Chappaquiddick | The Weight of the Name | 5

Audible subscribers can binge new seasons of American scandal early and add free right now. Join Audible in the Audible app or by subscribing on Apple Podcasts. From Audible Originals, I'm Lindsey Graham and this is American Scan. In July of 1969, a car drove off a bridge on Chapac, Wittich Island. The passenger, Mary Jo Kepekny, would die that night and the driver of Senator Ted Kennedy would not report the accident for nearly 10 hours. He was never charged with a crime. He received a two-month suspended sentence for leaving the scene and eight months later he was reelected to the Senate with 62% of the vote. Too many it seemed the full weight of one of America's most powerful political families was deployed to ensure the Senator's career survived. This scandal raised serious questions, not just about what really happened that night, but how it was handled and whether the outcome would have been the same for someone without Kennedy's name and influence. More than 50 years later, those questions still resonate. My guest today is Peter Cannellus. He's a veteran political journalist, author, an editor of last line, The Fall and Rise of Ted Kennedy. Our conversation is next. Hi, I'm David Brown, the host of Business Wars from Audible Originals. In our new season, sweet and low equal and splendor are locked in a bitter fight, battling for billions while scientists and regulators threaten to shut them all down. Make sure to listen to Business Wars on Audible or wherever you get your podcasts. James Arthleray was a charismatic self-help guru who promised his followers a path to wealth and enlightenment by becoming the best versions of themselves, but not all who followed him finished their journey. For the Best Bingeble series, listen to the Audible True Crime Podcast wherever you get your podcasts. Peter Cannellus, welcome to American Scandal. Thank you. Many look at Chapacquidic as a quintessential case of the wealthy and powerful avoiding accountability. Ted, though, said that it haunted him for the rest of his life. How do you assess what kind of accountability was involved if any? I think that there was serious accountability for errors in judgment that were almost certainly motivated by concern for the image and politics and how is this all going to look. I think that it adds up to a pretty powerful indictment of Ted Kennedy's behavior. The line that might be drawn, though, is when people say, did he intentionally sacrifice this woman to sacrifice her life? Did he, you know, he cared more for his own political well-being than he did for her life? I think that the evidence suggests that he believed that she was not saveable at any of these later points. You know, he did dive in to try to save her and rescue her in the car. That is credible because he's such a good swimmer and he was somebody who spent his whole life on the ocean that it wouldn't have been some extraordinary effort of his to try to, you know, get down in the car and save her. And even if you're somebody who believes in the Craven political motivation was always first and foremost in his mind. Of course, his motivation would have been to do anything to save her because once she was saved, there would be no incident. It only became a scandal and a crisis because she died. So he had every incentive to try to save her. Then he ran back to the cottage, which was a pretty long track to try to get Markham and Gargan to come back and help him to make a second run of attempts to save Mary Jo Kepekni. They did try, they didn't succeed. And it was then that the sort of political cover-up/chananigans/manipulations, I think, started to occur. But when we look at how the chap quitic incident played out, how much do you think was simply the system deferring to a powerful family? How does the local law enforcement apparatus go up against the Kennedys? I mean, I think that that is almost beyond dispute that the the local officials in Edgertown deferred to the Kennedys. And a lot of their concerns were sort of how to please the Kennedys rather than how to properly investigate this death or concern for the Kepekni family. At a certain point, various Kennedy aides and hangers and other figures started dictating terms to the local officials, Dominic Arena, who was the police chief repeatedly deferred to the Kennedys. The question would be what might have been lost in that set of transact? What evidence might have been lost? And of course, we can't know. We can't know what would have been obtainable if there had been a very high-powered forensic investigation that took place at that time. So, you know, how much did the deference to the Kennedys matter? I would say it mattered much, much more in terms of public perception than it did in terms of actual forensic evidence that was lost. You bring up this entourage of operatives, advisers, and political allies that the Kennedys seem to have about them all the time. What does this machinery actually look like? In Ted's case, I guess, in particular? You know, I think it was actually much more of a loose combination of loyal hangers on at many different rungs. So, there were the gargons and the margams. The gargons were cousins, first cousins, through Rose Kennedy, who had grown up as quasi-members of the Kennedy