The Shameful Bloviation About Whether Caroline Kennedy Is "Qualified" To Be A Senator

I've been sadly amused today watching the cable news bloviators discuss whether Caroline Kennedy is "qualified" to replace Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in the U.S. Senate and, frankly, the whole debate shows how disconnected and self-absorbed the pretentious inside-the-Beltway crowd is about who they wish to admit into their society.

So, allow me to be brutally honest about this Congressional qualifications stuff, for whatever my opinion is worth.

Without a doubt, we would all be much better served if all 535 Senators and Representatives were the smartest, most insightful, courageous, selfless people we could find. That would be ideal. But the truth is they aren't. Not even close. And having spent more than a decade around these people -- there's nothing so difficult about the job Representative or Senator that someone as impressive as Caroline Kennedy couldn't master in short order, if not on Day 1.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying anyone is suited to serve in Congress. The job is demanding, it takes a particular skill set to master things like debate, public speaking, digesting information and analyses, campaigning, and asking strangers for money. And the work they do is of critical importance. 

But I find it insulting and annoying that these political and media blowhards even think for a moment that the job is so complicated and technically difficult that a Caroline Kennedy might be out-of-her league if appointed. It's such utter nonsense that I find myself annoyed by it all.

The truth is, the real hard part of Congress is done by the staffers and career people. They do the tough work. They do the numbers crunching, the public policy analysis, the writing of crucial and complicated legislation, the constituent outreach and case work. That's the hard part. Serving as a member of Congress is not like being a governor of a state or, obviously, President of the United States. Those are hard jobs where the elected official is largely responsible for running an actual government on his/her own. (Side note: the effort by some to compare her to Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) is equally misplaced. Palin was running to be the possible next president [i.e., the hardest job of all], not one of 100 senators.).

I have had the honor of working with and getting to know some incredibly talented and brilliant people who serve in the House or Senate. My political career was built on the lessons learned from spending years with people like Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Rep. Ben Chandler (D-KY). But we should not confuse the fact that while there are many brilliant people in Congress, who bring a distinct skill set, the job itself doesn't require a Ph.D. to master. There are, unfortunately, more than a handful of especially unimpressive members of Congress who demonstrate daily that you can get by with limited skills, if not thrive.

After all, we are talking about a Congress that sent us into a war that cost us more than 4,000 American military lives and about a trillion dollars, even though no weapons of mass destruction existed. That same Congress can't balance a budget, stand-up to an abysmally unpopular president who happily skirted the boundaries of lawfulness for many years, and who seem wholly incapable of making tough and courageous decisions that the American public expects of them.

Nevertheless, despite the remarkable life that Caroline Kennedy has lived...despite her Harvard undergraduate degree and Columbia Law School degree...despite her being an attorney, an editor, and a published author...despite that our next president trusted her to co-lead his search for a vice president...despite coming from one of the greatest families ever to serve in the United States Congress... we have to sit and listen to members of this Beltway fraternity (and sorority) bluster that she might not be qualified to become 1 of 100 in the Senate. Seriously?

The pundits spew a great deal of nonsense on any given day. But this one might actually take the cake. And if I didn't know better, I might think there was a bit of misogyny wrapped-up in the analysis. Not only do I not recall the same criticism being leveled at the idea that her cousin -- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. -- might seek the appointment, or someday run for the job -- but I sort of recall some of the same arguments made about Hillary Clinton's own run for this seat eight years ago.

Finally, I'm not saying that experience doesn't matter. Clearly, it does. We want the best experience we can get in a candidate for any public office, and Kennedy would have to defend hers in a 2010 special election. That is a legitimate question for her opponent to raise. But when it comes to filling a Senate vacancy in New York, I find this whole discussion more than nauseating, especially considering the sources.

Mark Nickolas is the Managing Editor of Political Base, and this story was from his original post, "Honestly, It's Not Rocket Science"

Follow Mark Nickolas on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mnickolas

Comments

[meko]

What is so unfair about wanting her to have gone through the process of getting on a ballot for something, anything, before making her an incumbent senator?

If we want to have a hereditary aristocracy, let's do it and be done with it.

