Caroline Kennedy and the U.S. Senate

Although I live in New York and used to be reasonably involved in politics here, the question of who David Paterson will appoint to the Senate is not one about which I have a strong opinion. I am confident that almost all the candidates who Paterson is seriously considering would almost certainly vote the same way on the major issues and all would start at the bottom of an institution where it takes some time to accrue real power-even for those with a famous last name. If you don't believe that, ask Hillary Clinton.

I do, however, appreciate the irony of Governor Paterson agonizing over a tough decision about who to appoint to a Senate seat which many thought would be his. Two and a half years ago, when Paterson agreed to serve as the running mate for then Democratic gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer, it was broadly believed in New York political circles that Paterson was giving up his position in the Democratic leadership of the New York State Senate to help Spitzer with the understanding that when Hillary Clinton left the Senate to go to the White House, Spitzer would appoint Paterson to Clinton's vacated Senate seat. Things didn't work out quite that way.

Now, of course, what began as a question over whether Paterson would pick one of a handful of qualified members of the House of Representatives, or the sitting Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, has given way to a livelier debate over the merits of Caroline Kennedy. Who would have thought that Andrew Cuomo would be the candidate with only the second most famous political father-and a distant second at that?

Kennedy's candidacy for the Senate raises the issue of what qualities we should look for when choosing a senator. It seems that simply the ability to rise up the ranks of Democratic Party politics in New York State should not be the preeminent qualification. These skills are certainly helpful with regard to legislative and political matters, but they should not be confused with the vision and judgment needed to be a great senator.

The most commonly used argument against Caroline Kennedy is that she hasn't earned it, which is another way of saying she hasn't worked her way up through the party structures. To this I would raise the question "So What?" Why should any voter care about whether or not a candidate has earned anything? Being appointed to the US Senate is not like receiving a scholarship to college or even a job promotion, although being a senator is a great job. In other words it is not a decision that should be based retrospectively on merit, but prospectively on what that candidate will do in the Senate, and the notion that great senators need to have years of experience in elected office should not be just taken at face value. If Paterson thinks Caroline Kennedy can do the most for New York and for our country than he should appoint her. Obviously, political considerations, a balanced ticket, future electability and the like are all important too, but nobody is saying Kennedy is a bad candidate because she will bring the party down in 2010.

The notion that it would somehow be unfair to appoint Kennedy because she has not toiled in the House of Representatives for a decade should not be one that ordinary voters take seriously because it has no bearing on us. That is in argument for the insiders. You don't hear it said too frequently that somebody would have been a great senator if only she had served three terms in the House first. The Senate lends itself quite well to on the job training, especially given that new senators start at the bottom of the seniority ladder.

While I generally prefer candidates who do not come from political families, it seems a little peculiar for New York political leadership to become sensitive to this issue now. We are a state whose governor is the son of a famous political leader, junior senator is the wife of a former president and attorney general is the son of a former governor. In this regard Caroline Kennedy would be nothing new, although her name would be even more famous than the Cuomos, Clintons and Patersons which populate the state's current leadership.

Caroline Kennedy would probably be a very good US Senator, but she is not the only candidate about whom that can be said. Nydia Velazquez and Carolyn Maloney, just to name two, are both hard working progressive women who would also serve our state well in the Senate. In this regard, Paterson has a tough choice, but he should make it based on who will be the best senator, not on some insider's game of who has paid what dues.

Comments

[Cliffyworld]

Please read related article titled " Its not experience that matters in NY, It's ethics" posted at http://www.cliffyworld.com

[meko]

She is only in consideration because of her last name, money and family connections. No one with her resume (non-practicing attorney, co-author of a few books, charity board member, part-time volunteer on behalf of NY public schools) would be considered otherwise.

But perhaps all those people talking about the cost of reelection have a point. Perhaps only the very wealthy and people with relatives in government can win the senate seat in New York. Caroline Kennedy never raised money for anyone who wasn't a family member, and I doubt her friends would either.

