Let us mince no words: the idea that Caroline Kennedy might be nominated to the Senate is embarassing. I come from a state that has given its fair share of bad ideas to the world. Punitive drug laws. Pennies ground into a medal with the Empire State Building on it. Rudy Giuliani for President. But this goes beyond that into a zone previously occupied only by the inventors of Pepsi Clear. We fought a whole war and everything to get away from political dynasties. Why are so many brain dead boomers avid to reinstall the talentless byblows of their bygone youth?
Cranky Professor has some answers. They are good answers. But they are not satisfying.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
The inventors of Crystal Pepsi are insulted you called it Pepsi Clear.
Hey now, no need to slander Crystal Pepsi, that stuff was awesome.
For people who (foolishly, disingenuously) ask why we are discriminating against CK just because she comes from a certain family, there is fresh evidence that she not only *is* a dynastic product, she *acts* like one as well. As Rep. Ackerman says in today's NY Times, she's a Palin: no public comments, no tax returns, nothing. We have to take what's behind the curtain--which is actually unfair to Palin, who had an extensive public record and did answer questions, albeit poorly (which was useful in concentrating the public mind about her).
While it was no Coke Zero, I also liked Crystal Pepsi.
I miss Crystal Pepsi!
"Why are so many brain dead boomers avid to reinstall the talentless byblows of their bygone youth?"
I'd suppose that said byblows, talentless or otherwise, could be anyone under the age of 42 or so. (At 50, Caroline would actually be a boomer herself, not a byblow of one.)
Of course, this clumsy remark would have been almost as nasty if the brain dead had been characterized as eager to reinstall themselves. Self-interest, though -- isn't that supposed to be a virtue in your byblown-given, temporarily youthful, invective-talented, and ever avidly mean-spirited world?
Is Chelsea Clinton old enough to be a senator, yet? Otherwise, if we must have political dynasties, how about Linda Evans or Joan Collins (even though she's British) from the TV show "Dynasty"?
I agree with Noah, Neal and Jody regarding Crystal Pepsi. I didn’t follow the marketing behind it (but I seem to recall that they used the song “Right Now” by Van Halen in their ads) but the drink itself was just as delicious as regular Pepsi and I preferred the clear color. My main complaint with the pop industry though is that I can’t find a diet Mello Yellow anywhere and the regular kind is now only found in fountain form.
All of this hullabaloo over Kennedy leaves me suspicious: where are all these watchdogs of American democracy every time another Bush gets elected? Nowhere to be seen!
Earnest Dodge writes:
Earnest, I earnestly hope that the doctors can surgically remove your head from your anal sphincter. Once this operation has been accomplished, and once the noisome masses of impacted fecal matter have been cleared from your sensory organs you might find that there were a lot of people who objected to Bush who are objecting to Kennedy today.
You might also, unless the impacted fecal matter damaged your brain, reflect upon the fact that just because Americans were stupid enough to give the Bush family three terms in the White House that this in no way justifies giving Caroline Kennedy a term in the Senate. You know, that whole "two wrongs don't make a right" thing.
Earnest Dodge,
1. At least they're getting elected rather than appointed.
2. We still hoot and holler anyway.
3. This kind of thing is why certain Athenian commentators considered elections to favor the aristocracy and sortition to be the more democratic way of selecting officials.
It is increasingly obvious to me that we need an anti-dynasty amendment. This amendment would specify the following:
1) If your father or mother was president of the United States you are prohibited from holding any federal office, either by election or appointment.
2) If your father or mother held a seat in the Senate or in the House you are prohibited from holding a seat in the Senate or House.
3) If your spouse held a seat in the House or Senate you are prohibited from holding a seat in the House or Senate.
4) If your spouse was president you are prohibited from becoming president.
Some will whine, stupidly, that this is anti-democratic. Well guess what, lots of things are anti-democratic, like the Bill of Rights, and it's a damned good thing that they are too!
Wile E Quixote,
if you removed your head from Megan's sphincter, perhaps you could ask her all the posts of her objection to Bush on the same grounds as her objection to Kennedy are?
Yes, the CK thing is grotesque. Here is my question: ARE there people who support her appointment because of warmth and nostalgia for the Kennedy clan? Really? I have yet to speak to one. What would their argument sound like, for goodness sake? "It is a fine and appropriate thing for a Kennedy scion of no accomplishment or distinction to become a powerful senator because.... Kennedys are genetically endowed with wisdom, discernment and honor? because its one last gesture of affection for the departed JFK? because we secretly believe in such a thing as a hereditary ruling class?" I am honestly perplexed. Sure, her appointment as part of cronyism and political fixing I understand, I'm from Chicago - but what is the publicly defensible case?