[zann]

I have trouble with this blogger saying its shameful to question Kennedy's qualifications. Her nomination brings up really important issues of government not just by the wealthy, but by the wealthy who went to Harvard or Yale and socialize with each other. If we lived in a kingdom and you lived in court, would you call the peons shameful for failing to worship a princess? Even if she was one of the best princesses and had lived a virtuous life.

[Mariel]

Think of the wives of deceased congressmen who have been appointed and did well. Mary Bono was appointed to Sonny's House seat and has been re-elected. Her constituents must have been satisfied.

I see nothing wrong with this pick, and the fact that she has had no scandal is so refreshing. There could be others more qualified, but isn't that almost always true in any race?

When do we start picking on her for her designer clothes?

[1shrink]

There are immense difference between the responsibilities of congresspersons and Senators.

[funkalicious]

Caroline Kennedy seeking a Senate appointment is nothing more than an entitlement program for the rich.
I don't care if she went to Harvard law. It is a bullshit appointment.

[Pennsylvanianne]

The selection of Sarah Palin was a bullshit appointment. It was nothing more than an entitlement program for right-to-lifers but she couldn't put a coherant sentence together.
Kennedy is an attorney and an author who cares about those less fortunate, not how many designer duds she can get her party to pay for. She is articulate and together and doesn't need prepping (which Palin did need and disdained, to her later detriment). I think Caroline is not a bad choice at all.

[radmul]

Palin went before the voters and was rejected. Kennedy is welcome to do the same but neopitism is a cancer on the body politic.

[1shrink]

Why set up the comparison? You can always find a worse selection. You may as well say, "Caroline Kennedy would be a better Senator than Gerald Ford was a President.­" It's ludicrous. The only valid comparison is between Caroline and other available choices for the Senate seat.

[fayemac]

You cant just come in and ask for the 3rd highest seat in NY when you wernt there for the tough years. Now, when she sees stars in her eyes because Obama comming in, does she feel that she can get things done. Just not right.

[seatech1]

Mark Nickolas is right, 'nuff said!

[LaurieR]

Here's what I want from my senator: fight for my state's interests, and be an effective surrogate for me in Washington. That's all. I don't need my senator to be a lifelong politician­... there are some people in public life who have been a lot closer to the action than your average City Councilmember or State Assemblyperson, who know how the federal government operates, know the law, and already have the ear of the people who count... their calls are returned and their ideas listened to. This is how things get done. Politics, like anything else, often requires someone who is able to influence others by being rational, intelligent and respected. Not every senator needs to have a background in local politics, and longevity (i.e. "paying your dues") in local politics doesn't *automatically* qualify someone for the Senate. I think we've all worked with dedicated people who have been with the company for a thousand years, but will never be the boss. Likewise, we've probably all worked with someone who was new at the job, but had better ideas and a more effective way of doing things than the "veterans," and so quickly earned the respect of their colleagues.

I don't need a career politician as my senator. What I do need is an effective voice in the Senate.

[tjdestry]

"Fight for my state's interests"??

Like Moynihan did? Like Bobby did? What does Caroline -- what did they -- know or care about apple growers in the Champlain Valley or tourism in the Finger Lakes or factory workers in Buffalo? (Whoops -- we already lost the latter) Look, New York is more than a city, and it shouldn't be treated as some national staging ground. It's a state with people in it who deserve effective representation. Being Senator from New York is supposed to mean "Senator from New York" not "National Figure" or "Senator from the UN" or "Next Presidential Candidate" or "Speechmaker General."

D'Amato, for all his many, many (many, many, many) faults, was rightly nicknamed "Senator Pothole" because he cared about the people of the state ... and not just the ones who lived south of Yonkers, but all of them. New York is entitled to two Senators, and I don't care how many bloviators Ms. Kennedy and her family are connected to. But, alas, those know-it-alls are dominating this conversation because they own the ink barrels.

[serena1313]

Personally I think Caroline Kennedy is extremely qualified. There is no comparison between Caroline Kennedy and Sarah Palin. The idea that someone would put them into the same category is ludicrous. Caroline has worked her entire adult life trying to improve other people's lives.

The "experience" argument is a false narrative considering Cheney, Rumsfeld, and a whole host of others whose "experience" along with their bad judgment, ideology and hubris got us into this morass of problems that otherwise could have been avoided.

Having Caroline Kennedy in the Senate would be an asset. She is bright, well-educated and has lived a life free of scandal. Furthermore being around politics all her life gives Caroline an insider view into how things operate in Washington.

