The Political Growth and Power of Caroline Kennedy
Caroline Kennedy has taken the first step in telling Governor David Paterson that she wants to be appointed to the Senate. She is not waiting to be asked, as some women tend to do.
The reaction has varied from enthusiastic to skeptical. The big question that is being raised is: does she have the experience to be a U.S. Senator?
It's possible that I am being too sensitive about gender bias, but is the "experience" question raised more frequently for women than it is for men? Men are often naturally assumed to have certain qualifications simply because of their gender, without having to prove it on their resumes. For instance, rarely is a man questioned whether he is tough enough for the job. (Except for a brief stint during the Democratic primary when that question was raised by some about Barack Obama.) Female politicians still have to strike just the right balance between being tough enough, and simultaneously feminine enough to be liked.
Clearly, Caroline Kennedy is no Sarah Palin. She is bright and articulate in ways that Palin could not acquire overnight. But just because Kennedy is attractive, some may assume she doesn't have the grit (one of Hillary Clinton's credentials) to run future tough campaigns. That would be a mistake.
Men are assumed to have financial and political skills, whether they have them or not. We are unaware of how often both men and women engage in gender stereotyping--until we are forced to stop and think. Some of that is occurring in regard to Caroline Kennedy's credentials. I have to ask myself, if her brother John were alive and declared his desire for the Senate seat, would the same questions be raised?
The "experience" question is being asked of Caroline Kennedy in a way it was never asked of her uncle Bobby--who also had never held prior elective office--because she has had different life experiences as a woman, wife, and mother than a man, who is a husband and father. Except for coming from a privileged background, her experiences are not dramatically different from other women who may seek political office. "Differently qualified" does not translate into "less qualified."
Like many women, admittedly those who can afford not to work outside the home, when her children were younger, she devoted her time largely to their upbringing. Over time, she became involved in the issues she cared about, primarily the quality of education, a natural progression towards community activism for women.
Now some may say her time spent raising children and being involved with New York City schools, and writing books, are not serious qualifications for public office. I would argue otherwise.
As an engaged member of her community she was in closer touch with New York's citizens than some elected officials who move from one campaign fundraiser to the next. Throughout her private life, she has developed networks, different but equally valuable as the networks men have established. She would immediately be comfortable in the world of power brokers, a skill that other political newcomers would take years to achieve.
Let's fast forward to the Obama campaign. When she decided to endorse Obama she made a clear break with her past, moving from the sidelines to the front lines. She said her children urged her to do so. In saying so, she acknowledged that she had entered a new stage of her life. It also shielded her from being viewed as a typical politician who may make endorsements for future political gain.
During those final intense weeks of the Democratic primary campaign she got a taste of real politics--the handshakes, the speeches, and yes, the roar of the crowd.
Most importantly, she discovered a new side to her own capability--that she not only could make a difference, but that she had to make a difference. It was worth it, she must have concluded, to take the risk to move squarely and boldly into the limelight, center stage. It is fair to ask, what exactly are the qualifications that a New York State Senator must have?
There are some things that can be learned fairly easily--the geography, personalities, and issues of upstate New Yorkers who are particularly fearful of being neglected, especially as they are experiencing tough times. The rules of the political game, both written and unwritten, also can be learned--and she will not lack for tutors. I suspect she is a quick study. What cannot be learned is a qualification that she has--a passion for public service. Part of it comes from her family, and much of it comes from within herself. Her father expressed his call to service through public office, as was expected for men of his time. Her mother too, had that calling, working in the arts, and almost single-handedly saving Grand Central Station, expressing herself as expected for women of her time. She learned from them both.
Until now, their daughter has expressed it in small manageable and somewhat private ways, now she appears to be ready to take the big leap into the public sphere.
In public life, it is not always what you already know that matters, it is what you don't know and must have the curiosity and sensitivity to find out. Can she understand the lives of people who are very different from her neighbors on Park Avenue; can she not only listen to their stories, but also achieve change for the better?
That remains an open question, but I surmise she must have learned some of that at her father's and her uncles' knees.
We will not fully get to know her between now and the Paterson appointment because she cannot openly campaign for the seat as Hillary Clinton did. It is considered "unseemly" to put pressure on the Governor by the candidate herself.
If I were a New Yorker, I would be willing to take the risk that she has the experience, fundamental values, intellectual curiosity, and empathy to become an excellent United States Senator.
This was originally posted at Chelsea Green.
Madeleine M. Kunin is the former Governor of Vermont and was the state's first woman governor. She served as Ambassador to Switzerland for President Clinton, and was on the three-person panel that chose Al Gore to be Clinton's VP. She is the author of Pearls, Politics, and Power: How Women Can Win and Lead from Chelsea Green Publishing.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Hell yes. Don't kid yourselves. Men are talking about her butt and thighs to themselves, too. That's how they do with Hillary.
