Speculation as to who will succeed Ted Kennedy is proceeding apace, with his nephew, former Congressman Joseph Kennedy II, the likely frontrunner in the January 19 special election. The eldest son of Robert Kennedy, Joe held the House seat once occupied by his uncle John and House Speaker Tip O’Neill, representing Boston from 1987 until 1999. If he does run, Kennedy would start with a financial disadvantage. The $1.8 million he has leftover in his campaign account is significantly smaller than the war chests amassed by other potential contenders; Massachusetts congressman Richard Neal has $2.5 million in the bank while Ed Markey is sitting on $2.9 million. Meanwhile, former representative Marty Meehan--who retired in 2007 to assume the Chancellorship of the University of Massachusetts at Lowell--has nearly $5 million. But what Kennedy may lack in funds he makes up for in something of far greater political value: his last name. The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza writes that Kennedy “would almost certainly have the right of first refusal since the seat has been in his family almost without a break” since 1952. But let’s leave the obvious question of nepotism aside for now. The real reason why Kennedy shouldn’t assume his late uncle’s seat is that he’s spent the past four years doing business with and supporting one of the worst authoritarians in the Western hemisphere.
After retiring from Congress in 1999, Kennedy returned to Massachusetts to retake the helm of Citizens Energy. He founded the non-profit two decades earlier, in the wake of the worldwide energy crisis. The idea was to negotiate down oil prices with for-profit ventures in Latin American and Africa so that the poorest Massachusetts residents could heat their homes during the winter. The first country that the group signed with, in 1979, was Venezuela.
Fast forward to November 2005. Venezuela is ruled by the anti-American demagogue Hugo Chavez, a man who has cracked down on his country’s independent media, aided FARC narco-terrorists, formed strategic alliances with a host of rogue states, tried to rewrite his country’s constitution to allow him to serve forever, politicized the judiciary, deployed anti-Semitic and homophobic rhetoric, and used violence against his political opponents. (For the best summation of Chavez’s totalitarian ethos, see Enrique Krauze’s review-essay “The Shah of Venezuela.”) That month, Kennedy signed a deal with Citgo, the American subsidiary of Venezuela’s state-owned petroleum company, to supply twelve million gallons of heating oil to more than 40,000 low-income Massachusetts residents (the program has since expanded to include residents of 16 states). It was the first time that such an arrangement had been hammered out between a foreign government and a state, and earned praise from some unlikely sources, like then-Republican Governor Mitt Romney. “I’m delighted to hear we’ll be able to purchase oil at a lower price than the market for our citizens,” the famous free-marketer told The Boston Globe. (As much as it may be a noble venture, Citizens Energy also appears to be something of a vanity project for Kennedy. The organization’s hotline is “1-877-JOE-4OIL,” and its website is replete with campaign-style photographs of Kennedy helping the poor and elderly. He also stars in the charity’s ubiquitous television commercials in which he thanks “our friends in Venezuela.”).
By shuttling oil to the underprivileged, Chavez was deliberately mimicking his hero Fidel Castro, who has sent Cuban doctors throughout the world as a supposed sign of international good will. But Chavez made no bones about the real motivations underlying his “oil diplomacy”: “It is a card that we are going to play with toughness against the toughest country in the world, the United States,” he told an Argentinean newspaper. And he found willing accomplices in Joe Kennedy and his erstwhile colleague Bill Delahunt, the congressman from Quincy, Massachusetts, who helped orchestrate the deal. In 2005, Delahunt authored a “confidential memorandum” to Chavez, in which he advised the Venezuelan strongman that his offering discounted oil to low-income Americans “is an extraordinary opportunity to address urgent needs of people living in poverty, while showcasing the compassion of your nation.”