family. But many people's estuations, sort of like second tier members of the Kennedy family and that they were there to be sort of friends and playmates and supporters of the Kennedy kids. So, there were loyalists like that within the family. There were also the sort of practical aids that were part of Kennedy senate office and drivers and other figures like that that were quite loyal to him, sort of bodymen on the ground as the way some people would describe it. But then there were people like Burke Marshall, who was involved. They were very high-powered academics and scholars and former justice department officials who were offering advice as kind of members of the larger Kennedy establishment. And I do not think that Ted Kennedy, especially traumatized after the election, everything was able to plug in, take over, manage everything, get everything going. I think it happened sort of organically and perhaps even a little bit haphazardly. But there were a lot of people involved in it and there was a lot of intense thinking and strategizing that went on about how to preserve Kennedy's career and how to put Kennedy in the best light. I mean, among the strategic moves that I think stand out a little in the past is in Kennedy's speech is sort of apology speech talking about this. He focuses very heavily on Mary Jo's honor. You know, he starts talking like there was nothing that happened that night that would cause any question to Mary Jo compact me's honor as though she were somehow the focus of attention in this. But it sends out sort of the subtle message that if you're looking at this as Ted Kennedy behaving in a in a loose way and cheating on his wife that you're maligning the memory of Mary Jo compact me. They also staged the cervical collar that Kennedy was wearing and his whole appearance at the funeral design to make it look like he was very seriously injured in this crash. I think it's easy to believe that he would have been shaken up that he would have been sort of mentally traumatized and all of that. But I think they went out of their way to make it seem like he had suffered physically and that he was as much a victim as a perpetrator in this case. In the book that we did last lie in the fall and rise of Ted Kennedy, we revealed a very shocking kind of thing, which is that Joan Kennedy was in the early stages of pregnancy at that time and had had a series of miscarriages and was trying very hard to maintain bed rest and to preserve the pregnancy. But Ted prevailed on her to come with him to Mary Jo compact me funeral in West Virginia up in the mountains and everything. And you know, you can imagine Joan Kennedy situation. You know, here's her husband's been in this perhaps career-ending accident at it with a young woman in his car and the drinking and all this kind of stuff and we're wishing what was she doing and all that. So Ted clearly needed her at his side to show her loyal support to him that she backed him in every way. So he insisted that she go to the funeral and fly in this tiny plane to mountainous West Virginia for this funeral and she suffered a miscarriage and she she's just recently passed away. But she had always thought that Ted was sort of putting his career over their family at that moment. So there was a lot to lay at Kennedy's doorstep from Chappaquiddick, a lot of questionable behavior. At the end of the day, was it brutal or murderous or, you know, casting this woman aside for his ambitions? It doesn't really add up that way in my opinion. It adds up as a person showing poor judgment on a lot of different levels. Now this incident happened at a time when there was perhaps an unspoken agreement between the press and politicians. That politician's personal life was perhaps off limits. That has obviously changed as we fast forward to today. What do you think the outcome would have been if this incident happened more recently? I think that it's quite possible to imagine that if it happened in a later era when there were more of these like tabloid type, you know, TV shows and things like that going on that it would have ended Kennedy's career. Just the repetition and the mass scrutiny of his judgment and his errors and those kinds of things, I think, you know, it would not have withstood that kind of massive critical scrutiny. On the other hand, there were no shortage of people blaming Kennedy for this. And there was no shortage of effort on the part of the Nixon sort of central command to try to draw attention to Kennedy's lapses. They viewed Kennedy as a real threat to Nixon in the 1972 presidential election and were quite happy to see him sideline and certainly wanted him to be sideline. So it wasn't like this flew under the radar screen for anybody. I mean, I think the implications of this were quite visible to the American public. I think Ted himself also, you know, suffered in some ways in comparison to his dead brothers. You know, he was the one, the flawed human being sitting in the middle when they had become these saintet figures by then. But Massachusetts continued to love the Kennedys. Massachusetts, I think, had felt that the Jack Kennedy presidency had brought, you know, tremendous new cachet and attention to Massachusetts. I think there was just a tremendous respect in regard. It was an era when Catholic