The New York senate seat, may not be available to anyone but the wealthy. The best the common people can hope for is a relatively sympathetic plutocrat.

But I'm not giving them any of my time or money. If the senate is going to be bought by someone, they can buy it themselves.

[ClarkJensen]

Do most of the 'LEGACY CANDIDATES" come from the EAST COAST? No question that Chicago has Daley, Indiana has Bayh, California has Jerry Brown and there's Udall. But the East Coast and South Eastern states reads like a WHO'S WHO of political dynasties big and small. In New Hampshire there is Sununu, Pennsylvania there is Casey, there is Clinton, and the budding Biden, Gore, Rockefeller, Romney, Cuomo and then there is the Bush and Kennedy family.
But the Bush and Kennedy family deserve special mention. The power of dynastic political families is so great that Jeb Bush can rise up out of the ashes of his brother's Presidency and announce his intentions to run and already the Republican Party is "clearing the field" for him. Caroline Kennedy - in an act of awesome political power and bravado has "called in her intentions" to New York Governor Paterson, a neat trick that other legacy candidates might as well try in the future.
And she says that her children also would like to run, just as the next generation of the Bush family is already being groomed for their time to walk on stage. This country can't get enough of it.

[ESerafina42]

What about the Salazar brothers in Colorado, the Udalls (I think in 2 different states), and the Sanchez sisters in California?

[trailrunner9]

To finish your last sentence: or who has the most high profile name.

What ini God's name does Caroline Kennedy even stand for??????? Does anybody really know? She's been a recluse out in the Hamptons for as long as I can remember. Why should she simply be placed into a positoin of this level without any vetting and process to see if she demonstrates the leadership skills and connection with th constituents. So far, she's put on a pretty pathetic performance being whisked around in her Denali SUV, ignoring questions, and demonstrating no passion, ideas, or connection with constituents. I as a New Yorker say, please David Patterson, though I can understand the position you are in, I hope you find the strength to make the right decision. In these times we don't need to experiment with unknown equations. There is a very talented pool of people having demonstrated and proven themselves to be strong advocates for the people of New York with the passion and political skills to go along with it. Carline Kennedy mumbles and says nothing. I say if she really has something to offer, let her demonstrate it in a real campaign in 2010 and in the meantime appoint someone who has demonstrated the qualities to step into the role temporarily. I hope they even change this process all together where there are no appointments and the process goes through the people, the way it should be.

[ESerafina42]

Yes - even the previous situation (before direct elections) where senators were chosen by state legislatures is better than giving the decision to one person, however honest and ethical they may be.

[KayJay90]

A totally hilarious slightly off-topic note copied from another blog, relating to Why It's Not All That Important For Politicians, Etc. to Have Experience:

"The New York Post's Page 6 has apparently learned that non other than Rudy Giuliani is in talks to replace Bill O'Reilly's radio show.

See, you don't need talent, morals (adultery, mob ties, corruption), or even a personality to score a gig on the bible belt network."

[AlltheBuzzfromCali]

This is all futile. She has already been chosen...the rest is just P.R. to desensitize the public to the fact. By the time Caroline is appointed, the average New Yorker will be singing her praises the way CNN, Fox and the alphabet networks tell them to. They will havc become "fond" of her the way Paterson says he is. Her hair style will be desired, her clothes will be admired, her kids' names will be household words, and the women will be gushing over "that cute Ed." Americans are the dumbest people on earth and this will not be hard to accomplish.

[meko]

It does seem as if if she's already got the receipt in her pocket for this job, doesn't it.

[glorialovelace]

I don't agree. I think the public -- the New York public, that is -- is growing angrier and angrier at this stunt.

[rcwblessed]

Wishful thinking...