Kennedy portrays his arrangement as if it did not negatively affect America’s prestige and regional interests. But Chavez remains one of the greatest obstacles to economic development and democracy in the southern hemisphere; just months before signing his deal with Kennedy, Chavez formed the PetroCaribe pact, an alliance of Latin American countries meant to serve as a counterweight to the United States. Kennedy also ignores how Chavez’s international grandstanding tightens his domestic stranglehold and worsens the welfare of Venezuela’s people. It’s not as if giving away billions of dollars of discounted oil doesn’t cost Chavez’s countrymen, who have grown more destitute as a result of his ruinous economic policies (today, oil counts for almost 100 percent of Venezuela’s exports, and revenues have declined steadily with the drop in crude prices). Nor is Citizens Energy’s Venezuela scheme an option of last resort; there are other ways that low-income Massachusetts residents can get subsidized heating oil without empowering an anti-American autocrat. The government of Massachusetts, for instance, has a heating assistance program, and state power companies run a Good Neighbor Energy Fund to help those in need.
It would be one thing for Kennedy to rationalize his dealings with Chavez on utilitarian grounds (though the existence of the previously mentioned programs seems to weaken even that argument). But Kennedy has gone out of his way to defend and even praise Chavez, telling The Wall Street Journal in 2006 that the caudillo has done “so much more” for his country’s poor than any prior leader. (“Neither official statistics nor independent estimates show any evidence that Chavez has reoriented state priorities to benefit the poor,” the former Chief Economist of the Venezuelan National Assembly wrote in Foreign Affairs last year). As for concerns about Chavez’s assault on democracy, Kennedy drew a moral equivalence between the manifold abuses of the Chavista regime and our own government, saying that there’s “ample room for improvement in the ways that people get elected in Venezuela as well as in Florida.” That same year, he told The Washington Post that his deal with Chavez was “morally righteous.”
The great irony here is that John and Robert Kennedy were staunch anti-communists who believed in the robust assertion of American values abroad. As president, Kennedy established the Alliance for Progress, an aid program intended to serve as a bulwark against the communist infiltration of Latin America. According to Thor Halvorssen, president of the Human Rights Foundation, which monitors Latin America, “What Joe Kennedy has done both in Venezuela and in the United States to whitewash the crimes of Hugo Chavez goes against everything his family members valued.” And that, much more so than nepotism, should disqualify him from the Senate.
James Kirchick is an assistant editor of The New Republic.
Print
COMMENTS (9)
I recall the deal that Joe Kennedy cut with that thug, Hugo Chavez Frias. Kennedy should not have Teddy's seat. Let his widow have it in the interim, or the Duke.
I recall the deal that Joe Kennedy cut with that thug, Hugo Chavez Frias. Kennedy should not have Teddy's seat. Let his widow have it in the interim, or the Duke.
Joe, say it ain't so: especially championing the guy.
Joe?
Joe??
Joe???
Uh Joe, you there or what?
Joe, say it ain't so: especially championing the guy.
Joe?
Joe??
Joe???
Uh Joe, you there or what?
"But Chavez remains one of the greatest obstacles to economic development and democracy in the southern hemisphere; just months before signing his deal with Kennedy, Chavez formed the PetroCaribe pact, an alliance of Latin American countries meant to serve as a counterweight to the United States."
There's something profoundly depressing about the presumption of a logical argument in the foregoing. Why on earth should the lack of a counterweight to the U.S. help further economic development and democracy, or the presence of one impede them? History doesn't suggest that unbalanced American influence has always been a source of happiness and light in Latin America.
"But Chavez remains one of the greatest obstacles to economic development and democracy in the southern hemisphere; just months before signing his deal with Kennedy, Chavez formed the PetroCaribe pact, an alliance of Latin American countries meant to serve as a counterweight to the United States."
There's something profoundly depressing about the presumption of a logical argument in the foregoing. Why on earth should the lack of a counterweight to the U.S. help further economic development and democracy, or the presence of one impede them? History doesn't suggest that unbalanced American influence has always been a source of happiness and light in Latin America.