families in Massachusetts would have a picture of Jack Kennedy on their dining room wall. I mean, they revered Kennedy. And he had been the first Catholic president, you know, all these things. So there was an underlying loyalty to the Kennedys that Ted could draw on in that situation. And by tailoring his appeals to his Massachusetts constituents, his hometown people, he established a very low bar for himself to survive. It was, you know, I will do what my constituents want. But he's asking the friendliest possible audience to judge his behavior rather than speak to the nation at large. And I think that helped him to survive, that helped him to get over the chaplacitic stain. But the chaplacitic stain, I think, effectively killed his national opportunities. Ultimately, chaplacitic is a tale of political survival, I guess, if we take Ted's point of view. But it's interesting that he brought up Mary Jo's honor as something that he really wants to hit home in his speech because it does seem that a sexual scandal will often end a career faster than a financial scandal or abuse of power. We have certain evidence of that, Gary Hart, Anthony Weiner, Bill Clinton, but politicians who are caught lying to Congress or obstructing justice often survive and sometimes even thrive. One is the difference in these improprieties. Well, I think a lot of it is changing times. You had referred a little bit before to the era when the media looked the other way when politicians were often drinking and carousing and engaging in affairs. And that certainly was the case with Jack Kennedy. It was an era when all politicians tried to present themselves as role models for the average American family. So they're always standing there with their perfectly turned out wives and children that were all men at that era, you know, almost all men and trying to sort of model a kind of 1950s ideal of the American family. And then we approached that era, you're talking about Gary Hart and the Bill Clinton era and things like that when everything swung completely in the other direction and citizen about politics to cold. And it was almost like presumed that these ideal images that they were sort of presenting were all fakes and that they were all having affairs and carousing behind the scenes and things like that. And in some ways, you were exposing sort of the hypocrisy of the whole system when people were writing and discussing politicians, extramarital dalleances. But there's no question that Kennedy would have feared the perception that he and Mary Jo were having a sexual relationship. It certainly violated people's sense of what a proper family man should be doing with his time in a July evening in 1869. What if AI could recreate the voice of somebody you loved who died? What if it destroyed your reputation with words you never said? And what if you fell in love with something that was never human? I'm Mark Vannell and in my brand new audible original podcast, I'm traveling the globe to investigate the very personal ways. AI is already changing a relationship I'm traveling the globe to investigate the very personal ways. AI is already changing our relationships. And what if AI could recreate the voice of somebody you loved who died? AI is already changing our relationships, our memories, and our sense of what is real. Unreal. Listen now. Honorable. So let's go back a little bit to the beginning of the Kennedy dynasty. The Kennedy family, as we know, it began with Jo Senior. He was a financier, a deal maker, extraordinaire, and a man who understood power in a very transactional way. How much of what the Kennedy children eventually became was shaped by their father? Well, I have a view of their father that sort of runs a little bit counter to some of the depictions in these Kennedy movies and these Kennedy TV shows. You know, the common view of him is that he was ruthless. He was a man who made hundreds of millions of dollars in sometimes legally questionable activities, including liquor, bootleg, areas like that, but then he went to Hollywood and financed movies and there was always a hint of something slightly destructible about the way that he was aggressively making money. However, I think he was an idealistic person and he also was a sort of emotionally attuned person. When you go back and read his letters, which have been collected in a book that one of his granddaughters pulled together, his letters to his children, it quickly becomes a parent that he was the nurturing parent of the two. It was Rose Kennedy that was sort of more austere and more of a threatening figure to the children. Joe Kennedy was loving and warm and, you know, always rushing home when one of his kids was sick. He especially took on the job of mentoring the sons, which was almost certainly a sexist double standard, but a little bit of an agreement between him and Rose that Rose could be the sort of dominant parent for the girls, but he was going to be the dominant parent for the boys. And the boys really looked up to him. There was no hint of any sort of rebellion or resentment. They trusted him. Now, in his own career, you know, he was a man of tremendous ambition. And, you know, wealth was just in his mind sort of a stepping stone to greater power. And he famously had his own career sort of truncated by