Ted Kennedy today gave the annual Peltason Lecture at UC Irvine. It alternates between the left and the right — apparently, last year they had Jeane Kirkpatrick.

Kennedy was good-humored and eloquent. Calm, composed and stately. He started off by saying, "I hope I'm not gonna be asked about Arnold...Arnold's something different. I love Arnold. Why wouldn't you if he has you by the ankles and upside down?"

His speech, which lasted about forty-five minutes, focused on the issues of Iraq, the economy, education and health care.

Let me start with one of his admirable qualities — his bipartisanship. He was in favor of working with the Republicans to pass a prescription drug benefit even though that would favor the Republicans in the upcoming elections. Many Democrats do not want such a measure to pass precisely for that reason. This suggests that he really believes in following the course that he believes is best for the people he represents, irrespective of petty political squabbles. That was refreshing.

He also made an interesting observation in reply to a question (apparently about the Arab perception of America) at the end of his speech. In the Arab world, it seems that people hate America in countries whose leaders suck up to America (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Egypt) and vice versa (e.g. Iran). And that America is missing a real oppurtunity by not capitalising on that sentiment.

Having said that, there was plenty that I disagreed with.

He went into the (by now) standard screed about how we went into Iraq under false pretenses.

He said that the end of the Cold War gave America unparalleled power — and that power was now America's foremost problem. How absolute power corrupts absolutely. How to create a free and prosperous Iraq we should: 1) Involve the UN more and 2) bring our troops back home.

But the only thing holding that place together is American (and coalition) troops on the ground. And he wants to bring them back? The most disastrous thing for Iraq would be for American to pull out now. Even Howard Dean agrees, that the situation being what it is, for better or worse, we must see Iraq through this.

He also said that "it makes no sense to try and bypass the United Nations", and that America should "share with the UN the process of reconstruction", which would give it "legitimacy", and "remove the stigma of occupation".

Seriously, the great United Nations? Which has degenerated into nothing but a "talking shop for third world dictators and their European apologists".

Think about it. What is the logical basis for checking every step with the United Nations? There is none. By its very nature, the UN gives totalitarian regimes the same vote as free nations, and stresses endless "dialogue" over real action. It is nothing but a road block towards real, effective action. Isn't it a moral abomination when Tariq Aziz, who was a brutal dictator's spokesman, can wear a suit and have a voice equal in dignity and importance (and media coverage) to nations which value and protect the freedom of individuals?

Kennedy was also big on "rights". He spoke of "social justice", and the "right to health care", and the "right to higher education".

Huh? Where did these rights come from? At whose expense? The way I see it, social security and social health care is just a huge transfer of wealth from high-income people to the rest of society — enforced by the state.

This is a very slippery slope. In large parts of Europe, extensive social security cannot be overturned simply because the number of people dependent on it outnumber the people paying for it. Any party that opposes it will immediately get voted out of power. It's a vicious cycle. The "right" to health care and higher education is but the first step down that hill.

But more speciously, this is the first step towards the emotionalization of the issues. Social justice. Health care. Higher education. Who but the most brutal, heartless person would be against it? Opposing such issues automatically makes you the Grinch. What is missing is a thorough analysis of both the moral and the practical justifications for such measures. Who pays for this? Where does the buck stop?

There is some very delicate sleight of hand going on here. The American constitution only guarantees equality of oppurtunity, not equality of results. What Kennedy is arguing for is equality of results. In health care, and in higher education. That brings us another step closer to a collectivist, communist, state-controlled paradise, doesn't it?