In New York: Kennedy

The bedlam of the Kennedy-Keating battle has obscured a central question: who would best represent New York in the United State Senate?

Robert Kennedy has come to New York after service to the nation as Attorney Gneral and as President Kennedy's chosen deputy. In both roles he has performed well.

As Attorney General he fought had for the Civil Rights bill. Occassionally he made a mistake in strategy--bowing too easily to what he considered the political reality; but his commitment never wavered. He did more than any Attorney General in history to make America's legal system responsive to the needs of the indigent. He concerned himself with the complex problem of urban poverty through his promotion of social experiments like New York's Haryou-Act. When he limited the FBI's activities to investigation instead of prosecution, he succeeded where his predecessors had failed.

In the White House

As chief deputy of the President he involved himself in both national and international problems. During the Cuban missile crisis, according to Averell Harriman, Robert Kennedy's was the single most responsible voice. When others in the National Security Council favored a full-scale bombing of Cuba, Kennedy strongly favored the eventually successful blockade.

Not all of his actions have been as admirable. The wire tapping bill he supported (and to his credit later repudiated) conflicted sharply with his strong support of civil liberties. Often he performed his role of Administration hatchet man with an excess of energy--particularly in his treatment of the executives responsible for the steel price rise and in his relentless, seemingly ruthless, drive to convict James Hoffa. But the assassination coupled with a period of introspection have left him more subdued.

On the whole, his has been a record of achievement and promise. Unfortunately so far in his campaign he has not shown his usual frankness. He has not defined his own positions; he has merely argued the Administration's viewpoint. Time still remains before the election for him to express his own views clearly and unmistakably.

The New York Tradition

Although Kennedy's record has received much attention, Kenneth Keating's has not. Keating, an amiable man and capable politician has never stood in New York's tradition of distinguished Senators like Senator Wagner and Herbert Lehman. He has not even gained eminence as a spokesman for liberal Republicanism as have Senators Javits, Kuchel, and Case. On only one issue--the Cuban missile crisis--has Keating come to the forefront; and then at the expense of responsibility.

Sometimes irresponsibility has marked his Senate campaign too. In a race overburdened by appeals to ethnic groups, Keating has urged Isreal's admission to NATO, insinuated that Kennedy has Nazi sympathies, and accused Kennedy of deliberately impuning Italian character by his handling of the Valachi testimony.

Admittedly Keating has an attendance record bettered only by Margaret Chase Smith and a voting record adequate for a moderate Republican. But New York deserves more. It deserves a Senator who, unlike Keating, would vote for federal aid to education and housing, who would have supported the Kefauver bill to protect the public from dangerous and overpriced drugs despite pressure from New York's numerous large pharmaceutical companies. It deserves a Senator whose voice would be raised and whose presence felt on essential issues both domestic and international

Kennedy could be such a Senator.

The Sources of Bedlam

The Republican campaign against Kennedy has centered on three issues: that he is a carpetbagger, that he alledgedly sees New York only as a step up the ladder toward his Presidential ambitions, and that his election would ostensibly renew the strength of Democratic party bosses.

That Kennedy cannot vote in New York does mean he does not understand its problems. Today the entire Northeastern seabord shares the same crises--urban blight, overcongestion, rising crime rates, and a lack of adequate transportation. The problems of Boston and Washington differ only in size and complexity not in kind. New York, never a bastion of provincialism, should welcome the best talent available, and Robert Kennedy in his role of a proponent for a mass transportation bill and for new approaches to the attack on poverty showed a fundamental understanding a megalopolis. Homegrown mediocrity is not substitute for imported excellence.

A Question of Ambition

Certainly Robert Kennedy is an ambitious man, but so are most politicians, though most display less candor than he. But ambition does not preclude excellence; if anything, it encourages it. Kennedy knows very well that should he ever seek the Presidency he must amass a Senate record of extraordinary strength. He must represent his nation and his state as best he can.

When Kennedy originally expressed interest in running, the first to support him were New York's Democratic party bosses--Buckley, Steingut, English, Powell and Crotty. But he declined to enter under their aegis--pledging instead that he would battle for continued party democratization and reform. In no way has he reneged or indicated he might renege on his promise.

The Republican charges do not undercut Kennedy's achievements nor do they demonstrate why he should not represent New York in the Senate.

The Future of Republianism

Despite Keating's competent but mediocre record many liberals plan to support him in order to preserve moderate Republicanism. Unquestionably moderation in the Republican party should be encouraged. But liberals should remember that his failure to support Goldwater in a state with an overwhelmingly moderate electorate smacks more of common sense than principle. They should also remember all the rhetoric to the contrary, that Keating's reelection will not save the Republican party; for neither are presidential candidates chosen nor party organizations maintained on the floor of the Senate. Even if Keating is defeated, New York's Republican party will remain firmly under the control of men like Senator Javits and Governor Rockefeller. Keating's defeat would be almost meaningless in terms of national politics, for a Senator from New York does not control power within the party hierarchy.

New York's choice, then, is not between brash youth and experience nor residence and non-residence, but between mediocrity and the possibility of excellence. New York's choice should be Robert Kennedy.