New Yorkers Saying No to Aristocracy As Sole Qualifier In a Democracy

As billionaire Republican Michael Bloomberg dispatches his thuggish aides to presumptuously berate Democratic Gov. David Paterson for daring to consider appointing anyone other than Caroline Kennedy to the New York Senate seat, a new poll shows New Yorkers are incredibly uncomfortable with the idea:

44% of the state's voters now say they have a lesser opinion of Kennedy than they did before she started vying for the position. 33% say it's made no difference, and 23% report now having a more favorable opinion of her. A plurality of Democrats, Republicans, and independents all say that her efforts have caused them to view her less favorably.

When it comes to whether they would prefer to see Kennedy or Andrew Cuomo appointed, 58% now prefer Cuomo to 27% for Kennedy. Cuomo is favored by 65% of Republicans, 59% of independents, and 54% of Democrats.

I know what you're thinking - Cuomo is a version of political aristocracy, right? Well, sure - but the point here is not that aristocracy is automatically horrible - it's not, and I never said it was. There are terrific leaders with ties to political aristocracy, from Ted Kennedy to Ned Lamont. The point here is that political aristocracy* ALONE should not be the sole or even most important determining factor in American politics - and most especially in appointments.

Kennedy has never run for office and hasn't strongly delineated her positions on most issues. The most we really know about her is that she campaigned for Barack Obama and is the daughter of John F. Kennedy. By contrast, you can say what you will about Cuomo, but the guy has run in statewide elections, and won one, meaning he has clearly elucidated many public positions on key issues, and has had experience representing constituents.

Of course, IMHO, aristocracy shouldn't be the sole or even most important determining factor in elections either, but as evidenced by the electoral success of do-nothings like Evan Bayh, clearly it is. But at least in that case, the citizenry makes the choice. That's democracy, baby - you live by it and you die by it.

That's different than an appointment - which is, by definition, undemocratic. I would argue that in appointments, governors should actually prioritize putting people in office who have very deep experience representing as many of the people they will be representing in the new office as possible. Why? Because in a democracy, it seems appropriate to try to limit autocracy (ie. representation without election) as much as possible - even in an undemocratic process like an appointment, where one person gets to select the representative of millions of people. In that case, the way to mitigate the inherently undemocratic nature of the situation is for a governor to at least try to put someone in office who constituents have a prior representational relationship with. After all, the U.S. Senate may be the House of Lords, but officially, senators are still supposed to be representatives, no?

This is why I - and many other Coloradoans - are so incensed about Gov. Bill Ritter's selection of Michael Bennet to replace Ken Salazar (and most of the criticism deserves to be directed not at Bennet, but at Ritter for making the inexplicable selection). Bennet has barely lived in state for a decade**, hasn't ever run for or won elected office, and has no record - or even public positions - on most key issues before the U.S. Senate. Indeed, at the press conference announcing his appointment, Bennet smugly shrugged off questions about where he stands on the issues - as if that's less important than the fact that he's already launched a 2010 election campaign website. Evidently, getting elected to a seat he was given by virtue of his connections to the Beltway Establishment and Colorado corporate community is more important than telling us how he will cast his Senate votes in our name.

If even one of these factors weren't undeniably true, there might be some shred of meritocratic legitimacy to the Bennet appointment, even in the face of other far more qualified candidates. But there isn't - and the problem with that is obvious. To be "represented" in the Senate by someone like this - regardless of how he ends up voting as a Senator (and I sure hope he casts progressive votes) - isn't to really be "represented" at all, because Coloradoans have not only had no say in that representation, they have no idea what they are really being represented BY.

The forces of money and power in New York are trying to replicate what their counterparts engineered here in Colorado. And I'm guessing that what this new poll really shows is that New Yorkers have caught onto the shenanigans and are disgusted. That's not a surprise. New Yorkers - like most Americans - probably don't like the idea of someone getting to represent them who has never represented anyone in her life, and who would get the office almost solely on her last name. We may be a culture organized around celebrity, and at times that cultural organization seems intent on creating a quasi-royalty out of our congressional representatives, but perhaps there are limits to that kind of thing. Even as we celebritize the presidency and politicians, perhaps there are still certain lines that the mass public doesn't want crossed - the line separating hype-created quasi-royalty from actual, real hereditary royalty.

* Previously defined loosely as insider connections, ties to money/privilege, power derived from genetic lineage, etc

**By the way, I've only lived in state for about 2 years...but before you say its hypocrisy to question Bennet's tenure living here, remember: I'm not running for, or asking to be appointed to, the U.S. Senate to represent this state.

Comments

[RRK70]

So according to the author's premise, George W. Bush would be a supremely qualified candidate.

[AN2009]

I couldn't agree with David Sirota more -- a very good article.

