first exercise just says to "cancel out" a term, which actually implies dividing by a value of zero, which is obviously a mathematical fallacy. I didn't take the time to find the error in the second one. But they would be great exercises for any kid to try!

[creech]

I recall, at the time, his supporters were making Ms. Kopechne out to be some kind of slut who seduced the good senator.

I've never heard before that Teddy actually collected jokes about the incident. What is the attribution for this? His good friend, Sen. Hatch? If true, anyone with anything good to say about Kennedy -- and they knew of his joke collection -- is scum.

[Bo]

If Kennedy would've been a man and owned up to the consequences and lost his political career, I'm sure Massachusetts could've found another leftist Senator to champion statist causes for the last 30+ years.

[Howard Veit]

It all depends what "kill" is....

[LogicalSC]

"It all depends what "kill" is...."

So true, doesn't everyone remember that the Left was willing to overlook the serial sexual harassment episodes of Bill Clinton...

Is it any wonder why every Leftist utopia of communism has devolved into a totalitarian "killing field" when they are allowed total control? The NY Times even bragged in the 1930s about the glorious Soviets that "you couldn't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs".

All during the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's the Leftist came up with all sort of "apologies and excuses" for their dreamy Soviets. Even today they idolize such thugs as Mao, Castro and Chavez. Leftists should never be allowed anywhere near power of any kind.

[anarch]

He'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your Oldsmobile.

[Matt Welch]

There is something ironic about a "free minds and markets" publication being unable to exist on subscriptions and advertising. Not that there's anything wrong with having a sugar daddy.

Magazines of opinion, from every point on the political spectrum, are money-losers, when measured by subscription and advertising revenue. Which is why they are typically run by explicit nonprofits, or by rich men who don't mind losing money. Both of which setups indicate that there is more to this market than ads & subs revenue.

[Ramon Fernandez]

It's only fair to say the sacrifice is worth it if you would be willing to change places with the person who was sacrificed.

[Slartibartfast]

"She got in a car with a notorious skirt-chaser and boozer"

So what you're saying is: she was asking for it?

[libertymike]

John-

It is also despicable to waterboard and otherwise torture so called "terrorists"-particularly if the one inflicting the torture is one of the King's men. As libertarians, we must emphasixe the moral hazards of being one of the King's men-like, for starters, its just plain immoral.

[John]

Mike,

There is nothing so called about KSM. He is a terrorist. It may have been wrong to water board him, but that doesn't make him anything but what he is. When Libertarians say things like "so called terrorist" they just give people a reason not to take them seriously.

[Texpatriate]

Reminds me of the scene from Godfather II, where the senator gets drunk and murders a prostitute. "The girl has no family," we're told, and the senator's going to do good works for the Corleones. By the logic of Lafsky and Oates, there would be nothing immoral about helping conceal the crime.

No? Why not? Because senator's working for gangsters? But would it be all right if he went on to champion progressive causes?

Yes? How about if the victim weren't a prostitute, but a campaign worker? How about if she were underage? If the perpetrator is going to do good works, is there any level of depravity that's unacceptable? Cannibalism? Necrophilia? Anything?

And so the intelligencia steps off smartly into the abyss.

[JB]

I wouldn't mind seeing both of these women drowned.

It would make my world a better place.

[ransom147]

So what you're saying is: she was asking for it?

sounds like that to me too.

[Gekkobear]

I'm curious; what did Kennedy actually do himself, instead of taking from others to spend their resources doing?

Wouldn't say a heart surgeon, or an ER doctor be a more "noble" person?

Assuming you agree that an ER doctor might be more noble; how would you consider an ER doctor claiming because of the good he's done in his life; he now gets to go kill a girl or two... and society owes him enough that he should not be punished in any way.

If I'd known that having a "noble" job would allow one freedom to commit crimes without risk; I might have taken another career path.

I always thought bank robbery just looked fun; not for the money; for the thrill... what do I have to do to get one of those as my freebie?

[Fu Teki Setsu]

Look at it this way: Kennedy mistrusted the government so much (for whatever reason) that he allowed a girl to die rather than involve them in the matter. Instead he supposedly attempted to heroically rescue her himself and definitely passed by a house with a light on (and presumably a phone) when leaving the scene.

What a hypocrite for spending his life trying to make government the solution for everyone else when he wouldn't even rely on them when it obviously was best.

[Fiat Pecunia]

I always thought bank robbery just looked fun; not for the money; for the thrill... what do I have to do to get one of those as my freebie?

Get elected or appointed.

