Customer Reviews

The Last Patrician: Bobby Kennedy and the End of American Aristocracy

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This author has done a fine job of integrating Robert Kennedy into political history that predates him. His descriptions of "Stimsonian politicians" adds a new dimension to the late Senator. Robert Kennedy was a very complex, interesting person and this author, to his credit treats him with respect. This book covers a large period spanning several decades of political ideology without being verbose. It is an excellent book for anyone seriously interested in the political make up of Robert Kennedy.

While not a linear or clear review of his career, this book brings home the essential difference between Bobby and virtually every other politican on the scene since - that he cared deeply and fully about the plight of the poor and the disadvantaged in this country, and of those we rained bombs upon a half a world away. Bobby's death was as significant a shock as I have experienced in my lifetime, and while I grieve for the man I think even more of how radically different things would have been if he had lived. The author eloquently fleshes out what I think was Bobby's most significant strength - that it takes an extraordinary person of exceptional character and spirit to admit his errors, rethink his assumptions and try to change not only the world but himself in the process. There are no Bobby Kennedys on the public scene anymore, and we are a sadder and less vital nation because of it. It's impossible to explain to a person too young to remember, but for many of us i! n our forties and fifties a part of us and of this country died that night....... This is a fine read, answering many questions about the man and asking even more about the reader.

Sen. Bobby Kennedy (D) (NY) 1925-1968, was a complex character; one like his sister-in-law, Jackie Bouvier-Kennedy-Onassis was so fascinating. Both so private-yet you felt and still feel like you knew or know them. We lost a lot the day Bobby died, we lost idealism and thought.

Michael Knox Beran's book is not so much a biography of RFK as it is a political and cultural history of one particular section of American society in the 20th century. His discussion of the great influence of a rather small group of America's elite in shaping the modern administrative and national security state is interesting and insightful, and does not swerve into the conspiracy-theory territory that many who write on this subject find themselves falling into. The writing can sometimes be a bit repetitive and pretentious in tone, but all and all this is a book worth reading. Beran discusses personal histories and serious political theory quite well, and he has created a quite a thought-provoking work.

Robert Francis Kennedy has wrongly been taken by the left wing. This book correctly places him back in the pantheon of classical liberalism, or what is otherwise known in American as a Conservativism. RFK spoke for a fair and free America, but he never understood government as a form of social engineering. Rather, government was there to add fairness to the system, and insure that those who did not have power were not pushed aside, but were granted equal access.

Long before President Bush spoke the words "Compassionate Conservative", RFK was leading the fight. However, with his fall, President Johnson's "Great Society" moved forward and our Republic backwards. The issue of race became taboo. Personal responsibility was not mentioned. All the world embraced dark, and paid no heed to the issues ahead.

I couldn't wait to read this book, and I was not disappointed. Beran is a lively writer who has fun with words; I laughed out loud at his sardonic phrases like "Sinister Capitalist" and his asides (the one about Edie Sedgwick was a hoot). Beran opines, and reading the book is rather like being the listener in a one-sided (yet enjoyable) argument about public policy and American culture. Even so, Beran substantiates his facts with endnotes; we as readers know when Beran stops reporting and starts postulating. That's fair.

One criticism is the editing. I did like Beran's writing style, but the work could have benefitted from an editor with a firm hand. Beran's arguments meander. Occasionally-only very occasionally, though-his spry use of language becomes burdensome rather than engaging for the reader.

The central thesis of this book is a compelling one, as so much of the work on RFK is either hagiography or sensationalism. Beran validily critiques some of the more ridiculous elements of Kennedy's enshrinement as a liberal icon, but errs by oversimplifying some of Kennedy's views as precursors to Reagan's conservative revolution. Pithy, yes. Provacative, yes. But far too simplistic.

The greater problem with the book, however, is Beran's critique of the foreign policy "establishment," which he refers to again and again as "Stimsonian." The book is replete with generalizations, oversimplifications, and unsubstantiated claims regarding much of the foreign policy of the 2nd half of the century. I understand this is an essay about RFK, but because so much of it centers around Beran's understanding (or lack thereof) of the "Stimsonians," more attention should have been paid to fleshing out and explaining some blanket statements made by Beran.

Most egregious was Beran's dismissal of the influence of this group--utterly failing to grasp how truly revolutionary their "internationalist" approach was, and how enduring its impact has been, despite the obvious mistakes in Vietnam.

In addition, while the connection between this group of ""Stimsonians" and RFK is intriguing and not completely without merit, it is also far more tenuous than the author would lead one to believe (one need only refer to the titanic clashes of the world views of "Stimsonian" high priest Dean Acheson and RFK during the Cuban missile crisis to see this).

While this is the most thought-provoking piece on RFK since Garry Wills' Kennedy Imprisonment, and is worth reading, it is best taken with a grain of salt AND an understanding of 20th century foreign policy gleaned elsewhere.

This book is an often strained attempt to claim RFK for small-government conservatives. Any & all of RFK's support for welfare-type programs is dismissed away as not representing RFK's "ture" views; any statement RFK made against the so-called "welfare state" is claimed as RFK being at his most enlightened. There's a case to made here for this thesis, but it's a somewhat weak case, and is especially hard to maintain for the length of the whole book.

Still, this book does provide the service of forcing one to re-think some of the conventional wisdom that has built up around RFK and his family. In that sense, it's worth a read.

Some other notes: I have a post-graduate degree, and this book sent me to the dictionary more times than any book I've read since college. And when the author runs out of big words, he simply coins new ones - such as "Stimsonian." That word is beat to death in the text, without a concise explanation of who Stimson even was.

There's no real new info here - the author is a better stylist than researcher. Even much of the research that is cited is second-hand popular stuff, not really good, hard, academic study. Certain key points are cited with footnotes, but many others go unattributed, meaning that the author is simply speculating & spilling his own ideas out. You may disagree with those ideas, you may agree, but there's no objective source to go to for a lot of what the author is saying here.

A pretty good read, not so good as history.

Robert Francis Kennedy has wrongly been taken by the left wing. This book correctly places him back in the pantheon of classical liberalism, or what is otherwise known in American as a Conservativism. RFK spoke for a fair and free America, but he never understood government as a form of social engineering. Rather, government was there to add fairness to the system, and insure that those who did not have power were not pushed aside, but were granted equal access.

Long before President Bush spoke the words "Compassionate Conservative", RFK was leading the fight. However, with his fall, President Johnson's "Great Society" moved forward and our Republic backwards. The issue of race became taboo. Personal responsibility was not mentioned. All the world embraced dark, and paid no heed to the issues ahead.

Beran makes an interesting case that Bobby Kennedy was the first neo-conservative politician--that he rejected liberalism in his last years due to an embrace of a new, faith-inspired politics. I never have much cared for the Kennedys, but this book made me take a good, long second look at Bobby.