[mjc]

There is no way that Caroline Kennedy should start at the top of the political ladder. She chose to be very unnoticed, characterized as being shy, and protective of her children, which isn't a rotten quality in a mother but certainly doesn't make for a political combatant, which she will be if appointed. All the issues she is supposed to champion were virtually unknown to anyone but her closest family and friends. Her name and wealth and status could have PERHAPS played a role in solving some of the gritty issues of our time, especially those involving homosexuals. None of characteristics named were ever brought to bear on those issues---until now.....perhaps. Being smart, good looking, having connections in DC won't be of much help to New Yorkers. She has one year---if appointed---to get ready for the election in 2010, one year to make some sort of progress as a Senator. Which do you think she is going to choose????

[meko]

At the very least, she could have done her civic duty and voted in more than half of the past 38 contested elections. Or she could have given more than $1000 to support Democrats in the 10 years before Obama inspired her.

[Doofus]

What's this I read?
Apparently Andrew Cuomo has
noticed that *something* is going on!

Cuomo Aide Is Said to Try to Slow Kennedy Bid - NYT - January 6, 2009

Even as Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo insisted he was staying out of the competition for New York"s soon-to-be-vacant Senate seat, a top Cuomo aide urged labor leaders and upstate officials to refrain from embracing Caroline Kennedy for the job, according to several people with direct knowledge of the conversations. ...

[darker]

Never mind Caroline Kennedy. She IS as qualified as anybody for Senator.

New York Staters have to WAKE UP and look at their CORRUPT NYS LEGISLATURE
and how, for decades, a handful of legislators manipulated and stalled legislation
for their personal political purposes, to the destruction of NYS quality of life,
laws, economy, health, jobs, infrastructure, etc.

NYS Legislature is the USA's MOST CORRUPT.
THAT is what NYStaters should DEMAND TO FIX FIRST.

[glorialovelace]

Maybe Miss Goody Two Shoes would be of more use in the State Legislature. She certainly isn't suited to the Senate.

[jcwtts1]

I'm stunned by the vitriol here. Ok, I know the 24 news cycle makes it seem like every thing that happens is happening for the first time, but people who work for organizations like Huff need to do some basic research. NONE OF THIS IS NEW. Lets take a personal hero of mine, Harris Woffard. Woffard was part of founding the peace corps in the 60s, worked on youth and education issues in the 70s, was the labor sec for PA in the 80s and was appointed senator when John Heinz died in a plane crash. At no time did he run for or hold elective office. He was a pol, because he was appointed to the senate. It happens. This isn't an accident. I have no idea whether Woffard was rich when he did all of this but I doubt he was poor. We live in a world where people of modest means struggle to enter the upper echelon of public service. CK didn't start the piece corps, but her resume and Woffards are similar until he becomes labor sec and two years later senator. People get appointed to these jobs. The gov of a state doesn't appoint someone he/she does not know. The Gov of a state doesn't appoint people who can't help them raise money or win. GROW UP this is a game for big boys not children. Sheeesh.

[jcwtts1]

peace

[davidly]

Do you realize that you actually typed the word "Sheeesh"?

[antaeus]

And Woffard flopped when he had to actually run for that Senate seat.

[jdenham]

Unfortunately the one who will really suffer in this mess will be Gov. Patterson. No matter who he chooses he will be crucified in the press.

[Doofus]

Not if he picks someone who turns out to be a popular or effective
Senator, but, yes, initially, whoever he picks, he's going to take heat.

[glorialovelace]

They are more likely to crucify him if he chooses Caroline than if he chooses somebody more experienced and less controversial.

I think he has more to fear from Mayor Bloomberg than he does from the press.

[JohnTalbutt]

Caroline seems modest and straight forward but the Republicans and elements of the New York Democratic hierarchy accuse her of royal entitlement. Most of the media, led by the NYTimes, has adopted the same line.

Now David Sirota, who is sometimes astute, has joined this drum beat with a piece which for all its crude exaggeration reads like a parody.

It is espected that this steady drum beat would find an echo in polls. Whether this echo will linger is another question.

It might suprise Mr. Sirota that many opposing Mr. Bloomberg support Caroline. Certainly he should suspect that Bloomberg's support for her and his fullsome praise of Obama is an attempt to lull the forces for change brought about by Obama's election.

[1Marie23]

How can the media not scrutinize her when they crucified the Palins? They still won't leave the children alone. I plan on complaining until the announcement is made as to who the Gov. of NY appoints. He should know how disgusting this seems to many of us. This is not personal. Caroline is a fine person, a great benefactor, and a good mom I am sure. She is just not Senate material and her weak speaking skills are evident.

[JohnTalbutt]

I agree that they should leave the Palin kids alone. Scrutiny is fine. That is not what is involved here. Read Sirota's article above and you will see it is just a string of implied insults to her and anyone who is supporting her.