expressing concerns about World War II and about whether the United States should really be involved before Pearl Harbor in the war in Europe. And suggestions that he was sympathetic in some ways to the Germans or at least differential to German power. And he then realized being a very shrewd person that after World War II and after everything that that would be a fatal obstacle to his own career. So he said about making sure that his son Jack, the elder son to survive the war. There had been an older brother, Joe Jr., who died during the war. But he said about making sure that Jack would be able to stand on his own two feet and not be too tainted by him. And the way he did it was encouraging Jack to make his academic thesis at Harvard about appeasement and the evils of appeasement. And, you know, he called it why England slept. It was about people who were doing what his father, his own father was accused of doing. So I think that truly the Kennedy's believed that that would be a way of sort of laundering the Kennedy name, showing that Jack was different from the old man. Hearing that JFK's senior thesis was pretty much dictated by his father leads me to wonder how much stage managing happened in the family. What was it like to grow up inside the Kennedy family? There was a tremendous amount of stage management, but there's no evidence that the sons resented it, as I had said before. It's like the father was sort of a master orchestrator. And there were a few like sarcastic quips that Jack Kennedy made when he was president that suggested, you know, he wanted his father to get off his back a little bit, but it was more made in humor and almost for political reasons to try to sort of establish himself as his own man. I think they very much revered their father and their father was very much pulling the strings. That goes double and triple with Ted because when you're the youngest child and you feel sort of overshadowed by your brothers, as he certainly did, he rely on your father's good opinion very heavily. And so in 1962, when Ted Kennedy wanted to run for the Senate from Massachusetts, Jack and Bobby Kennedy did not want him to run. They felt like it was too many Kennedys. It would look like a power grab. There was a vague suggestion that Ted really wasn't worthy. He really didn't deserve it. He hadn't earned it. He hadn't done a lot of things. And it was Joe Kennedy who stuck by Ted and insisted that Ted should run. I think if Joe were not still in the game during that period, so just around the time that he hadn't started having strokes, I think that Jack and Bobby would have absolutely forbidden Ted from running in 1962. But their father was adamant. Their father saw real potential in Ted. Their father believed in Ted. Their father wanted Ted to go into the Senate in 1962. I also think the father was probably wise enough to recognize that Ted Kennedy had some personality advantages over his brothers. Now, their personas have changed so much over time and in memory and because of the assassinations and Ted himself has played a role in sort of molding the Kennedy myth and the sneak. But Ted had much, much more of a common touch than Jack or Bobby Kennedy had. Jack Kennedy was very much a sort of look but don't touch kind of politician, an intellectual performer, but not somebody who was a glad handler, not somebody who had close intimate friends, not somebody who was able to make a connection to people in all walks of life. Ted Kennedy could and he attributed it to some of his time in the army where he was kind of a grunt in the army. He had to bunk with guys who had no money and who had no prominent name to support them. And I think you can see throughout Ted's career that he genuinely did have a clear sense of what other people in the country were going through and what people of lower means and no means had. And Jack and Bobby did not have that same sort of instinctive feel for people. As you reminded us, Ted was the youngest of nine and by most accounts, no one had especially high hopes for him. But one by one, the man ahead of him in prominence and age, Joe Jr. and Jack, Bobby, they each died in tragic fashion. And every time the next Kennedy stepped up, what was it like for Ted to finally inherit the entirety of the mantle? I think it's unimaginable pressure is what it adds up to. You know, not only if you think about that period just before the chap aquatic incident after his brother Robert was assassinated, he realizes that he suddenly is the head of the family. Old Joe is still alive, but is greatly disabled by a stroke. And what has been bequeathed to him is first of all, the sense of grief from all of these losses. And it wasn't just Jack and Bobby. It was their sister, Kathleen, who was like sort of a second mother to Ted. She died in a plane crash. There was a sister Rosemary who had a sort of botched lobotomy procedure and ended up severely impaired. I think that, you know, as the youngest child, you have this heightened sense of all of your older siblings. And, you know, one by one they were sidelined or killed. And I think he felt this tremendous burden to sort of live the life that they were denied and to try to, you know, achieve some of the things that they had wanted to achieve, almost doing it sort of in their name and in