A "No" Vote on Caroline Kennedy

Caroline Kennedy might make a great senator. Those who know her report she has excellent qualifications: She's smart, likable, compassionate, and knowledgeable about government and politics. That alone makes her more qualified than a number of folks already serving on Capitol Hill, but it doesn't make her any more qualified than say, my high school English teacher, my doctor, my father, or the guy who sells me The New York Times every morning.

We all know the only thing that makes Caroline supposedly more qualified than any of these folks is her last name. But appointing a Kennedy to this seat would send a disappointing message. It's a message the Obama generation thought we had left behind: That the most important job qualification isn't who you are, but who your parents were.

I understand my parents' generation has an affinity for the Kennedy name that is at least as strong as my generation's love for Obama. And to be honest, if Mahlia or Sasha Obama decides in 40 years that she wants to be a senator, I might very well be inclined to support her. But I'd still expect her to have to run for it, not just waltz in with an appointment when she decides she's interested in politics.

Of course, no one's running for this seat just yet; someone is going to be appointed. But it's disturbing that when presented with this fantastic opportunity, the knee-jerk reaction of establishment politicians is to turn to someone whose primary qualifications are her famous name, her wealth, and her insider connections.

Aside from her family name, the main argument for appointing Kennedy is that she is one of the few people with the connections and ability to raise the tens of millions of dollars it will take to defend the Senate seat in two years. This argument is an insult to the many ordinary people who have served this country honorably in the Senate, and have also had extraordinary success at the polls. Teachers like Paul Wellstone, doctors like Tom Coburn, and yes, community organizers like Barack Obama.

Why not use this appointment as a chance to bring in someone who wouldn't ordinarily have high odds of making it in politics? Someone who doesn't have the money, connections, and name recognition, but given the chance could serve the public well and give the terribly insulated Senate a fresh perspective.

Governor Paterson represented Harlem in the state Senate for two decades--surely he still knows someone there who would make an outstanding Senator --a teacher or a doctor perhaps, maybe even a community organizer--heck, maybe it's the guy who sells him his morning paper. He just might find the next Obama. Or even the next Kennedy.

Paterson has a chance to do something extraordinary--or he could do something safe. The electorate sent a message this year that we thought was loud and clear: The same old politicians just won't do. Clearly, this message did not make it to everyone (the governor of Illinois comes to mind.) Has it made it to the governor of New York?

Comments

[meko]

Her appointment would speak of cronyism and nothing else. It would be an inherited senate seat.

The only way Caroline Kennedy can support democracy, meritocracy and egalitarianism is if she demonstrates her commitment by running for office.

[redhawkinflight]

Caroline is far more qualified than Arnold who was "gifted" the California governor postion in a "presumed" recall election.

I believe she has far more going for her (qualifications) than many existing politicians. Finally we might have some one who "walks the talk"!!!

[zenobiadarcy]

Her education, law degree may be helpful. Crazy idea that she is educated.

[gulopartisan]

Get real, folks. Whoever is appointed senator will be the incumbent in the next election, which means it would be "disloyal" (not to mention close to political suicide) to run against them. So if Caroline wants the senate seat, this is the only way she will get it.

As for level playing fields and political egalitarianism: I side with the folks who say being famous should not be a bar to political advancement. For Heaven's sake, Caroline is a hero to many Progressives for her work on NYC schools, her books, and her eloquent endorsement of Obama. If we are going to have an appointed senator from New York, why not her?

[claylandg]

No Kennedy!!!

[dandypeaches]

I think that Ms. Kennedy should be appointed for the balance of SOS Clinton's term with the prior agreement that she not run for re-election. My guess is that she will be a great Senator, but the Governor should not act as a kingmaker here.

[postman606]

That's exactly what the law calls for him to be in this situation.

[Givethemhellharry]

I have great respect for all the Kennedys that have chosen Public Service and%

[Givethemhellharry]

I have great respect for all the Kennedys that have chosen Public Service and especially Caroline who has quietly given back to society over the years. However having said that. I believe a better route for her would be an Ambassadorship say to England, followed by a stint as UN Ambassador. I believe this would position her well for the Presidency in 2016, if she chose to run.