[meko]

A lot of progressives are bothered by the prospect of a Caroline Kennedy appointment too. There are a number public servants in New York who have proposed and passed progressive legislation. Having more faith in them than a neophyte like Kennedy isn't about vitriol. It's about believing there's a better choice.

[americanalien]

Caroline Kennedy is supremely qualified for the job. The attacks that are being leveled against her are the same attacks that were leveled against Hillary when she was running for the office as a former First Lady. As we know Hillary turned out to be one of the finest senators in New York State history.

I don't trust these polls. A lot of it stems from the intense media attention regarding the possible appointment of Ms. Kennedy, most of which have been negative. However, at the end of the day the Kennedys remain enormously popular in New York and Caroline will almost certainly be a powerful force to reckon with if eventually appointed. The fact that she is in the aristocratic class should not matter. The fact that she, if appointed, will have the full faith of our new President and almost instant political capital in Washington should matter as it will go a long way in pushing through much of the state's agenda.

[glorialovelace]

Nobody ever accused Hillary Clinton of being lazy and passive, or being a bad public speaker. Ane nobody accused Clinton of not being willing to work very hard in order to get the job she was seeking.

Historically, New Yorkers are not particularly offended by carpetbaggers, but we are very much offended by line-jumpers who think they should just be handed a very important job that they are completely unqualified to do.

There is absolutely NO comparison between Hillary Clinton and this Caroline Kennedy.

[1Marie23]

You are right on! Caroline is no camparison for Hillary. She has only been involved in charity work, having ghost writers write her books, raising kids, and generally being a nice person. She just does not deserve a Senate seat handed to her. She is not well spoken, and she carries herself rather awkwardly. She does not have Kennedy charisma, which seems to have eluded the second generation of Kennedys, except for Maria who is experienced due to her WORK experience as a reporter. The others are rather blah, nice people, but blah. To accomplish this in a race, she would need a makeover artist and a speaking course. She did not even vote in all elections. She is just not that concerned with politics, until about 6 mo. ago.

[JohnTalbutt]

You, yourself, make the comparison inevitable. When you make all those heated and poorly founded accusations about Caroline it reminds New Yorkers of the attacks on Hillary

Why don't you accept the gracious praise Americanalien gave Hillary and make some argument for whoever it is that you think will be better than Caroline.

[standard]

Firstly, a seat in the U.S. Senate is a public trust, not partisan patronage: THERE IS NO LINE TO JUMP!!

"Nobody ever accused Hillary Clinton of being . . . a bad public speaker."

I hereby--again--accuse Mrs. Clinton of being a bad public speaker: Throughout the 2008 primaries, she bellowed into microphones, invented facts about herself and her opponents, and made herself the topic of almost her every sentence. These are attributes of a very poor public speaker. Just a year ago, I was entirely neutral about her. After a month of hearing her on the stump and in debates, she completely alienated me.

"There is absolutely NO comparison between Hillary Clinton and this Caroline Kennedy."

Really? Caroline is younger, richer, smarter, prettier, far less self-absorbed, far less self-promoting, a far longer-term resident of New York (her birthplace and mine) and has had an exemplary marriage. They both attended elite colleges and law schools, held no public office before aspiring to the Senate, are mothers, authors and Democrats and can be expected to play a role in the Obama administration. You like one; you dislike the other. Voila! A comparison.

[darker]

I agree. Caroline Kennedy has the education, dedication, integrity to be the new NYState Senator.
She can do a lot for New York State. Much more than the corrupt politicians staging campaigns against her, so they can get their hands on billions to throw around to their pals who support their
criminality once they achieve senatorial office.

If those corrupt lobbyists are against C. Kennedy, then I am FOR HER.

[banja]

I blame this on Gov Patterson for waiting this long to nominate Caroline leaving her exposed to ridiculous personal attacks on a daily basis. Ofcourse her negatives are up after regular bashing from the left and right. Do you think Maloney or Isreal will be able to raise $70M for 2 consecutive runs, i don't think so. Ackerman compares her to JLo, then King call her a park avenue socialite, clearly sexist stuff. Another clear case of Dem on Dem crime.

[antaeus]

Is Patterson to blame for her not having voted?

Stop finger pointing. When she--rarely--steps in front of a microphone, she sounds terrible.

[1Marie23]

You are right, Gov. Patterson is between a rock and a hard place. He will not win in this appointment.

[glorialovelace]

Maloney could certainly raise it. But it really shouldn't be about money. What some people seem to be saying is that Caroline should be given the post so she can subsidize NY State Dems. That's a terrible idea.

[banja]

In your dreams, ofcourse it's about money, the NY media market is one of the most expensive in the country. maloney's so called experience is a road to nowhere.