their memory. If you combine that though with the tremendous expectations that went along with a Kennedy name after Jack Kennedy's assassination, it's almost kind of intolerable to think about it because it wasn't just grieving for the brothers and worrying about the brothers and wanting to follow in the brothers footsteps. It was essentially inheriting this giant infrastructure of thousands of people around the country that identified with the Kennedy political establishment or the Kennedy political message because many of them were academics and intellectuals and not actual sort of footworkers and politics. And, you know, they had believed after Jack Kennedy had died that Bobby Kennedy was next in line, that Bobby would become president, that all of them would then return to their roles sort of reconstituting the new frontier in a Robert Kennedy presidency, probably beginning in 1969. And after Robert was assassinated, those expectations of all these high-powered people centered on Ted. Now, Ted was not a great intellect. Ted was not somebody who enjoyed talking to poets and artists and tenured professors in the way that Jack Kennedy did. But, you know, here's this awesome responsibility is tremendous sense of grief, this tremendous sense of legacy and this tremendous sense of responsibility to thousands of people who he probably couldn't even relate to. And this expectation that it was the presidency or nothing, you know, they all were expecting to go right back into the White House and Ted was going to be there their vehicle. So your book on Ted Kennedy says that he might have been the most legislatively consequential senator of the 20th century. I wonder if you could make that case. What did he achieve? Senator Kennedy was at the center of four of the most consequential legislative initiatives, really, of the second half of the 20th century. He was a co-sponsor and a key sponsor of the Immigration Act that has dramatically changed the racial and religious texture of America. He was the Democratic point man for years on the Senate Judiciary Committee and memorably led the charge against Robert Bork and was really the Democratic point man on justice issues. We all know that he was also the leading senator on health care and that he referred to universal health care coverage as being the cause of his life. There were other points in his career when he was the leading human rights advocate in foreign policy, instrumental in areas like Northern Ireland, but also, you know, trekking to Bangladesh to call attention to sort of forgotten genocide in the 1970s. So across a very impressively wide area of policy, Kennedy functioned as the Democratic point man. He also, because of the Kennedy money, the Kennedy prestige, the Kennedy name, he attracted the greatest talent to his Senate office. So even bills that other senators were credited with or pushed through, for example, the Americans with Disabilities Act that Tom Harkin had played a lead role in, these bills were largely crafted and refined through Kennedy's office. And I think that he developed a sort of ability to kind of set the national agenda, even if he himself were not the Democratic leader. And even if there were other senators whose names were sort of more prominently put on the bills. So I would say, you know, really from the 1970s until the first decade of the new millennium, Senator Kennedy was the driving force behind most of the policy changes in America. - I'm wondering if you could speculate with me. Do you think it's at all possible that his frustrated presidential ambitions turned him into a very effective senator? - Yes, I think that he became more effective as he abandoned his ambitions. You know, it was really around 1988 that he sort of, it sort of sunk into him that he would never be president. And I think it was a tremendous relief because it allowed him to concentrate on doing what he did best. Building coalitions, again, there's so many misperceptions of Ted Kennedy that are out there. One of them is that he was such a bitter partisan that people must have hated him, but actually not true. He had many close friends among Republicans and he was very, very dedicated to the nuts and bolts of legislating, which meant building coalitions, working closely with people who disagreed even fundamentally on many of the issues that he cared about, but finding that one threat of agreement that could lead to a deal. And I think even the people who would criticize Senator Kennedy would say that, you know, sometimes you wanted a deal more than he should have. You know, there's some people who criticized him for collaborating with George W. Bush on no child left behind. But I think Kennedy had a keen sense that once you established a sort of legislative framework to move an issue forward, it was sort of permanently on the map. It was sort of an innate sense of politics that if you build it eventually, they will come. And that was certainly his approach to health care and his approach to civil rights, it was his approach to immigration and other areas, believing that, you know, the long arc of history will turn in his direction. That is to say, the liberal direction. One company changed the artificial sweetener industry forever by deleting four words from a tagline, sales, skyrocketed, rival