June 5 marks a half-century since Robert Kennedy’s assassination, in the midst of his presidential campaign and a tumultuous 1968 that also claimed civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. just two months earlier. Communication professor John Murphy has written about both Robert Kennedy and his brother President John F. Kennedy. His book “John F. Kennedy and the Liberal Persuasion” will be out early next year. Murphy spoke with News Bureau social sciences editor Craig Chamberlain.
What do you see as the common misperceptions about Robert Kennedy?
He has become an oddly ambiguous figure. People remember Robert Kennedy as the noble young prince or as a nasty political operative. He is John Kennedy’s brother, Lyndon Johnson’s rival or Joseph Kennedy’s son. Scholars, biographers and pundits have portrayed him as both a leftist radical and a conservative. He is too seldom remembered or discussed as a public figure in his own right, through his own words and deeds.
What made Kennedy controversial?
He believed deeply in direct, personal responsibility for the nation’s policies and actions. He once said of the Vietnam War: “It is we who live in abundance and send our young men out to die. It is our chemicals that scorch the children and our bombs that level the villages.” Blunt words such as these made him controversial. He did not talk like other politicians. When a medical student asked him who would pay for national health insurance, he responded, “You will.” His style and tone often made people uncomfortable, and I suspect he meant to do that.
What stands out to you in his speaking style and the core aspects of his message?
Based on my study of politics and political rhetoric, I’m very impressed by how much he improved over the course of his life. He began as a political operative, working behind the scenes, and gradually assumed a greater public role. He also never stopped learning.
More than most politicians, he listened to people from all walks of life and tried to imagine the world from their point of view. His ability to speak on behalf of others and in ways they could understand were important core aspects of his message. Even as he did so, however, he still held people accountable for their choices. He held himself accountable as well.
Would any of that style, or those themes, work today?
If by “work,” we mean success at winning elections, I am not sure. He would have hated the double talk. But if by “work,” we mean this sort of talk is needed now, the answer is definitely yes.