Ted Kennedy's shamelessness

Even in his last hours, Kennedy was ever the Machiavellian prince. When I read the first part of this Taranto piece to my wife, who's not as political as me, she quipped "These people are like children; they never grew up." Well, yeah, and I guess that their parents are to be found among the citizenry they govern who bear the brunt of their childishness.

Kennedy's shamelessness in urging repeal of a law he himself pushed for was either appalling or admirable, depending on your point of view. To conservatives, it was a pure partisan power play: Kennedy favored whatever gave Democrats a tactical advantage, procedural fairness be damned. To liberals, however, it was an act of idealism: Kennedy had spent a career trying to advance "universal health care"—which to him and them is a matter of basic justice—and the Bay State vacancy could make the difference between ObamaCare's passing or failing. To our mind, the conservatives have the better of the argument, though we must concede that Kennedy's motives likely did have an ideological component as well as a partisan one.

It's also true, as Michael Barone has observed, that "all procedural arguments are insincere, including this one." One could argue that Kennedy's brazenly instrumentalist appeal to Beacon Hill has the virtue of honesty. But democracy depends on procedural fairness and the appearance of procedural fairness, even if all political players have ulterior motives whenever they promote such fairness. By this standard, Kennedy's effort to change the Massachusetts law without even a pretense of concern for fairness was objectionable, and that is true even if we are objecting insincerely.

This is why it's called a machine. Republican in office? throw this switch. Democrat in office? pull it back. Just like a friggin' railroad.