[strangelet]

I am not a voter in New York, so my opinion means even less than theirs (which, for this appointment, is zero anyhow). From what I've read, CK appears to be a fine person, who in all probability would be a better-than-average Senator (please look at the existing Senators for examples of those who pull down the average).

To a certain extent, I can agree with the OP that agonizing over what constitutes adequate "experience" is a waste of time. Everyone has different life experience. As it happens, the role of US Senator is very unlike almost any other job -- even other legislative positions. It is arguable that intelligence, vision, and demeanor are more important attributes for a Senator than are prior parliamentary experience, or even prior detailed knowledge of issues.

However, I think that meko, at 7:16PM 12/19/2008, captured the major objection appointing CK:
"No one with her resume would be considered if it weren't for her parents."

I believe this is true, and I suggest that those folks who support her appointment -- whether based on her undeniable accomplishments, or her hypothetical ability to inspire, or whatever -- ask themselves if they would be equally supportive of an equally well-connected woman with exactly the same life experience whose maiden name happened to be, say, Onassis. Or Schwartz.

However, I also think that

[glorialovelace]

A "fine person" wouldn't try to shove her way to the front of the line.

[rockne]

Caroline Kennedy is totally UNQUALIFIED to be a U.S. senator. PERIOD!! If her Dad was not President and her name was not Kennedy, she would not even be on the radar screen. This country needs people who are going to be problem solvers, carriers on a family legacy.

[standard]

There's a good deal more to CKS than her just being a President's daughter. She's also a product of Harvard and Columbia Law, a long-term participant in civic affairs in New York, the author of a number of well-received books (including two on our civil liberties), a mother and an important voice for improving public education.

"If . . . her name was not Kennedy, she would not even be on the radar screen. "? Actually, if her name were not Kennedy she'd still be on the radar screen--only, not under attack by folks who don't see past a mere name to the citizen and what she can offer her state and our Party. Like her or not, problem solvers come in a wide variety of names and backgrounds.

[glorialovelace]

1. A few of the other candidates are also Ivy League graduates, and some were c u m laude or Phi Beta Kappa, which CK is not. I don't think that -- in a society that supposedly eschews elitism -- that we should be evaluating candidates on the basis of which colleges they were admitted to when they were teenagers. Especially if they attended college more than a dozen years ago, when admissions policies at the Ivys stank of nepotism.

2. Her books were basically written from clippings and were for the beginner-level reader.

[customgreen]

The qualifications to be a United States Senator are as follows. You must be at least 30 years of age. She is....You must have resided in the United Staes for a period of no less than 9 years up to the day of the election, she does....You must reside in the State that you are being elected to She Does. CASE CLOSED She meets the qualifications, plain and simple.

[ESerafina42]

That, however, is with the expectation that the person would actually have to do something to convince the voters (or the state legislature) that they actually WERE the best person for the job. What you are giving are the MINIMUM qualifications.

[Bebop251]

To me the larger point is that the New York State senate seat does not belong to Governor Paterson, it belongs to the people of the state of New York and should be filled by someone who has faced and been validated by the voters of the state of New York. If that's a congress person, a mayor, a city council member, whatever, I don't care. It is still someone who has gathered signatures, built an organization, met the constituents and made the personal sacrifices a political campaign demands. Obama won an election, Clinton won an election, Caroline Kennedy has not even run. Awarding her the senate seat by royal decree would rob her of legitimacy, be a slap in the face to the voters of New York and would likely result in a strong and successful republican challenge in 2010.

[standard]

The Bush family have been professional politicians for generations; many of the men in that family have managed--one way or another--to run for office and get elected. Consider their sorry record. So much for the value of electing only professional politicians.

If appointed, CKS will HAVE TO face the voters in 2010 and again in 2012, so there will be ample opportunity for her to face New York voters, who can select someone else if they want to as strongly as you seem to.