[Doofus]

Paterson can't really appoint until there's a vacancy, and that's a few weeks away.
But that point aside, the matter has not been handled too well, spiraling out of
control perhaps. As CK might have said, 'Um, all I said was I'd take the job
if he asked, y'know. This guy on the HuffPo said I was the perfect choice.'

But all the other wannabees coming up with excellent reasons why
she's not, that's obviously to be expected. Basically, none of the
congressional Reps or local politicos have any reason to
think they're likely to get chosen, let alone get elected
when it goes to a state-wide election in 2010.

[Oldchef]

Caroline Kennedy may not have political experience but she has a fine mind, has done some good work on education, and, if she's decided after a lifetime of avoiding the spotlight that she could ,make a difference in the political arena, why not? At least she's a real resident of New York, not an incomer from Arkansas and DC.

[Jose11435]

Then let her run for office and if she gets elected then so be it. I think a lot of the issues against her comes from the fact that she seems to have come out of the blue with this wish to be a Senator and seems to prefer to be appointed rather than do the hard work that is running for office. She may or may not end up being a Senator, if she ever makes it there, but to many of us, is the way she is trying to get there that we find problematic. Qualifications for office are minimal, we never know for sure how good a person is in office until they have served, so she might be qualified or not, but that is not the point. There are a lot of other candidates out there that we know from their previous work that they would be great. She is not one of them. The Gov doesn't want to name a care taker, but lets be honest, there is not one of any of the people that he can possible name to this seat that will be a care taker of it. Every single person that can be name will certainly run for that seat again. So Caroline can run against that person if she really wants to be Senator and earn it.

[JohnTalbutt]

Everyone can run, but someone is going to be appointed within the next month and it is time that those who oppose Caroline make the case for a candidate who might be appointed, you know like, say. Cuomo.

[CGrace]

It should be Caroline Kennedy. She will have full support from President Obama and she can raise the money for 2010 & 2012. She is just as smart and qualified as Hillary was in 2000 and she actually lives in New York.

[engineer68]

But she never traveled outside of New York City. New York City is not the whole State. Hillary traveled around the State for a long period of time before seeking election not an appointment to the Senate.

[glorialovelace]

If she's even half as smart as Hillary she has done nothing to show it. She comes across as annoyingly incapable. President Obama's support is not desirable in this instance. She's not supposed to be President Obama's voice in the Senate; she's supposed to be New York's voice in the Senate. The two are not the same.

[JohnTalbutt]

If Hillary was so smart how did she blow a fifty point lead in 2007?

[phild2]

Just curious, but how is this woman considered to be part of the entrenched power structure of the state when she bucked the power structure to endorse Obama? More likely shes anti establishment .

[melponeme k]

You think that Obama is not part of the power structure?

He wouldn't be in office if he was not. Its only a question of how much he is owned.

And I voted for him, mind you.

[1Marie23]

Obama owes his Senate seat in Illinois to making Ryan (R) open his sealed divorce records. Ryan had to resign last minute and basically he ran upapposed (Alan Keyes irritated everyone). Yes, Obama came out of a corrupt Illinois same as Blago and many many others.

[glorialovelace]

How did she "buck the power structure" when she endorsed somebody who was already winning?

[JohnTalbutt]

The power structure was for Hillary. The people were for Obama. Caroline went with the people. Hey, weren't you around in the past couple of years?

[Rosanneofpgh]

With all due respect to Mrs. Schlossberg (BTW, why is she mostly referred to as Kennedy? To cash in on her name star power?) , her experience in politics is woefully inadequate. She is well educated but speaks like a child who had been left behind. She needs to brush up her oratory skills which, at this point, seem to be nonexistent. All those you knows and ums make her look dumb and it is actually painful to watch and listen to her.

To saddle New Yorkers with a senator who has not voted much and who has no political experience is unfair to them. Being a senator should require someone who does not need on the job training and who can speak in coherent sentences.

(I have a great deal of repect for the Kennedy family for all they have done and for all the tragedies theyve suffered but respect and sympathy are no reasons to hand such an important job to such an inexperienced person as Mrs. Schlossberg.)

[bayside]

New Yorkers.. Caroline Kennedy is honest ,has integrity and a constutional lawyer. Those are the qualities we want and will have in our congress if we do our homework ..Republicans have their bug man type like Delay and we have quality candidates..

[strawberryjulius]

"honest, has integrity and a constitutional lawyer"

There are many New Yorkers who fit this description. The reason Caroline Kennedy is being considered for senate is because she is a Kennedy, That's wrong. Patternson should appoint Cuomo or Rep. Carolyn Maloney. If Caroline Kennedy thinks she can do a better job than either of them she can run against them in the 2010 primary.

[glorialovelace]

Caroline is not a constitutional lawyer. She does not practice law. She has never taken on a constitutional law case. She has never clerked for any judge. She has never written a brief. She allowed her law license to lapse for years. It is a stretch to say she is a lawyer at all.