[mbabbitt]

This simply shows you that intellectual skills in one area do not necessarily transfer over to other areas, whether intellectual or moral. Such crassness demonstrates a deep moral vacuum in many of the so-called intelligentsia. It's scary how ideology can make dum dums out of so many.

[Zabrina]

No telling what Mary Jo might have accomplished, given the chance, either. Her career and accomplishments might have eclipsed Kennedy's--so who's arrogant enough to judge what sacrifice was worth what? It's all just self-serving blather to continue to burnish Kennedy's (and liberalism's) sagging reputation. But it's not working. Unless you call liberals continuing to lull themselves into their dream world effective.

[django]

I don't know if you know this or not, but one of his favorite topics of humor was indeed Chappaquiddick itself. And he would ask people, "have you heard any new jokes about Chappaquiddick?"-Ed Klein

Teddy was such a kidder. He kills me.

[Oh no not this again]

I see Reason has another dead horse to beat into the ground. With all the economic shenanagans going on, i would assume Reason would have a post or something, but no, another two minutes of hate. Dude's dead, and damn if i hadn't forgotten about it. Thanks "REASON", for reminding me about something i really don't give two shits about. But you all keep on with the team spirit, I'm sure someone is impressed. RED BLUE VARIATION RAH RAH RAH

[Cabeza de Vaca]

"I always thought bank robbery just looked fun; not for the money; for the thrill... what do I have to do to get one of those as my freebie?"

Get appointed chairman of The Federal Reserve.

[There is no God]

Couldn't the funeral motorcade have driven off a bridge for old times' sake?

[Roark]

The answer is no.

[Duke]

Perhaps Miss Oates will further those causes she sees so important and willingly allow herself to be drowned in furtherance of some up-and-comer politician's career. That is what she advocates that Miss Kopechne resolve post mortem, that her sacrifice was worthwhile in the long run.
Miss Oates intellectualizing is harmless until real human beings are involved. That Miss Oates conveniently glosses over that Mary Jo was in fact a living breathing human being speaks volumes of her prioritization of politics over even human life itself.

[anarch]

I fear Zabrina wins at 1:17pm.

[Laurence]

In "Night of the Generals", Peter O'Toole played a SS general who held the position that, since he did such a good job slaughtering his country's enemy, he should be forgiven for finding much needed release in butchering the occasional trollop. The modern progressive seems to have come around to his way of thinking.

FYI: it wasn't just Mary Jo in 1969. Let's not forget:

Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit from 1963
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

Ted's sexual abuse of women, especially wait staff as in this episode from 1985
http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5585&pageNum=5

and the Borking of American politics since the 1980s:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YjdhNDY1NmY4NmM4ODJiZDNlNDFmZDQ2ODRhZjQ3OTY=

[Seamus]

There is something ironic about a "free minds and markets" publication being unable to exist on subscriptions and advertising.

There's nothing ironic about a "free minds and markets" publication that exists on subscription and advertising and voluntary contributions. Or do you think that the voluntary contributions have something to do with unfree minds or markets?

[Michael Ejercito]

Paul Wellstone did not leave anyone to drown.

Neither did Glenn Poshard.

It is also despicable to waterboard and otherwise torture so called "terrorists"-particularly if the one inflicting the torture is one of the King's men.

Indeed, our troops should not torture terrorists.

But we can not control what happens to terrorists who are in the custody of our allies. Look up Shawki Salama Attiya for details.

[William]

Let me make sure I have this straight. Causing the death of a young girl - okay, as long as it causes you to advance liberial positions. Pouring water down the nose of a terriorist in defense of innocent life - bad?!

[malclave]

One wonders if those persons feeling Miss Kopechne's death was "worth it" have a daughter or granddaughter of their own.

And, if so, would they be willing to kill that daughter or granddaughter if it meant another Ted Kennedy in the Senate.

After all... it's just one girl's life, right?

[lurkyloo]

I wonder why Mary Jo couldn't get out, if it's true that she was conscious enough to seek the air bubble, and yet Kennedy could swim to the surface while wearing a back brace. I guess it's unknowable.

A decent person would have turned himself in immediately, served time, and/or become a hermit. Even practically speaking, I can't figure out why he thought cowardice was the right choice for his career. Self-delusion and inability to imagine the public's reaction? How stupid did he think they were?* Drunk and honest beats sobered-up and lying any day.

*Stupid enough to re-elect him, apparently. Guess Massholes saw him differently than the rest of the country.

[JB]

Guess Massholes saw him differently than the rest of the country.

