Edward Kennedy: The Myth of Leadership

The book provides a detailed examination of Kennedy’s political record in the Senate, his pet projects and policies, and his aspirations as a Presidential Candidate.

It also examines what he stands for and how viable a candidate he would be to lead the Democratic Party in a Presidential election. This work describes the Kennedy campaign apparatus and scrutinizes the concept of leadership, asking whether a Kennedy presidency would really make a difference in today’s divisive political world.

Author’s Note

When Murray Levin and I wrote this book in 1979, we could not foresee how Ted Kennedy’s long career in the Senate would lead to an enduring legacy. From a distance of forty plus years, I would write a very different book from the one we rushed to press in 1979 in time for the Democratic Convention, and the 1980 election.

Kennedy became a liberal spokesman and “lion” in the Senate, helping to negotiate and pass numerous bills that improved the lives of many Americans.

The conclusions we reached in addressing a fundamental question—whether Edward Kennedy was a viable Presidential candidate in 1980—still seem valid in light of historical events. Few people believe he could have beaten Ronald Reagan in the general election.

From Kirkus

The authors review the familiar Kennedy family ties, the 1962 Senate campaign exemplifying a superbly-organized machine, and Kennedy’s 17 senate years marked by an “erratic” legislative record. As Senate Whip, Kennedy tried to handle that job’s household chores while promoting Democratic Party policies.

Chappaquiddick aborted his leadership role on “moral issues”; and as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Kennedy has been “a professional politician and not a moralist”–pleasing business by promoting “free-market competition” and pacifying liberals with the Freedom of Information Act, but avoiding “explosive” moral issues like gun control and the death penalty.

On subjects like inflation and energy, the authors see Kennedy as similar to Carter; and in foreign policy the differences are said to be stylistic (a “more personal element” with Kennedy). (May 27, 1980)