I can think of many Senators -- some who have served several terms -- a lot less qualified and much less intelligent than Caroline Kennedy. Raising the IQ in the Senate would not be a bad thing!

[gba]

Sarah Palin is not asking for a seat in NY.The question must be how CK is more qualified than the other candidates

[serena1313]

No Palin isn't, but what do you want to bet she would have appointed herself to Ted Stevens seat in the Senate had he not lost the election.

[LRM216]

Sorry, all - have to disagree on this one. A name should not, nor does it, qualify you for a senator spot in any state of the union. My maiden name was Reese - didn't mean I could or should play baseball.

[CalexenderJ]

That's exactly the point. The only thing most of the people who are criticizing this pick know about Caroline is her name. Most people aren't aware of her invovlement behind the scene in a number of policy issues. Now I'm not saying she's the absolute best person for the job, neither is she a person with no accomplishments who has skated by on her last name her entire life (think W.)

[gba]

Please be specific: which policy issues?

[BarryS]

appoint me. i can do the job, and so could most other people in the USA. i even know how to deposit my paycheck in the bank; that is probably the most difficult part of the job,except being bored to tears by lobbyists lying all day long.

[jorge4u]

Who the heck compared Caroline to Sarah Palin? That's insulting to the Caroline and the entire Kennedy Family.

[gba]

And Sarah. At least she is a fighter

[rudiy]

Caroline is actually the epitomy of what qualifactions our founding fathers considered. Someone with a family, a job, ties to a community and desire who decides she would like to serve for a time in the political arena for the betterment of that community.

[ChangeNeeder]

I think one of the wonderful things she did by waiting is her children did not have to grow up in a fish bowl like she and her brother did.

Forget the family name, really look at her education, her volunteerism, achievements in life, etc.
Why not her ---- she's better qualified to be in the Senate than many who are in office across our nation.

[glorialovelace]

But she's not more qualified than the other New York State contenders for that job . She is far less qualified than they are.

[rbenjamin]

Two words: Fred Thompson. How hard can it be indeed. Still, would Caroline even merit consideration if she weren't a member of the Kennedy dynasty? 'Course not. She's smart, well educated and does good work, but she does it outside the apparatus of formal politics. She uses her status well. If she wants to run for the senate, and the voters give thumbs up, fine. Our citizenry is conflicted about inherited power...we voted to put Bush II in office. Well, not really, but you get my point. Still, the not quite completed disaster known as #43 is a cautionary tale about the wisdom of political dynasties and "regression to mediocrity­." Political nepotism is especially troubling when it occurs through appointment. If Caroline Kennedy wants the office she should ask her constituency, raise the money and run for election. The US is rightfully basking in the glow of a man from humble background who has risen to the highest office in the land. The Democrats shouldn't be the one's who detract from that image.

[antaeus]

You are right: it's not about denigrating CKS; it's about recognizing our sick yearning for a royal family and aristocratic power, which is contrary to the aspirations of a republic.

[rbenjamin]

It just occurred to me that regression to mediocrity may not be the correct term in the context of Bush II, since he descends from the mediocre Bush I. New jargon: regression FROM mediocrity.

[swkidder]

Many of us have been "underwhelmed," disappointed, frustrated, and righteously pissed off at the performance of Congress over the last 8 years. I don't doubt that there are many seriously intelligent members in both houses - some of whom also possess a moral compass that points due north.
But the single issue that seems to trip them up most frequently, most reliably, and in the very most publicly humiliating manner - is their attachment to the position. Too many of them care more for the status and the power that goes with the seat they hold than for the opportunity to be of service. I remember reading Snow Crash a few years ago, and in that "future world" national office holders were selected by lottery from a small group of those who were qualified for the position. The "winner" was required to serve until s/he could find a replacement. The single quality valued above all others in a public servant - was the absence of political ambition.
Caroline Kennedy is incredibly bright, kind, and possessed of unimpeachable integrity. These qualities already make her superbly fit for the job of serving in the Senate. But the one quality that tips her over the edge to "most qualified" is the fact that she hasn't lusted after the job, or sold her soul for the opportunity to be the one selected. Whether or not she ends up in the legislature - we could use a few more like her in Government.