RFK and social conservatism

What is the context of this assertion which we see continually on this forum? Because having a personal (as opposed to a political) opposition to abortion does not a social conservative make. (I assume this is the basis on which this claim is made; something which blissfully ignores the fact that even Ted Kennedy held the same position.) If that makes a social conservative, then I am a social conservative. Most people on the forum probably are. This is not a very convincing position.

Kennedy died before the whole social debate, not just in the Democrats but in America, progressed in the 70's after, eg, Roe etc. As such, locating him as a social conservative on today's spectrum is an excercise in epic pointlessness. You may as well say that LBJ or FDR was a social conservative. Shit, by this kind of thinking, William Jennings Bryan was one of the most socially conservative politicians in American history. A totally limited, anachronistic, and silly analysis.



In other words, a mainstream Democrat?

The problem with this question is that so many people on this forum on both sides of the spectrum insist on viewing 'real' Democrats as left-wing, when in fact this is a nonsense. I don't see anything which substantially differentiates Kennedy from - say - Carter in policy terms. Centrist Democrats are not some kind of factional clique, they are, both in historical and contemporary terms, one of, if not the main bodies of the party.


Here is where I disagree: If you read Evan Thomas's biography of RFK, you learn very quickly he was extremely religious and a staunch moralist. He was also a homophobe, though that was more a general discomfort than any sort of anger. So I don't know for sure if Kennedy was a social conservative. However one could easily see him as one.

On economic issues, yes he would be a mainstream Democrat in today's party. But if you read the party platform of 1976 you see a very liberal party indeed. They wanted to keep price control in place and dramatically expand the size of government. Carter didn't follow this plan, and was the first New Democrat elected President. Clinton followed his mold and really brought the party into the 21st Century. Obama has stayed on that track. So yes, he was a mainstream Democrat in today's world on many issues, but more socially conservative than most.
 
Here is where I disagree: If you read Evan Thomas's biography of RFK, you learn very quickly he was extremely religious and a staunch moralist. He was also a homophobe, though that was more a general discomfort than any sort of anger.

I can only echo Magniac's earlier 'no shit' pronouncement on law-and-order; there is nothing remotely surprising about someone of RFK's generation being homophobic, be they on any point on the political spectrum, nor is it particularly surprising that he was a moral black-and-white type given his personality and background.

If you want to argue for Kennedy being a political out-and-out social conservative, (as opposed to simply being on the right of his party on the issue) then you have to show that this would have driven him to define him as such when these points became politically live after his death. Nobody can do that, because it's impossible to know how Kennedy would have reacted and developed to changed political circumstances. All we can really judge him on are the issues of the time, which he does not seem distinctive or surprising on.

Kennedy being those things you mention doesn't make for a cast-iron recipe of him as a political social conservative, anymore than the first two did in, e.g, Tony Blair's case.
 
Last edited:
Which is exactly the point I made: most politicians of both sides before the mid-1970s or so were by our "guns, gays, gynecology" (E.J. Dionne) definition, social conservatives. The distinctiveness is on economic and social welfare policy.
 

JoeMulk

Banned
Kind of ironic that by modern standards Barry Goldwater was probably one of the few truly socially liberal politicians of his era.
 
Libertarianism doesn't mean social liberalism, as many pro-choicers would tell you.

True, but abortion was not the only 'social issue' in which Goldwater would be in disagreement with much of his party. Nonetheless, your underlying point stands; social liberalism is an interventionist philosophy, much like social conservatism is perceived as being.
 
Which is exactly the point I made: most politicians of both sides before the mid-1970s or so were by our "guns, gays, gynecology" (E.J. Dionne) definition, social conservatives. The distinctiveness is on economic and social welfare policy.

Which makes me think: how would have a surviving RFK dealt with the rise of the 3 G's of the 70's? I mean, as you've pointed out in countless TLs, Bobby had a more unconventional relationship with Catholicism than his brothers, but does he become more of a Edward or more of a Sargent Shriver type? I mean, from my limited knowledge of it, it could go in a host of different directions.

Also, I'd think an RFK victory in, say, '68 would mean no McGovern reforms to the extent we see in OTL, so there might be more control by the old-style bosses, who seem less likely to actually care about the issue on a national level one way or another. Roe is likely to happen, IMHO - all the justices that voted for it are still likely around, and not even Bobby can't make a Supreme change their mind about something - but with a different set of people running things - I'm not counting Kennedy - you could have a different Democratic Party than we know, love or loathe today. So Kennedy could have an indirect effect on the social issues positions of the Democrats, without actually intending to influence anything either way, simply by butterflying away some of the party's organizational changes.

Though I must point out that the abortion movement was present before Roe v. Wade, but it was more of a state-by-state issue, as opposed to a federal one. The debate was there - Roe just federalized the issue. IIRC - I don't have the book right now - Bobby was ambivalent about the abortion bill in NY, though.

My own, limited-knowledge conclusion: The abortion debate would still be there, liberals generally will support it, conservatives not, but it may not be as polarized, with more significant minorities of dissenting views in both parties. RFK himself, I don't know - there's convincing evidence he could go either way on the issue - but his effect comes less from whatever he would come to believe as how a victory would mean for Democratic organizational structure - after all, a leadership exemplified by the Richard Daleys of this world won't have abortion as a high priority issue.
 
Last edited:
Which is exactly the point I made: most politicians of both sides before the mid-1970s or so were by our "guns, gays, gynecology" (E.J. Dionne) definition, social conservatives.

Oh, of course there's a lot of truth in that. One would have to be living under a rock in 2011 to deny that most successful Western politicians from before the 1980s don't fit with our social mores very well.

The distinctiveness is on economic and social welfare policy.

(a.) When people here started making their grand pronouncements about RFK's ideology they at first couldn't even be bothered mentioning either the end of the Keynesian era or the rise of the Washington Consensus (let alone the end of the Cold War) when it comes to putting Kennedy's 'centrism' into context. Yes, he died these things came about, but if one wants to say he was Clintonian one must first explore the different policy objectives of senior Democratic pols from the varying eras. For example, how can RFK be a Clinton New Democrat when Clintonian New Democracy ended up being revised so drastically after WJC's first two years in office? What on earth does 'New Democrat' mean in the historical record? The original project that was supported by the likes of Robert Reich and Senator Bill Bradley, or the final version which eventually lead to the interparty deathroll of the late nineties and early noughties?

(b.) With one sentence I refuted the implication* that RFK's personal attitude & voting record RE welfare is identical to Clintons.

That's not hard to do. We should do more things like that on threads discussing history. It keeps us one out toes. Do it to me, I'm a big boy, I can handle adult debate.

*I do think the implication was there in what Norton wrote, i.e. "RFK and Bubba on welfare policy--peas in a pod, as everyone knows", though if he reckons I'm being unfair to him then I apologise--after all his analysis was pretty off-the-cuff, not that there's anything wrong with that, we're all like that occasionally.
 
Top