Stupid fetuses.

[JB]

Laurence: Good points! Also, during the rape trial, his description of their activities as: "A traditional Kennedy family Easter celebration" when it turned out that he and the boys were out at 1 am in the morning cruising bars and picking up girls to bring back to the compound, showed that his idea of a traditional Easter celebration and mine, were vastly different. I am a liberal, and his callous abuse of power and women makes me sick, and should not be ignored.

[Redbeardrum]

Turd polishing reaches new depths.

[RS]

What a stunning mis-reading of Oates's article. You conveniently quote her setup, which accurately mirrors the prevailing current of public thought, but fail to note her conclusion, that the public sphere blinds people to central questions of morality. If you're really think Oates is ambivalent on this topic, you might want to read her novella, the cover of which so boldly illustrates your post. Plot summary: the Senator is not the hero.

[Orion]

Would the world have been better, worse, or pretty much the same had Mary Jo Kopechne bobbed to the surface instead of Ted Kennedy?

I'll go with "Pretty much the same." There's little that Kennedy accomplished after Chappaquiddick that someone else couldn't have done. Another pol might have beaten Carter in the '80 primary but I doubt it. I can't think of anything he did legislatively that no one else could have or wouldn't have happened pretty much the same. There'd be one fewer traumatized waitress in DC but that wouldn't change the world noticeably.

Ted Kennedy just wasn't all that important to the world. Someone else would have stepped up for almost all of what he did after Chappaquiddick, possibly without the boozing. It's sad to say but the wrong person survived.

[ELC]

This kind of thinking (referring to Lafsky's and Oates's remarks) is typical of Leftist thought: The People in the abstract, or as a concept, are very important, but actual individual people are expendable.

[Billy Beck]

"Link bait"?

[RebeccaH]

Leninism at its core: you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

[Mike]

These are liberals we're talking about, here.

Kennedy wouldn't have rated on their political radar, no matter what his ideological "accomplishments", unless he had snuffed the life out of at least one innocent.

[JM Hanes]

How lucky for liberals that Kennedy killed Kopechne while she was still a young woman-- and not after she had been elected to the Senate and then appointed Special Emissary to the Middle East, where she would resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict years before the 2nd Intifada could take place. Considering Kennedy's utter lack of accomplishments at the time, he wouldn't even be a blip on the legislative radar if she had survived and he had not.

How emblematic that even posing the Oates/Lasky question also requires ignoring the fact that Kennedy continued to lionize, so to speak, young innocents at every turn for the rest of his life, much of which was spent in an unembarrassed alcoholic stupor. He managed to avoid actually killing anyone else, but all the other lives he despoiled or ruined apparently aren't even worth mentioning, let alone factoring into the self-serving post mortems which now proliferate.

It's one thing to set aside the viciousness with which Kennedy attacked his political foes in public in order laud Kennedy's supposedly bipartisan achievements. It's an entirely different matter to proffer his public career in a crass attempt to buy indulgences for his morally bankrupt private life.

[Jonny Scrum-half]

Just to repeat my earlier comment -- if you read Lafsky's article, it's clear that she was being ironic/sarcastic, and isn't seriously questioning whether Ms. Kopechne might think her sacrifice was worth it.

If Oates's article has the same tone (as someone above states), then really no one is suggesting that Kopechne's death was worth it. So, maybe we shouldn't get all worked up about a position that no one has taken.

[Billy Beck]

"...if you read Lafsky's article, it's clear that she was being ironic/sarcastic..."

Bullshit. I read it. No: it's not.

[The Libertarian Guy]

Does "The Nation" depend solely on itself, or does it need other sources of income?

[anarch]

And while we're at it, how about The Congressional Record?

[Chaim Klein]

I think Joyce Carol Oates is really onto something. Had it not been for slavery, Americans would never have heard of the Supremes, who gave joy and pleasure to many. Or never had a Martin Luther King Day giving them an opportunity to honor a great American who would have remained obscure in the jungles of Africa. Had it not been for Adolf Hitler, the USA may not have developed nuclear power which is responsible for so much. Had it not been for JFK's expansion of the Vietnam War, John Kerry , may never have come into prominence, using the accusation of war crimes committed by those with whom he heroically served on that dangerous mission to Cambodia, as a catapult to fame. If it had not been for the Inquisition, many Jews would have stayed in Spain and failed to found the delis of Manhatten. I think this is a wonderful concept from Joyce Carol Oates... I don't know. How about if it hadn't been for Hitler, there never would have been a Battle of Stalingrad and the Soviet Union might have been powerful enough to win the Cold War. You go, girl.

