Skip to main content

Robert Kennedy is Not in Touch with Reality

 

At the urging of a friend, I recently listened to an hour-long interview with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. I’m not sure why she wanted me to hear it, but she seemed both alarmed at, and intrigued by, some of the points he was trying to make.

Given how he has insinuated himself into the next election — the wildest of wild-card presidential candidates — I felt obliged to listen. Mostly, I found it sad.

To start with, it was on the podcast of Danica Patrick. Yes, that Danica Patrick, whose iconic status as a race car driver does not readily translate to an unrelated field like, say, presidential politics.

Rather, she reveals herself to be quite the plastic ditz, with absolutely nothing meaningful to contribute to what amounted to a Kennedy monologue. She did manage some less-than-seamless editing, including a few clumsy non sequiturs that inserted Formula 1 racing, shamelessly, into the conversation.

But as for Kennedy himself, all I could think was how far down he’d come. A brilliant guy from a brilliant if deeply flawed family, his long and stellar track record in the forefront of environmental law would be legendary, if legends could be made from such difficult but necessary work.

Instead, he’s on a third-rate podcast, several steps down the food chain from the mainstream media. If there was once a legend there, he has dirtied it.

His candidacy can accomplish nothing beyond the further upset of a political system that’s already on the brink of collapse. Even if he were to gain traction among a small number of voters, those voters could do plenty of harm, conceivably tipping the balance of a swing state in one direction or another. Which is why nobody likes wild cards.

Yet there he is, scamming gullible donors into thinking the Kennedy name still carries weight. Citing his own suspect polling, he makes the ludicrous claim that Biden can’t beat Trump, but that he can. There are plenty of rubes who will pay good money to hear that, which is most likely the point.

In the decade leading up to this dangerous path, Kennedy steadily descended into his own version of reality. Once an eloquent spokesman for progressive causes, he slowly morphed into the conspiracy-addled nutjob we now see in full flower.

He is an outspoken anti-vaxxer, promoting all sorts of pseudo-science that tries to tie vaccination to autism. He’s a hawker of racially-tinged, antisemitic theories about Covid. Among his wilder claims, he has said that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were never accepted for use against Covid, not because they were quack medicines, but because the “big drug companies” didn’t want any competition for their vaccines.

And yet he talks about none of these things in the interview. He’s well aware of what they sound like. And far be it from ditzy Danica to confront him on them, or anything else.

Instead, he gets to speak eloquently and, yes, knowledgeably about the myriad ills afflicting the country. He has much to say about the corrupting influence of corporate interests, about the energy industry, about the drug and healthcare industries, and about the pernicious means they use to reach even more pernicious ends.

And it’s not that what he’s saying is wrong. Much of it is astute and erudite, the sort of things I used to hear him say back in the early aughts, when he had his own radio show on Air America. He knows his stuff, and he knows how to express it. He articulates reasonable ideas that reasonable people would agree with, ideas that might deserve a place in the national discussion, if we were actually having one.

And that’s the problem, both with this interview, and with his whole quixotic run at the presidency. He is not in touch with the political realities of these Trumpian times. 

It’s not just that he offers no solutions to anything, beyond a vow to “bring both sides to the table” — like he’s the first person to think of that — it’s rather that he shows no feel for the imminent threats we face, no interest in the continuation of the American Experiment he has devoted his life to. There’s no outrage, no urgency, no sense of imminent danger. In a man with his background and intellect, this is inexcusable.

Worse, his very presence in the presidential race serves no purpose but to throw gasoline on a fire that’s already well stoked. His behavior can best be described as Republican, and his father — among his many storied elders — would be appalled.

Kennedy’s stubborn candidacy speaks, regrettably, of mental illness, which is what his entire family has been hinting at for a while now. I don’t know what will come of that candidacy — nothing, I hope — but listening to the interview served to underscore, at least for me, exactly what’s important, and what’s not, in the next election.

We all know what’s wrong with this country. We all know how poorly its troubles have been addressed. But societal crises — and their possible solutions — will not play any role in this election. There will be one, and only one, issue: the survival of American democracy.

This means, depressingly, that we’ll be kicking the same old cans down the same old roads, yet again. Climate, healthcare, infrastructure, education, public health, rule of law, and all our other existential crises will all have to take a back seat, yet again. Likewise Gaza, Ukraine, and all foreign involvements. These things are all secondary concerns, our ability to address them contingent, yet again, on winning a national election.

Not that these concerns can’t be used tactically against the MAGA insurgency. The abortion issue, in particular, should be weaponized. It should be rubbed in the face of every Republican candidate, up and down the ballot. But regardless of the tactics, there is only one overarching strategy: Democracy must be saved. Failure is not an option.

So please spread the word that this election will be not about changing the system, but about keeping it.

As flawed as it is, as unfair as it is, as cruel as it can be, we desperately need to preserve the system intact, because it’s far, far better than what Republicans have in mind. 

The threats are real, and we’ll need to stay riveted on them. We can’t afford to be distracted by shiny objects like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Or by anyone else who wants our attention but does nothing to either earn it, or deserve it.


While I'm reluctant to actually recommend it, Danica Patrick's interview with Robert Kennedy resides here, on her website.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

France and Britain Just Gave the Finger to Fascism

There is now ample evidence that people with democratic systems of government actually like them, and would just as soon keep them, flaws and all. There seems to be a strong backlash occurring in several European countries, a trend toward shoring up democracies threatened by toxic authoritarian forces. In Poland last year, then in France and Britain last week, actual voters — as opposed to deeply compromised opinion polls — gave a big middle finger to the fascists in their midst. I don’t pretend to understand the electoral systems of these countries — let alone their political currents — but I’m struck by the apparent connections between different elections in different countries, and what they might be saying to us. I’ve spoken before of Poland , where ten years of vicious minority rule was overturned at the ballot box. A ban on abortion was the galvanizing issue — sound familiar? — and it brought an overwhelming number of voters to the polls, many for the fir

Don’t Let the New York Times Do Your Thinking

  My father would not live any place where the New York Times couldn’t be delivered before 7:00 a.m. To him, the Times was “the newspaper of record,” the keeper of the first drafts of history. It had the reach and the resources to be anywhere history was being made, and the skills to report it accurately. He trusted it more than any other news source, including Walter Cronkite. Like my dad, I grew to associate the Times with serious journalism, the first place one goes for the straight story. Their news was always assumed to be objectively presented, with the facts front-and-center. Their op-ed writers were well-reasoned and erudite, even when I thought they were full of shit. But there was more. The Times became — for me, at least — a sort of guide to critical thinking. It helped teach me, at an impressionable age, to weigh the facts before forming an opinion. And many of my opinions — including deeply-held ones — were formed around facts I might have read

Democrats, Step Away from the Ledge

  Anxiety comes easily to Democrats. We’re highly practiced at perceiving a crisis, wanting to fix it immediately, and being consistently frustrated when we can’t. Democrats understand consequences, which is why we always have plenty to worry about. Republicans don’t give a rat’s ass about consequences — which is, let’s face it, their superpower. I wasn’t intending to write about last Thursday’s debate, mostly because I post on Tuesdays, and this could be old news by the time it gets to you. But then the New York Times weighed in with a wildly disingenuous editorial calling for Joe Biden to drop out of the race, and the rest of the mainstream media piled on. In the Times' not-so-humble opinion, Biden needs to consider “the good of the country,” something their own paper has repeatedly failed to do for almost a decade. And since this is now the crisis du jour for virtually every Democrat who watched that shitshow, I thought I might at l