sued, and a multi-billion dollar war was on. Hey there, I'm David Brown, the host of the podcast business wars. Every season we bring you the true stories behind the companies that shape our world, their rivalries, their reinventions, and their spectacular rises and falls. In our new season, we're diving into the bitter battle to own sweetness when scientists discovered that chemicals could deliver the taste of sugar with none of its calories, sweet and low, equal and splenda fought for space on table tops in diet sodas and on grocery store shelves across America. But as health scares hit and regulators came knocking, the fierce competition between the top three artificial sweeteners turned ugly. Make sure to follow business wars wherever you get your podcasts. Audible subscribers can binge all episodes of business wars early and at free right now. You stepped out for your morning jog, except it's not your usual morning jog. You started listening to an epic sci-fi book on Audible, 30 chapters. Years later, you've accidentally run a half marathon. You lost track of how far you've run, somewhere just past the city limits. You can't stop. You have to find out what happens next! Then it's over. The universe seems bigger. You feel different. You feel like you have no idea where you are. Audible. Stories that speak to you. The Kennedy Dynasty seems to have lost some of its robust lustre. There are still Kennedy descendants in public life, but the overall gravitational pull has faded. Why do you think that is? And what does it tell us about what sustains a dynasty and what ends one? Well, the Kennedys were different from some of the other political dynasties we have. I think one of the reasons we have a lot of political dynasties now is simply fundraising. We talk about the Bush dynasty. The reason that members of the Bush family would have a leg up on other politicians was because of the massive fundraising list that George and Barbara Bush senior had developed over decades and decades of climbing to the White House. Those lists were more important in the era when there were real strict limits on campaign contributions because you needed to get small-ish contributions from thousands and thousands of people to be able to finance a campaign. But in the Bush dynasty, you know, each member of the Bush dynasty had a slightly different political persona, including their views on issues compared to other members of the Bush dynasty. It was seen as sort of like it was like an evolving kind of political team, whereas the Kennedys always stood for the same things. You know, when they ran, they stood for a certain kind of American can-do optimism, idealism, you know, we can conquer our problems and we can conquer our problems usually through legislation and government action. So it was combining this sort of outsider charisma of the leader who's going to step forward and blaze a new path, combined with what we might have seen as new deal-style liberalism, which is, you know, we're going to use government programs to try to advance social progress. And that's what the Kennedy brand was. And whether you were, you know, Joe Kennedy III or Joe Kennedy II or Ted Kennedy or Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, that's what you represented when you stood before the voters. Now what has happened to turn to that and change that over time is there has been more skepticism perhaps about the new deal-style liberalism that has changed, you know, in a way that has not advantage the Kennedy's over time. Also that sort of charismatic leader persona has been tainted because of what we know about some of the, you know, now more obvious sexism of the JFK era and, you know, we no longer think of a sort of attractive white man kind of as the model of what politics should be with the, you know, shock of hair and all that sort of, that sort of Kennedy masculine persona. Notably the Kennedy charisma never attached to the women in the Kennedy family. It was always a male dominated charisma. And I think it has kind of expired, but we should take note of the fact that it did survive for far longer than the average political dynasty and it survived as a purposeful model. Now as we're talking, right, Jack Schlossberg, John F. Kennedy's grandson is running for Congress in New York and is trying to sort of reboot the dynasty in a new way by being completely addicted to social media, communicating in memes and in posts that are meaningful to a much younger generation and perhaps perplexing to people who remember the old Kennedy dynasty. But it's an impressive kind of reboot attempt, you know, it's like trying to remake the movie, but with a younger star who's much, much more attuned to the way that Gen Z is communicating and believing. I also think that there's room for the Kennedys in the Democratic Party or the Kennedy kind of leadership in the Democratic Party because the Democrats need a charismatic figure to bridge their own internal divides, you know, if you look at the party as being divided in some ways between the left that is now embodied by Bernie Sanders and AOC who are, you know, believers in single payer, believers in very sharp efforts to curb fossil fuels, believers in a very, very robust social safety net, that left has always been there. And then there's also