Kennedy Historians: It’s False To Conclude Kennedy Would Have Ditched Public Option For Compromise

[babylonsister]

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/bipartisanship/kennedy-historians-its-false-to-conclude-kennedy-would-have-ditched-public-option-for-compromise/

Kennedy Historians: It’s False To Conclude Kennedy Would Have Ditched Public Option For Compromise


Since Ted Kennedy’s death, it’s been widely asserted that one of his greatest regrets was that he turned down a health care deal with Richard Nixon. Having learned this lesson, goes this line, Kennedy would have wanted Dems to sacrifice mightily for a compromise with Republicans this year on health care — perhaps even giving up the public option.

But several Kennedy historians have now told us in interviews that this is a severe oversimplification of history that shouldn’t lead us to that conclusion at all.

The assertion was perhaps made most aggressively by Steven Pearlstein, who wrote that Kennedy’s “greatest regret as a legislator” was “his refusal to cut a deal with Richard Nixon on health care.” Pearlstein said Kennedy would have wanted liberals to “quit fuming about all the compromises forced upon them” and instead “make the best deal you can get.”

The claim has been echoed far and wide by pundits, Dems, and Republicans alike. Recently ABC’s George Stephanopoulos said that “Kennedy the compromiser” would likely have advised fellow Dems to ditch the public option.

It’s true that Nixon and Kennedy negotiated over how to do universal health care — Nixon wanted to do it through private insurers; Kennedy through the government — and that both sides ended up walking away from the table.

But the notion that Kennedy “regretted” his failure to cut a deal with Nixon is largely bogus, according to Adam Clymer, a former Times reporter and the author of “Edward M. Kennedy: A Biography.” Rather, Clymer says, Kennedy’s regret was that the differences between both parties were unbridgeable, making agreement impossible and losing a historic opportunity — not that his side had failed to give up enough to get that agreement.

“Kennedy was sorry that they didn’t reach an agreement” and that both sides “never reached closure,” Clymer told our reporter, Amanda Erickson. He dismissed the idea that Kennedy regretted not giving up enough: “That’s not the same thing at all.”

Clymer also disputed the relentless focus on Kennedy’s willingness to sacrifice. “He was always anxious to reach an agreement,” Clymer said, “but that didn’t mean any agreement.”

Dr. Janet Heininger, who interviewed Kennedy extensively for the Kennedy Oral History Project, said the two historical moments — each with different proposals and public moods — are not remotely comparable. She said the parallel is too tortured to conclude much of anything, let alone that the lesson is to “compromise with Republicans now.”

“I don’t think that’s what he would have wanted us to take from it,” she concluded.

[Laelth]

1. If "we" compromise, it has to be with the "Blue Dogs," not the Republicans.

The Republicans are irrelevant at this point.

:dem:

-Laelth

[mzmolly]

2. And... why is it that liberals are always expected to compromise?

As John Kerry pointed out recently, where are THEIR compromises?

Thanks for this, K and R.

[WI_DEM]

3. this has nothing to do with compromising across the ailse. If public option fails it will be due to

democrats defeating it. We have the votes to pass it if the party sticks together.

[blm]

4. Except it wouldn't be Kennedy ditching the public option, it would be other Democrats. The question

posed is wrong in itself - Yes, Kennedy would fight for public option, but, if it REACHED the point where there was STILL not enough votes, would Kennedy trash the bill altogether or get what improvements in the system he could?

I doubt he'd trash the bill altogether, especially if Obama signalled he'd sign it.