"The government of Massachusetts, for instance, has a heating assistance program, and state power companies run a Good Neighbor Energy Fund to help those in need."
LIHEAP regularly runs out of money (as do the equivalents in other northeastern states) and GNEF involves appeals to the Salvation Army. Chavez may be making propaganda out of the CitGo assistance, but that doesn't mask the criminal lack of assistance to poor people in states where lack of heat in the winter can actually kill you.
"The government of Massachusetts, for instance, has a heating assistance program, and state power companies run a Good Neighbor Energy Fund to help those in need."
LIHEAP regularly runs out of money (as do the equivalents in other northeastern states) and GNEF involves appeals to the Salvation Army. Chavez may be making propaganda out of the CitGo assistance, but that doesn't mask the criminal lack of assistance to poor people in states where lack of heat in the winter can actually kill you.
The full WaPo quote about moral righteousness..
"Kennedy added that there was an element of good business sense about Venezuela's assistance.
"It's not only morally righteous, it's good business," he said, "when you're selling the world's largest market a gigantic percentage of your overall sales in crude oil, to take a little percentage and show that . . . you have concerns about how low-income people are going to keep up with the enormous price of keeping warm." "
----------------
And here's the context (using the term loosely) around the "so much more" quote...
We [the WSJ] dialed Joe-4-Oil ourselves to ask directly whether it is also "righteous" to assist an anti-American tyrant at the ... view full comment
The full WaPo quote about moral righteousness..
"Kennedy added that there was an element of good business sense about Venezuela's assistance.
"It's not only morally righteous, it's good business," he said, "when you're selling the world's largest market a gigantic percentage of your overall sales in crude oil, to take a little percentage and show that . . . you have concerns about how low-income people are going to keep up with the enormous price of keeping warm." "
----------------
And here's the context (using the term loosely) around the "so much more" quote...
We [the WSJ] dialed Joe-4-Oil ourselves to ask directly whether it is also "righteous" to assist an anti-American tyrant at the expense of the Venezuelan people. In between berating our reporter for daring to ask such a thing, Mr. Kennedy said that Mr. Chávez has done "so much more" for the poor than any previous government. As for democracy, he said there was "ample room for improvement in the ways that people get elected in Venezuela as well as in Florida." Mr. Chávez chose his partner well."
-------------
Right. Resurrect and paraphrase a 3-year old hatchet job. Now THAT's reporting.
I wonder what other prominent political figures had close relationships with unsavory anti-democratic regimes? And maybe used that relationship to nudge the price of oil?
When it comes to oil, when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. At least Kennedy was using the relationship to do some good.
Sounds like he's a chip off his grandfather's block. That's not a compliment.
Sounds like he's a chip off his grandfather's block. That's not a compliment.
Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth. Chavez is willing to sell heating oil for lower prices to underprivlaged US families. This is oil that he could sell on the open market, at higher value, but chooses not to. As a result, rather than getting money that bolsters his regime, he gets less money, but some ephemeral goodwill. That goodwill generally means nothing in the US (Are we really scared, ready to fight a Cold War with Venezuela?) but keeps some dollars out of his pocket that could be used by his regime to do the various nasty things he does. How is this a bad thing? He's essentially giving us his only major natural resource for nothing. Not all of it mind you, but a dece ... view full comment
Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth. Chavez is willing to sell heating oil for lower prices to underprivlaged US families. This is oil that he could sell on the open market, at higher value, but chooses not to. As a result, rather than getting money that bolsters his regime, he gets less money, but some ephemeral goodwill. That goodwill generally means nothing in the US (Are we really scared, ready to fight a Cold War with Venezuela?) but keeps some dollars out of his pocket that could be used by his regime to do the various nasty things he does. How is this a bad thing? He's essentially giving us his only major natural resource for nothing. Not all of it mind you, but a decent amount. This is a bad thing? When Cuban doctors go overseas, are those that the doctors heal less well than those healed by other doctors? Hardly. Those doctors do good, and any propoganda victory is ephemeral and meaningless, or has meaning because when Cuba does something good (sends doctors to help people) it looks good. Bravo, parade in Havana! Seriously, this is the worst kind of "Us vs. Them" (Read Scoblic's excellent work) nonsense foreign policy. Why does Venezuela need to be a mortal enemy? It's Venezuela! It's like Superman ignoring Lex Luthor to focus on a petty thief. We should all be so scared of PetroCaribe.