been the sort of civil rights oriented side of the Democratic Party that the party is about promoting, you know, acceptance and social change and promotion of new communities and tolerance. And to sort of bridge those two sides, you need to have a kind of charismatic centrist, centrist at least within the Democratic Party, not centrist in the largest scheme of politics, but a sort of mainstream liberal leader. You think about Jack Kennedy, if you think about Bill Clinton, if you think about Barack Obama, somebody like that who can personify the goal of a more robust social safety network. And the goal of greater tolerance, but do so in a way that is relatable to people and understandable to people and feels like it has a kind of human rationality to it and isn't just an ideological stance. Now political dynasties seem to me as a uniquely un-American thing. The founders put a nobility clause in the Constitution that prohibits the federal government from granting any titles of nobility. And yet these families seem to accrue power, wealth and political influence all the same. What do you think about dynasties in America? Well, there are lots of different cuts to that question. I mean, when Donald Trump took over the Republican Party in 2016, it was interesting that the Republicans who were most committed to sort of keeping him in line to sort of curbing what many people saw as his excesses were the dynastical Republicans, you know, the admit Romney types who came from their own, you know, long tenure of sort of family service and who reacted negatively to Trump as sort of a disruptor of the politics as usual. Now some people would look at that and say that's the public service. It actually is helpful, you know, among the system of checks and balances in our politics to have some dynastical politicians who have a kind of longer view or deeper association with politics and more of a commitment to the system, that's one way to look at it. You could also say that there's a kind of logic to it, right? If you love the politics of the father and the father is getting into his dotage and his daughter, think of the Cheney's, Liz Cheney's running and she has exactly the same politics as her father and is inheriting his supporters and all that, this is a certain logic to wanting to support her. It's not just about money or about fame or, you know, name recognition. You know, Trump himself could become a dynastie, right? You know, we're talking about JD Vance as a potential inheritor to Trump, but you certainly have many members of the Trump family, including his grandchildren's generation who are showing interest in public life, who have become influencers online and who are ready to make, you know, that baby step into politics after their granddad leaves the scene. So, you know, we may be talking about dynastie since a totally different way when the Trump era continues for decades and decades. Peter Canellus, thank you so much for talking with me today on American Scandal. Thank you. That was my conversation with journalist and author Peter Canellus. He edited the book "Last Line, The Fall and Rise of Ted Kennedy." For all of the originals and airship, this is episode five of our series on the Chappock Whittacansson and for American Scandal. In our next series, in the mid-1980s, two decorated New York police detectives began leading double lives as hitmen for the mob, betraying their oaths of service, they would pocket hundreds of thousands of dollars before their shocking crimes were finally exposed. American Scandal is only possible because of listeners like you, so thank you, and don't miss an episode. Be sure to follow American Scandal on Audible or wherever you get your podcasts. An audible subscriber can binge new seasons of American Scandal early and ad-free right now. And to find out more about me, including my other podcasts, my live show, The History Tours I'm Arranging and all sorts of other things, go to historyishuman.com, that's historyishuman.com. American Scandal is hosted, edited, and executed produced by me, Lindsey Graham for airship. This episode was produced by John Reed, Senior Producer Andy Beckerman, Managing Producer and Audio Editor for this episode, Emily Burke, Music by Thrum, Sound Design by Gabriel Gould, Executive Producer for Airship is William Simpson, Executive Producer for Audible is Jenny Lauer Beckman, Head of Creative Development at Audible Kate Naven, Head of Audible Originals North America, Marshall Louis, Chief Content Officer Rachel Guiazza, Copyright 2026 by Audible Originals LLC, Sound Recording Copyright 2026 by Audible Originals LLC. James Arthur Ray was a charismatic self-help guru, who promises followers a path to wealth and enlightenment by becoming the best versions of themselves. But not all who followed him, finished their journey. After Ray appeared on Oprah, thousands flocked to his events. But what many people didn't know about were his more extreme methods. Methods that push his followers to their limits, giving some the transformative experience they envisioned and killing others. For the Best Bingeable Series, like the one I just told you about, listen to the Audible True Crime podcast wherever you get your podcasts. Audible subscribers can get all episodes early and ad-free right now. (dramatic music)