The Senate seat currently belongs to the people of New York THROUGH the action of their Governor, whom they elected to public office. If he fails to make an appointment, the value of having that seat is lost until the special election in 2010. If Mr. Paterson wants to remain governor, he has to consider what his constituents want and what best serves their interests.

Too many people claim to rationally oppose appointments in general when in reality they just dislike Caroline Kennedy. That just makes it tough for legitimate reformers to make their case--and for supporters of Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg to make ours.

[glorialovelace]

Nobody dislikes Caroline Kennedy. What's to dislike?

We New Yorkers simply resent line jumpers and entitlement chazzers.

Why should she shove people out of the way, people who are better than she is?

[glorialovelace]

We New Yorkers don't want her for two years. We don't want her for twenty minutes. And if Governor Paterson is foolish enough to appoint her, our resentment will rub off on him. There are far, far better people available to fill that seat, and it is his responsibility to the people who live in New York to appoint one of them.

[Taan]

Kennedy unqualified? How soon we forget, George W. Bush, the most unqualified candidate in U.S. history being installed in the Oval Office by the electorate and the Supreme Court. You don't need to be "qualified" to be a congressperson. Once elected, you only need a cozy relationship with the tsunami of Big Money hustlers in D.C. They write legislation. You just rubber stamp it.

[glorialovelace]

Just because there have been people elected to public office that were even less qualified than CK, is not an excuse for appointing her. Two wrongs don't make a right, especially not in New York State.

[blogpost]

i disagree with the premise of 'so what, no merit' & hasn't worked 'her way up' applying to Carolyn Kennedy in the least. She's been in Public Service her whole life, is a policy writer, legal expert, has committee experience. Pretty darned qualified i think..

[meko]

She never held a job where she didn't write the job description. She co-wrote books. She never tried a case. She never practiced laws. She worked on charity boards. Her achievements are eclipsed by those of thousands if not millions of New Yorkers. She is not under considerations due to her merits.

He life has been very private and there is no way of objectively measuring her work. I've been on charity boards where heiresses were there for the name, and on ones where they did work too. There's no way for an outsider to know which happened.

No one with her resume would be considered if it weren't for her parents. This is a legacy appointment. An attempt at inheriting a senate seat. Cronyism.

[LaurieR]

How do you "inherit" a Senate seat that was last held by a member of your family over 40 years ago? That position is really wearing thin... there's too long a gap for it to be a relevant and compelling argument.

[Walterba]

I loved President Kennedy and Mrs Schlossberg has led an exemplary life. If she is appointed Senator from New York this again will demonstrate the cynicism in my Democratic party. Contrary to what we are supposed to stand for it will once again demonstrate that we , in practice , are not
the high minded liberal caring party but that in fact we endorse the the concept that our positions of power belong to the overpriledged and well connected.You wonder where Ted Keneddy's heart is. All these years supposedly working for the underprivileged but when it really counts
when push comes to shove he tries to jam Mrs. Schlossberg down our throats. Then we have Joe Biden, his chief of staff is going to baby sit his seat until his son completes his tour of duty in the Army. What do you say to those highly motivated young people who want to make public service a career. Remember work hard , play by the rules and you will succeed . Baloney. What trumps that is having access to a lot of money and/or having the right name and/or having a powerful patron.

The founders created this country with the idea that these notions would not be part of our nations political life. Shame on us. Mrs Schlossberg for Ambassador to Ireland or the Vatican.

walterba

[glorialovelace]

President Kennedy was not a good person, and his personal life was downright depraved. Caroline has spend most of her life sitting up there on Park Avenue on a velvet cushion, eating bonbons out of a silver spoon. She's never even visited upstate New York, and in some years, she hasn't even been interested enough in New York State politics to vote in our elections.

