Analysis of Ted Kennedy's Chappaquiddick Speech

2078 Words5 Pages

A young man sits solemnly at a desk in front of a wall full of books, holding eye contact with the camera for the briefest of moments before lowering his eyes to the papers before him and beginning his speech. The young man is Ted Kennedy, and the speech he is about to share with the camera and with his viewers will come to be known as the Chappaquiddick speech. Following the car crash that claimed the life of Mary Jo Kopechne, and the court cases, the speech was intended to tell Kennedy's side of the story. He wished to explain his actions to the nation and to seek forgiveness from his people. The speech was televised at 7:30 pm on July 25, 1969, broadcast live from Kennedy's father's library, and reached the roughly 96% of American homes with televisions.

Before this semester, I had not even heard of the Chappaquiddick speech. Every year of school, my history classes covered colonial times and moved up through the 1950's and very early 1960's, at which point most of the students (and teachers, for that matter) were too worried about summer vacation to really care much about what was being taught. I first viewed the speech in my Persuasion class, as an example of pentadic ratios. My professor prefaced the speech with only a brief explanation of the events leading up to it, and was careful to keep his language neutral and unbiased, so that we could develop our own opinions. Throughout the entire eleven minutes, I was mostly skeptical of his language. I couldn't be sure, however, if this was because I live in a world of doublespeak, where even the “good” politicians aren't to be trusted. I found myself wondering if people bought into the speech, or if even at the time, people had this much skepticism regarding their leaders. One...

... middle of paper ...

...not likely to do so in the future. The important part, however, is what the people will remember—namely, the impact that it had on Ted Kennedy, Ted Kennedy's Chappaquiddick speech, and probably the fact that Ted Kennedy was neither imprisoned nor forced to give up his seat. Mary Jo Kopechne will fade from memory, not quite a side note in the narrative, but close to it. This is the significant erasure. At best, Kopechne will be remembered as a dead girl; at worst, an unfortunate blemish on the history of a successful senator. Her story will never be as well-known as Kennedy's, if only for the simple fact that she was not given a ten-minute televised broadcast during prime time one night. Because the victim has been erased from the crime, the crime no longer exists, at least in the mind of the general public, and life can go on as usual for those in positions of power.

Open Document