Chavez, by virtue of over a century of US overreaching in Latin America that has angered local sentiment to the collossus to the north, only gains in popularity when he stands up to the Yanqui hordes. However, given that he seems likely to harm local economic development, which might naturally lower his popularity. Giving him the anti-American crutch that a clenched fist provides seems to be the worst possible strategy to actually deal with Chavez, a tin pot dictator in a 3rd World County that is no threat whatever to the United States.
I'm late to this party, but Kirchick is indeed rehashing a story by Mona Charen in that reputable journalistic organ, jewishworldreview.com, from about 2 years ago. And it's a lousy story to rehash. The statement is essentially that Joe Kennedy and the low-income families that benefit from the low-cost oil from Venezuela are enabling Chavez and his band of America-hating Commies. So, yes, poor person, be a patriot and freeze your tuchus off for the American Way!
The truth is a little more subtle. Joe Kennedy founded Citizen's Energy in 1979, 20 years or so before Chavez, and found Venezuela a willing partner. In fact, the willing partner. MA and other states in the Northeast do, as Kirc ... view full comment
I'm late to this party, but Kirchick is indeed rehashing a story by Mona Charen in that reputable journalistic organ, jewishworldreview.com, from about 2 years ago. And it's a lousy story to rehash. The statement is essentially that Joe Kennedy and the low-income families that benefit from the low-cost oil from Venezuela are enabling Chavez and his band of America-hating Commies. So, yes, poor person, be a patriot and freeze your tuchus off for the American Way!
The truth is a little more subtle. Joe Kennedy founded Citizen's Energy in 1979, 20 years or so before Chavez, and found Venezuela a willing partner. In fact, the willing partner. MA and other states in the Northeast do, as Kirchick points out, have heating assistance programs, but they have limited resources, much less than the need each winter. If Joe does what Kirchick and jewishworldreview.com want, then the revenue lost from the abandonment of the program will not be made up from the states. It will just be that much less available to low-income residents.
Charity should be nonpolitical. If Chavez, for whom I have no love, is willing to continue to give up treasure to score political points, fine if it helps people that will not be helped by their own government. Kudos to Kennedy for exploiting that. Kennedy, whether it's to show off or whatever, has found a cause and is doing something to help his less fortunate brethren in MA. Kirchick and Charen, much like her colleagues at the National review, have nothing to say to those that find the winter a life-threatening prospect...except "let them eat coal", perhaps.
If only Joe Kennedy had the brass pair that his benefactor Chavez has. If when Chavez bragged about his goal of embarrassing American policy Joe had said something of the order of, "I know he's a son of a bitch, and I think overall he and his policies are bad for both the hemsphere and the world, but I'll take cheap oil from him," this whole episode would be another matter. If Joe Kennedy though has anything bad to say about Chavez (and I recall a TV commercial a few years ago where he seemed to say a lot good about him) I have not heard it.
I hope he doesn't run. I really do.
If only Joe Kennedy had the brass pair that his benefactor Chavez has. If when Chavez bragged about his goal of embarrassing American policy Joe had said something of the order of, "I know he's a son of a bitch, and I think overall he and his policies are bad for both the hemsphere and the world, but I'll take cheap oil from him," this whole episode would be another matter. If Joe Kennedy though has anything bad to say about Chavez (and I recall a TV commercial a few years ago where he seemed to say a lot good about him) I have not heard it.
I hope he doesn't run. I really do.