Ted Kennedy and the Right Type of Rich Man
Joseph McHugh
September 07, 2009
My heart goes out to the family and friends of Senator Edward Kennedy. And, as a father myself I take inspiration from Kennedy´s skills as a father, both to his children and the children of his slain brothers.
Of course, the tributes to Kennedy this week have gone far beyond praises for his family diligence. They have included loud encomiums to his political convictions and his commitment to altruistic service.
I watched the ubiquitous Kennedy funeral on television, and one comment made me leap out of my chair with shock.
Father Hession, Kennedy´s parish priest, delivered the homily. He said that in Kennedy´s dying days he and Kennedy ruminated over "The Magnificat" the famous Christian prayer taken from the gospel of Luke. The priest felt the following words from the "Magnificat" were relevant to Kennedy.
"He hath filled the hungry with good things: and the rich he hath sent empty away."
I bolted up in my seat and said: "But Father. Ted Kennedy was a very rich man!"
And then I thought of the audience; no shortage of millionaires in that crowd. The Clintons are not exactly impoverished.
What the hell could Father Hession mean? His words certainly were not a criticism of Kennedy. He was praising him. And why would Kennedy himself admire those words being a very rich man.
Then it occurred to me. There are two kinds of rich men. Kennedy´s wealth is considered perfectly moral because he never worked for it. He was not a man who worked to increase his wealth, or, to live a productive life using his wealth as a springboard.
But there are those who work tirelessly to first earn their wealth and then to keep and expand it. These are the people who live their lives privately. They produce wealth because they enjoy it. They choose jobs that are satisfying to them and that maximize their creative potential. They build skyscrapers, and then look up at them with pride.
These are the people Kennedy and Father Hession disapprove of. In fact Kennedy used to and Obama does attack such people as selfish. Kennedy once observed that the aftermath of 911 was "a time when our entire country is banding together and facing down individualism." This statement must have come as quite a surprise to Islamic fascists living for their mosques.
Kennedy never had the desire or talent to build a skyscraper. Therefore, he was good. Or, maybe he did have the talent and desire but gave it up. That would make him VERY good.
It is not rich men that Kennedy opposed; it is those with a rich private life.
And this is the signature issue of our time: What is more important in a person´s life their private dreams, or their unchosen duties.
We have a president now who completely disparages private living in favor of living for society. His desire is that we all forget ourselves and live for others. Yet few question this position and say, "Why?"
Why are your private hopes and dreams ambition and happiness less important than what others want?
I would guess if Republicans asked this question regularly they would be on the road to victory again.
Of course, the tributes to Kennedy this week have gone far beyond praises for his family diligence. They have included loud encomiums to his political convictions and his commitment to altruistic service.
I watched the ubiquitous Kennedy funeral on television, and one comment made me leap out of my chair with shock.
Father Hession, Kennedy´s parish priest, delivered the homily. He said that in Kennedy´s dying days he and Kennedy ruminated over "The Magnificat" the famous Christian prayer taken from the gospel of Luke. The priest felt the following words from the "Magnificat" were relevant to Kennedy.
"He hath filled the hungry with good things: and the rich he hath sent empty away."
I bolted up in my seat and said: "But Father. Ted Kennedy was a very rich man!"
And then I thought of the audience; no shortage of millionaires in that crowd. The Clintons are not exactly impoverished.
What the hell could Father Hession mean? His words certainly were not a criticism of Kennedy. He was praising him. And why would Kennedy himself admire those words being a very rich man.
Then it occurred to me. There are two kinds of rich men. Kennedy´s wealth is considered perfectly moral because he never worked for it. He was not a man who worked to increase his wealth, or, to live a productive life using his wealth as a springboard.
But there are those who work tirelessly to first earn their wealth and then to keep and expand it. These are the people who live their lives privately. They produce wealth because they enjoy it. They choose jobs that are satisfying to them and that maximize their creative potential. They build skyscrapers, and then look up at them with pride.
These are the people Kennedy and Father Hession disapprove of. In fact Kennedy used to and Obama does attack such people as selfish. Kennedy once observed that the aftermath of 911 was "a time when our entire country is banding together and facing down individualism." This statement must have come as quite a surprise to Islamic fascists living for their mosques.
Kennedy never had the desire or talent to build a skyscraper. Therefore, he was good. Or, maybe he did have the talent and desire but gave it up. That would make him VERY good.
It is not rich men that Kennedy opposed; it is those with a rich private life.
And this is the signature issue of our time: What is more important in a person´s life their private dreams, or their unchosen duties.
We have a president now who completely disparages private living in favor of living for society. His desire is that we all forget ourselves and live for others. Yet few question this position and say, "Why?"
Why are your private hopes and dreams ambition and happiness less important than what others want?
I would guess if Republicans asked this question regularly they would be on the road to victory again.