I think Caroline is a very courageous person to even stand in front of a crowd of Americans.
Aren't all the people who've run for office even more courageous? They've reached out to meet their constituents and listened to them. Andrew Cuomo, Byron Brown, Carolyn Maloney, Elizabeth Holtzman, Thomas Suozzi, Nydia Velazquez, Kirsten Gillibrand, Steve Israel all put themselves out there. They've all withstood more scrutiny than she has.
I see sexism in appoint a woman because of who her father is while overlooking talented, hardworking women who've demonstrated their capabilities. It isn't progress when we view family relationships as the #1 quality a woman can have.
As a New Yorker, there are several things I find confusing about some of the crap that's being tossed at Caroline Kennedy.
1) Why is Kennedy the only potential candidate for appointment who is being called upon to give press conferences, explain her qualifications, etc. I haven't seen any similar pressure being brought to bear on Cuomo, Maloney or any of the rest of them?
2) There's a fair amount of sexist virtriol being thrown at Kennedy by disgruntled Clintonites who see her as some sort of traitor for having endorsed Obama. Terms like "Greta Garbo, dilletante, socialite, princess, J Lo" etc. Why are these people, who were decrying sexism so vehemently a couple of months ago, not denouncing this name-calling for the sexist rot that it is and/or overtly participating in it?
3) There's also some grumbling about "dynastic" politics. Gimme a break. Would Andrew Cuomo be anything in the NYS if his name had been Andrew Smith?
1. Because she has zero political experience. Rarely gives interview. Refused an interview form NY Times.
During normal circumstances candidates would present themselves to the public during the campaing. Voters will then decide. In this case we know what Cuomo and others stand for. They campaigned and competed for office before.
The electorate knows two things about CKS: she's a rich socialite who did a bit of charity wor and she's a Kennedy.
Her M.O. to-date has been spreading PR via yes-people and cousins. This is not enough to be appointed to one the most powerful political posts in the world.
3. Oh really, and whats this with "Ms. Kennedy." Is she single, divorced, widowed? Hmmm... A grown married women uses her maiden Kennedy name for what purposes exactly?
No legacy admissions to US Senate! This isn't Harvard, Darlings.
If she wants to run for office she'll have her opportunity in 2010. Thisll give Mrs. Schlossberg 2 years to present herself to the electorate.
Listen to the hypocrisy. When it was Hillary vs Obama, then all the HuffPo debaters were falling all over themselves to question her experience while glaringly failing to critique Obama's. Now all of a sudden it's taboo to question lifelong recluse Caroline Kennedy's obvious lack of experience. Orwell's Animal Farm is alive and well.
I respect and admire Caroline Kennedy. But I think that the problem people have with her is not "experience". She's certainly been involved in the political arena all of her life. It is her personality. She is quiet, soft spoken, even a bit shy. She has always been classy, respectful, and thoughtful. So it's hard to imagine her doing the pummeling necessary to win office - and it would be painful to watch her take the jabs, involved in that pursuit.
Just because the average citizen or pedestrian pundit is unaware of her experience does not mean she hasn't any. Both Caroline and her late brother John have been involved somewhat surrepetitiously over the years, as evidenced by John's creation of the Robin Hood Foundation, which many didn't learn of until his untimely death. NYC Schools, Harvard's Kennedy School, and an active supporter of Obama for the past year, are just a few of her more public experiences. Add to that her law career, and books authored on Constitutional issues such as Right to Privacy, make her an intriguing and knbowledgable choice. Personally, I think there can sometimes be such a thing as too experienced because it's just business as usual for so many career politicos . In ths instance, trust is also an issue for New Yorkers.Caroline as a long time volunteer for education and the arts, as an anti-war and pro Obama supporter, has proven her unselfish interest in the betterment of community and nation.
How come whenever a Bloomberg, a Romney or even a Forbes decides to run for office nobody ever dares to question their qualifications at all? This even though making money for a corporation has nothing whatsoever to do with governance.
CK's resume is much more appropriate for the Senate than any twelve ex-CEO's put together.
Except for the part about 'getting elected'. She obviously has no experience, and
may not have the demeanor to endure that. So why not take an opportunity to
sidestep that part of the process? Maybe this will work. We will just have to see.
They RAN for office. And predictably lost.
But few pampered and rich want to put themselves through the rigors of campaigning. Ms. Kennedy/Mrs. Schlossberg is the poster child for that.
The ONLY reason she's pushing for this--no campaigning, no hand soiling with hoi polloi.
If she fails to be appointed, she will (most likely) not run for any public office in the future.