[Jim C.]

Oates wrote, "[I]f one weighs the life of a single young woman against the accomplishments of the man President Obama has called the greatest Democratic senator in history, what is one to think?"

It was only one life. What is one life in the affairs of a state? --Mussolini, after hitting a child with his car and driving on. (attrib., by Gen. Smedley Butler)

This is particularly appropriate to the title of this blog.

(What actually happened, according to Cornelius Vanderbilt, Jr.: "I was riding with Mussolini, who drove. A small child ran in front of the machine . . . and was hit. I looked back to see if the child was hurt. Mussolini placed his hand on my knee and said: 'Never look back, Vanderbilt, always look ahead in life.' ")

[Jo]

In all fairness to Joyce Carol Oates - I agree with RS's comment.
In her short novel "BLACK WATER," the senator is inded "not the hero." While the book was nominated for several prize, the NYT reviewer largely dismissed the novel, finding it voyeuristic:
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/24/books/books-of-the-times-taking-the-plot-from-the-news-even-old-news.html?scp=7&sq=%22black%20water%22%20oates&st=cse

RE:
RS
What a stunning mis-reading of Oates's article. You conveniently quote her setup, which accurately mirrors the prevailing current of public thought, but fail to note her conclusion, that the public sphere blinds people to central questions of morality. If you're really think Oates is ambivalent on this topic, you might want to read her novella, the cover of which so boldly illustrates your post. Plot summary: the Senator is not the hero.

[John C. Randolph]

Libertarians don't know that. That's merely an opinion.

No, it's a fact demonstrated repeatedly throughout history, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

-jcr

[John C. Randolph]

There is nothing so called about KSM. He is a terrorist.

I agree that KSM is a terrorist. He should be tried for his crimes and then he should get the death penalty, unless the government fucks up the prosecution so badly that they let him walk like O. J. SImpson. We have laws for a reason.

-jcr

[John C. Randolph]

doesn't everyone remember that the Left was willing to overlook the serial sexual harassment episodes of Bill Clinton...

Yeah, I always wondered why the feminist insistence that women never, ever lie about rape wasn't applied to Bill's rape of Juanita Broaddrick, and sexual assault of Kathleen Willey. Two allegations is supposed to be enough to demand castration, right?

-jcr

[John C. Randolph]

Seth Finklestein explains this well

No, he just ladles out baseless slander like you do.

-jcr

[John C. Randolph]

Never look back, Vanderbilt, always look ahead in life

Never had much opinion about Vanderbilt one way or the other before now, but now I fault him for not stabbing the bastard in the throat when he had the chance.

-jcr

[anarch]

We have laws for a reason.

Drink?

[jo]

PS
5 years later, the same NYT reviewer alludes to "Black Water" as "abysmal":
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/29/books/like-mother-alas-like-daughter.html

and in 2000, as "embarassing":
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1320&dat=20000409&id=FOARAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cesDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6660,2193631

again on grounds of voyeurism, sensationalism, and the mixing of fact and fiction, which the reviewer in principle finds a disservice to both history and literature.

[anarch]

Sounds like the reviewer was characterizing Teddy.

Sorry.

[jo]

Ha!
I wondered if Joyce Carol Oates was in danger of being thrown out of the liberal club - both Oates's BLACK WATER and the later (Marilyn Monroe) novel BLONDE don't exactly enhance the Kennedys's image. (And |I might be unfair here, but I also wondered if the reviewer would have been as hot and heavy against a novel based on the sins and failings of some real life rightwing figure).
My main point is that Oates has hardly toed a liberal apologist line for the Kennedys.

[The Libertarian Guy]

"Yeah, I always wondered why the feminist insistence that women never, ever lie about rape wasn't applied to Bill's rape of Juanita Broaddrick, and sexual assault of Kathleen Willey. Two allegations is supposed to be enough to demand castration, right?"

But... but... it was Bill Clinton. That makes it okay. Haven't you been to reeducation camp yet?

[andre s]

I read the editorial by Joyce Carol Oates as profondly critical of both Kennedy, AND the attempt to mitigate the death of Mary Jo Kopechne by weighing it against his career as a lawmaker.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/shortstack/2009/08/joyce_carol_oates_begs_to_diff.html

[deacondee]

The question is - would Ted Kennedy, at the end of his life, have traded his career for the life of Mary Jo Kopechne?

[wizard of oz books]

With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.