n the latest issue of Harper's magazine, Lewis H. Lapham was critical of The New York Times for dismissing Ralph Nader as a serious candidate and relegating him to the status of a spoiler.
In short, the position of the Times was that Ralph Nader is not to be considered a serious candidate because he cannot win. On the other hand, he has been successful in raising large sums of money and getting himself and his party on the ballot in 25 states and in polling as high as 6 percent.
This leads me to address the candidacy of Jack E. Robinson. I know of no one who considers him a serious candidate.
The leadership of the Massachusetts Republican party has repudiated him. He has beeen totally unsuccessful in raising money. He has offered no platform or series of issues to engage public interest or gain support. Nevertheless, his candidacy has been applauded by those who think it is a good idea in general for Senator Edward M. Kennedy to have an opponent. This is the thesis that I should like to question.
Kennedy has served the people of Massachusetts ably, indeed superby, for the past 37 years, and through the passage of those years has emerged as the most effective member of the United States Senate. Whether you agree with all of his positions or not, no one can question the contributions he has made to the Commonwealth.
If he had been opposed to the Big Dig, for example, it would not exist. If he had been less sympathetic to the financing of the Big Dig, then it would almost certainly be left unfinished.
When a member of the Congress has been as consistently helpful to his state and the nation as Ted Kennedy has been, why is it desirable to put him through the test of running for office each time his term ends?
I offer two cautionary examples. Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn, who entered the Congress in 1912, won reelection over opponents until 1940, after which he ran unopposed for the next 20 years, except for 1946. Then he faced a derisory opponent who forced him to reduce his involvement in the national campaign, even though he was speaker of the House and had major national responsibilities.
After winning reelection by 93.7 percent, Rayburn called together leaders of his district who had encouraged his opponent. He told them that if they ever ran someone against him again, he would resign and leave the people of his district to decide if they and the state of Texas could do better with a freshman congressman. Thereafter he ran unopposed.
I was asked by a totally unknown aspirant Republican for the seat of Tip O'Neill, then speaker of the House of Representatives, to support his candidacy. Given my record as a Democrat, I could not imagine why he would ask me, except as a further expression of his political naivete.
I tried to explain to him - slowly, of course - that no matter who he was, whether Republcian or Democrat, I would vote against him simply because no freshman congressman has the power, influence or capacity to help the people of Massachsusetts that a veteran Congressman has. And no veteran of the House has the power to help his constituency and the Commownealth that the speaker of the House has.
Tip O'Neill had no difficulty in winning reelection, of course, but he had to accept the burden of running for office even though his opponent was totally unfit.
These two examples illustrate why I was pleased when Governor Cellucci refused to endorse Jack E. Robinson, and why I am not impressed by those who have suggested it is a good thing to put Kennedy through his paces by forcing him to run for reelection against an opponent no one takes seriously.
Kennedy can be of greater help to the people of Massachusetts by devoting his attention to national issues in Congress and on the campaign trail than by spending time showing the people of Massachusetts that he cares about them by engaging in a time-consuming reelection campaign.
Kennedy has shown his dedication to the people of Massachusetts in each of the 37 years he has been in the Senate, and he will continue to do so after he is reelected. Thereafter, perhaps the people of Massachusetts will heed the advice of the late Sam Rayburn and permit a distinguished senator, a proven friend to the people of Massachusetts, to run for office unopposed unless a highly credible candidate steps forward.
John Silber is chancellor of Boston University.
