So today's chapter in the multivolume Kennedy saga has young Patrick Kennedy entering drug rehab. As promised, we commend this decision and his openness about his addictions and his mental health struggles. And we mean that. Really.
So the questions we now have are for the rest of the Kennedy family, particularly patriarch Ted, and for the voters of Rhode Island (or for that matter, the whole Northeast).
To Ted and clan:
If you really care about your son/brother/cousin and understand his condition, why do you continue to support/encourage/push him in a profession with the kind of enormous pressures that can only exacerbate his condition? We note that while your large extended family has more than its share of troubled individuals, those who seem to have made a decent life for themselves have done it outside public office.
If you really care about the country, why do you insist on using your considerable political power nepotistically? Surely there are others in your massive political machine who can hold office without the complications that Patrick has, to the benefit of all, most especially Patrick.
To voters:
What is it about the Kennedy name that induces a mob mentality of blind, unwavering political support? What level of scandal or demonstrable incompetence would it take to get you to vote for anyone else?
If we read the reports correctly, this is at least PJK's third trip to rehab, his second in five months, and his second traffic accident in three weeks.
If Ohio can stop voting for Tafts, can New England stop voting for Kennedys?
And finally
The family of John Adams somehow managed multiple generations of outstanding public service in the 19th century, largely without scandal. A member of the last generation of public Adamses brought the legacy to a fitting end by writing an autobiography that has become a major masterpiece, The Education of Henry Adams, ranked by the Modern Library has the greatest nonfiction work in English of the 20th century.
The only American family with a comparable legacy is the Kennedys (the Harrisons and Tafts fall far short, and the Bushes are just getting started). We don't really expect it to be comparable except in duration.
What a difference a century makes.
1 comment:
I believe this admission to his addiction of pain killers is simply a political ploy. It takes the focus off of drinking and driving. It derives sympathy from thousands of American's who understand this struggle. Not to mention it takes away a controversy from the Republican’s. To condemn PJK now would be to also condemn Rush. The only kudos which PJK deserve is for making a brilliant political move. The issues involved in turning his life around still have yet to be faced
Post a Comment