[radicalcentrist44]

Caroline will vote 100% along party lines and sponsor legislation that does not really do anything. Anyone can do the job. It just looks bad when she travels upstate (to her that means north of Westchester) to "learn new things." Give me a break, if she does not know what is going on in upstate and western NY she really is isolated. How about giving it to a candidate who knows what is going on inside the state and can address the issues without having to take a p.r. tour through Syracuse and not answer questions. By the way, she rode in a SUV, so much for the environment, but then again, she is different because she is a Kennedy (I wonder if RFK Jr. would also use that mode of travel).

[meko]

Americans are obsessed with fame and money. All of this Camelot talk is more of the same. While Caroline Kennedy has done nothing to embarrass herself, every asset she has as a candidate is something she was born with. Appointing her is an insult to anyone who believes in hard work.

Her achievements? She is an attorney, one of thousands in the state of New York, and unlike most of the rest, she's never practiced.

She's a co-author of some books, but how many authors (solo authors) are there in the state of New York.

Having raised money for charities is another criteria where there are hundreds of people who've done the same. I've worked on charities with heiresses. Some work hard, some are a name on the stationery.

She's a name, a brand. Appointing her is an act of nepotism and an insult to democracy, meritocracy and egalitarianism.

It's also one of the reasons the Democrats were so long dismissed as "East Coast elites." This Kennedy hurts the party in the long run by reminding talented people that there is no point in joining another party that is only there to provide positions for the sons and daughters of the plutocracy.

[TEH]

We don't elect people to office as a reward for having worked hard (as Judith Warner opines we should do in her NYT piece today). We elect them because we expect them to inspire us, to accrue power, and to use that power wisely on our behalf. And in so far as we live, like it or not, in what Richard Lanham has coined the age of the "attention economy," nothing translates into power like the ability to garner attention. And I can think of no individual on the planet able to command attention like Caroline Kennedy, although she has tended to avoid the public eye until now. Not Hillary, not Bill Clinton -- no one comes close to her in this regard except of course our President Elect, whom the Kennedys endorsed precisely because they saw in him this same quality early in his campaign. Charisma, glamor, or whatever you want to call it isn't a sufficient condition for political success, but it helps tremendously. Given that Ms Kennedy has demonstrated she has the native intelligence and seriousness required to use her persona effectively, and given her additional political resources (The Kennedy machine), I don't see how any other candidate can seriously compete with her. Let's hope the Governor does New York, and the nation, this great good turn by making her New York's new junior senator.

[meko]

I see Caroline Kennedy as just another example of political cronyism. She's a slap in the face to all of us who've gave up our time to ring doorbells and register voters for Obama. I want a candidate who is willing to do the work of meeting with her constituents. I don't want another aristocrat.

[ESerafina42]

It also looks an awful lot like payback time. She and Uncle Ted endorse Obama, Obama kicks HIllary upstairs after he wins, and lo and behold! Magically a Senate seat appears, and pressure is applied on Paterson (though not by Obama, as far as I know) to appoint Kennedy. It doesn't matter whether any of that is intentional on anyone's part. "The appearance of impropriety" and all that, you know. It stinks to high heaven.

[Walterba]

Great TEH. We voted for " a different way of doing business in Washington DC" we voted for " change we can believe in." These are concepts that Mrs Schlossberg presumably campaigned for while supporting Mr.Obama and are negated by her very candidacy. If TEH's thesis is true then we should look for the Charles Mansons, Sarah Palins. Brittany Spears the what's his name governor of Illinois, Maddofs, etc to be our leading lights in the the political life of our country. TEH just confirms that our obsession in this country with " celebrity" and not demonstrated competence has driven us to this tragic stage in the USA. if we were an employer looking at the resumes of prospective candidates , Mrs Schlossberg would not even make it to the intrerview process. TEH just demonstates what is wrong with our political process today. Yes Mrs. Schlossberg in the Caroline Kennedy mode can raise a lot of money. Yes more money in our political life is what we need because it represents "free speech." And don't forget the more money you have the more free speech you can buy. WAKE UP FOLKS. IT STINKS.

[lj9283]

Bravo!!!