Book Review:
Camelot’s End: Kennedy vs. Carter and the Fight That Broke the Democratic Party
by Jon Ward, John Pruden
Covering what is now a historical period, which encompassed the presidential nomination contest between Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy, this book eerily mirrors today’s Democratic party with its familiar establishment versus progressive tensions. Jon Ward provides an interwoven exposé of two very different persons, from their family backgrounds to their approach to governing. Each learned to survive in the political world he grew up in. Both were ambitious, and each pursued his advancement in different ways as fit his own personality.
The procedural changes in the early 1970s, that allowed George McGovern to secure the Democratic nomination in 1972 and Jimmy Carter to do the same in 1976, played a role in the relationship between Carter and Kennedy in 1980 when Carter was the incumbent president. Comparing those events with an earlier period in which party bosses negotiated in the proverbial smoke filled rooms, the author speculates about the downside of too much democracy, citing Donald Trump’s incitement of racist and xenophobic elements to wrench the 2016 nomination from the Republican establishment. Carter had won the popular vote in the 1980 primary, and the nomination to run for re-election. Kennedy had eventually hunkered down with only the carry over staff from his father’s and brother’s campaigns—mostly older men who were ill equipped to manage under the new Democratic party rules. Would it have really been better to return to the old ways? All things considered, I think not! Certainly not now in the 21st Century—a democratically run primary process is the only way the Democrats can self-correct with greatly needed new blood. The skills needed are those that communicate with voters, who are not as clueless as some campaigns appear to think they are.
At different points in 1979 and 1980, the nomination and likely the presidency were Carter’s or Kennedy’s to lose. In the end, the both stumbled in ways that ensured neither of them would win in the general election. Kennedy’s health care plans would have to wait for the election of Barack Obama in 2008. Although Carter had actually achieved the deal with Iran for the release of the hostages, he was out of office by the time they returned home and Ronald Reagan took credit for Carter’s accomplishment. The whole series of episodes was like a Shakespearean tragedy—Camelot’s end indeed.
Kennedy’s less than stellar character was a perennial campaign issue, and in spite of his seeming preachiness Carter had his moral failings as well (though of a different nature). Today we’re on the flip side of that coin with the Republican base embracing the documented sexual predator in the White House, apparently believing he will in the end protect them from the monsters they fear—while in 1980 the progressive base of the Democratic party viscerally wanted Ted Kennedy to be president in spite of his cheating in college, the tragic death of a young woman in a car he abandoned, and his infamous personal behavior somewhat similar to that of Trump today, expecting that the senator would deliver for them more progressive policies that President Carter had little enthusiasm for.
Does character count in political office? The honest answer is probably “only if it delivers the desired results.” We should be candid with ourselves about that.
—