Being an Upstater, I would like someone like Giiibrand from the Albany area or Arcuri from the Utica area appointed to the senate seat, both of whom won election and then reelection to long held Republican seats. These are 2 young future stars of the Democratic Party who would continue the inroads made in the last 2 election cycles into the normally GOP Upstate territory. I am afraid, considering that all other Statewide offices are held by Downstaters, that there will be a backlash in 2010 that will sweep the GOP back into control of Upstate districts if another downstater is appointed, even if it is Caroline Kennedy..

[batbird]

Don't forget about the constitutional lawyer thing! Isn't she kinda Lawyery yunno kinda like Harvard then Columbia Law School, kinda like Barrack?? What about her lawyerness??

[jaielaw]

Please. She's never actually practiced law and she's no constitutional lawyer, except to the extent that just about EVERYONE who comes out of law school is automatically one. She has cowritten--with her name coming in second--two books on con law (privacy and the Bill of Rights) that are really intended for non-lawyers. They're not serious legal scholarship.

[BigSuede]

And let's be realistic... I don't think anyone would say Caroline Kennedy would have gotten into Columbia and Harvard without her name. Obama is a completely different situation. He got in with merit alone. Nepotism is wrong whether it is with a bush or a kennedy. We should start choosing our leaders on merit rather than whose womb they came from!

[Rockerbabe]

No to Caroline Kennedy for Senator for NY. I think Carolyn Maloney, a US rep for the last 16 years from NY would be a good candidate for the Senate position.

[Jazmo]

I'm amazed you admit you buy the New York Time. People still buy newspapers?

[LarryNYC]

As always Brendan makes you question your beliefs by presenting aspects of an issue you may not have otherized considered .

[standard]

Oops! Those last three sentences should read:

This argument is nonsense that no serious candidate would use. His or her enemies might.

Also: Gov. Paterson spells his surname with one "t" (possibly as. . . an insult to "ordinary people").

[standard]

"We all know the only thing that makes Caroline supposedly more qualified than any of these folks is her last name."

We know nothing of the sort! She's qualified because she has degrees from Harvard and Columbia Law, is a long-term New York resident active in civic causes, is the author of several well-received books, is NOT a professional self-promoter and has an interest in the job. A well-known surname should disqualify no one from public office; New Yorkers must agree: they've bestowed this very Senate seat on RFK and HRC.

"I'd still expect her to have to run for it, not just waltz in with an appointment."

When you favor an appointment (just not of her), you undermine your "waltz in" argument. NY shouldn't have one vote in the Senate until a special election is held. Many fine Senators were first seated to fill a vacancy.

"[T]he main argument for . . . Kennedy is that she is one of the few people [who can] raise the tens of millions . . . to defend the . . . seat . . . This argument is an insult to . . . ordinary people . . . "

An insult? it's a straw horse! When did this become "the main argument"? Has Ms. Kennedy advanced it? "Ordinary people" can raise substantial amounts of money. This argument nonsense that no serious candidate would use. His or her enemies might.

Also: Gov. Paterson spells his surname with one "t" (possibly as

[ESerafina42]

Oh, please - if she were the exact same person and her name were Caroline Smith, would anyone be seriously putting her forward?

[also there also]

Of course she would. There are a boatload of Kennedy's and other famous political family members not on the list so clearly, the last name is not the be all, end all of the decision making process.

[standard]

If Caroline Smith were a civic activist and long-term New York resident with two Ivy League degrees and was a respected published author with an interest in politics, why wouldn't they? As it happens it was Mrs. Schlossberg who put her own hat in the ring.

[Louis462]

Well said, 'standard'. and I agree completely.

[fpie]

Don't know much about Caroline but there is one thing to be said for the Kennedy clan. They all seem to be able to shot "bullshit" when confronted with it. It is a quality sadly lacking in the democratic party these days.
Another thing is that I don't think she would be star struck at her new exalted position. She would take the responsibility more seriously than herself.