Maybe so. But the opportunity for someone who is, say, ambitious but shy,
able but not experienced, etc, to enter the Senate *without* going through
an election, would be almost irresistible.
It suggests a certain 'arrogance', but it's widely believed she is not that.
Now, under the current circumstances, people will assume she must be.
well, my take on this is that she's got a fair amount of relevant experience, and demonstrated record of competence, and the intelligence to do the job just fine. experience directly in politics may be lacking a bit, but that was true of Jon Tester, as well, for example.
none of it matters though, I don't think she should have sought or should accept the appointment, and the governor shouldn't offer it to her. in a case such as this, it has the immediate appearance of impropriety, and just looks too much like payback for her support of Obama. I don't hold her lack of experience in elected public office against her in terms of character, I just think an appointment such as this should go to someone who is currently serving as an elected public official. then, in 2010, Ms. Kennedy can run for the seat and win it for real, in a way that won't be tainted or look like a dynastic succession of power from one generation of her family to the next (you know, one of the main reasons people left Europe and came to America, no royalty...).
The NY Daily News had a telling report today, apparantly Caroline has voted in about half of the elections since 1988. Well, cool, I got her beat on that one. We have someone who didn't care about politics until like 6 months ago, didn't even vote for the Senate seat she wants (1994), didn't vote for mayor (1989, 1993, 1997, 2005 - repubs won 3 of them btw) So lets her the lies that she has always had an interest in politics, that being a Kennedy she sat around their compound discussing NYC politics all day. (yet didn't take the time to vote) She worked three days a week as a fundraiser for public schools but sent hers to private acadamies. The more one looks at this objectively (hard for me since I admittedly am 100% against her coronation), the more it becomes obvious that this is 100% legacy and entitlement. Its downright nasty watching the old democractic machine push this on the people. Somewhere, Boss Tweed and Tamany Hall are smiling.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/12/18/2008-12-18_records_show_caroline_kennedy_failed_to_.html
I was just talking with my Mom about this. Haven't the Republicans already made this mistake by deriding community organizing? You would think that they would learn.
Carolyn has been criticized for being wealthy. Nearly all Senators are wealthy.
She has been criticized for not having a job. Since when is volunteer work, writing books and raising a family not a job? Do you have to be paid and go to an office to have a job? That would come as a surprise to many who volunteer their time in their communities.
All of this reeks of the Republican mantra of keeping tax breaks for the wealthy "because they work hard" for a living and the rest of us don't.
Just because someone receives a high salary for the work that they do, doesn't mean that they have created any value for American society. Think Wall Street and read Tom Friedman's editorial in the NYT today.
Experience is not the issue. Competency is, competency and passion. Obama's inexperience remains an asset because it still represents the potential for significant change in the way our government does things. Competent and passionate for the demands of the position, Ms Kennedy would be most welcome in the senate. I hope gender bias does not get in the way of her appointment.
"but is the "experience" question raised more frequently for women than it is for men?"
Actually, no; However, the whole 'experience' question is spurious - the Founders did not envision professional politicians holding elected office, they envisioned a citizen government. We should have term limitations on all elected offices to make sure we get this. Policy should be decided by the people, not by professionals who then 'sell' it to us or hide it under a clutter of soundbytes and other journalistic tricks.
This is nonsense. As we all know, Obama's experience was major issue sin the campaign -- though he he had served as senator, state legislator, prof. of constitutional law, etc.
Sexism doubtless works in Kennedy's favor -- a male who had never worked full-time would never even be considered for the Senate. (I say this reluctantly, as a woman.)
Some of the arguments advanced on Kennedy's behalf are so ludicrous, it's a little frightening.
Kennedy's endorsement of Obama hardly qualifies her for office. (Note that Obama did not choose her as ambassador to the UN, though she wanted the position..) Appointing Kennedy to the Senate would be another milestone in the unfortunate "celebritization" of America.
How do you know she wanted to be appointed as Ambassador to the UN? There was talk of it, but nothing directly from her.
For what it's worth: "Woman" as an adjective sounds like when right-wingers use the word "Democrat" as the same. I recommend "first female governor of Vermont".
Yes, you are being too sensative about gender bias, and you hurt your argument and credability by comparing her experience to Bobby's.
A few quibbles.
Barack Obama's experience wasn't questioned for a "brief stint" during the primaries. It was his biggest question from the point where he was a major player to shortly after Palin became McCain's running mate. And before Bobby was a Senator he was the Attorney General so he did have some experience. And although the experience question is fair enough(her biggest political job IIRC is vetting Obama's veep candidates) she is no Sarah Palin--she is clearly more competent(competence being different from--and more important than IMHO--experience).
What has she done that proves she's more competent than Palin?
All that takes is being able to put a sentence together.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