I love the internet. A self-loathing, overweight, 43 year old one-legged gun nut who reads comic books gets to tell me to take my head out of my ass for wondering where all the anxious arm-wavers are every time a Republican scion of the political elite gets elected whilst making anti-democratic arguments that will somehow supposedly create a healthier democracy! Irony isn't dead.
From one of the articles the Cranky Professor quotes: That she generally avoided the spotlight in doing so, and always avoided personal scandal - a particularly difficult challenge for anybody named Kennedy - is testimony to her skill and finesse at the political game.
ORLY?
Why is it harder for a Kennedy to avoid personal scandal than me? Is there a gene they have that makes them screwups? All you have to do is live by the rules. Don't DUI. Don't screw around on your significant other. Don't do sleazy financial deals. Don't kill anyone.
It's not real hard, nor is it worthy of praise. It's what millions of us do every day.
wazowski wrote: ARE there people who support her appointment because of warmth and nostalgia for the Kennedy clan?
There was a WaPo or NYT columnist that gushed about this would be such a fairytale ending to the sadness that Caroline has endured in her life and other such nostalgic BS. It was really over the top.
"A self-loathing, overweight, 43 year old one-legged gun nut who reads comic books..."
We arrogant, fit, 39 year old bipedal hunters (i.e., gun lovers) who play World of Warcraft feel we must defend our low-self-esteem, porky, elderly, comic-reading cousins!
Plenty of people didn't like GWB and Jeb Bush getting plum positions due to the significant advantages of their grandfather and father's multi-generation WASP political mafia. But if they get the votes, it makes it hard for us gunny types to deny the office, unless we want to start using guns on people rather than deer. I'm not into that sort of civil disobedience, at least not given the current state of affairs. (friendly, knowing grin. wink.)
REmember too, that those gentlemen were involved in the rough and tumble of politics their entire adult lives, including running for lower level offices. They had sought and won votes for years.
Now, exactly how many votes has Ms. Kennedy received again...? Oh, that is right, she will upon ascension likely have received only one: the gov. of New York's. From that narrow base of support, she will then go about the business of asking the people whether she can keep the job, that is *after* obtaining all the advantages of incumbency.
I think I can be discomforted by the mildly aristrocratic Bush Dynasty machine but enraged by the presumption of the Kennedy sense of ownership, where no prior voter input on the Princess of Wales is sought or deemed necessary.
I love how people are equating a democratically elected W. with a track record as governor of Texas and a previous Congressional run under his belt with an appointed do-nothing daughter of a dead President.
People, if W. had been appointed, and with no political experience to boot, we'd whine about that, too. But he was elected. Caroline is going for a quick appointment so she can play the incumbent card--which, as you remember with W. and Clinton, plays very nicely in getting re-elected.
But blaming the American people for artistocracy for electing W. is a bit much. Weren't there primaries? Wasn't there an election?
And if we're so dynastically oriented, why didn't Hillary trounce Obama?
I do get that Caroline is only being pushed (in some circles, by the Kennedy-ifiers) because of her name. If she were elected on her own (without the appointment and incumbency), she'd be a viable candidate. But what a few powerful elite do is different from what the people elect.
Howie Carr said it best: If her name were Caroline Schlosseberg, she'd have no chance.
Lady, you voted for Bush Jr. TWICE and NOW you're all huffy about dynasties?
Remind me again how you're NOT a republican hack? I know, I know, you're a libertarian, but, seriously, you're a republican.
Face it: no matter what, the person appointed will have been appointed, and not elected. If her name wasn't Kennedy, most of the rabid foamy types wouldn't care who was appointed.
"Lady, you voted for Bush Jr. TWICE and NOW you're all huffy about dynasties?"
Yeah voting for John Kerry would have been a blow for the plebes! (snicker) And Al Gore was a regular Joe Sixpack of a candidate given his background. (laughing)
Did you stop and think about that for a minute, or did you just break all the keys on the board in your rush to hammer that one out?
BTW, I voted for Bush twice, Obama once and Jennifer Granholm twice. What does that make me?
Basic Fact: "But blaming the American people for artistocracy(sic) for electing W. is a bit much. Weren't there primaries? Wasn't there an election?"
Yes, there were elections, both primary and final. It only seems odd that we would blame the result of the elections on aristocracy if you don't understand that elections favor aristocrats. This was a common thread in political philosophizing from Plato to Montesquieu, although Americans seem to be largely ignorant of it. Maybe it's not such a bad thing, if aristocrats are systematically likely to be better officers than plebeians, but that's an entirely separate matter.
I love this bit from Politico in the link:
""Who wants to go into politics today except people who are born into it?" . "It's not pleasant, it's full of incessant disclosure and oversight, you have no personal life. You don't meet the best class of people. If it isn't in the family, who would do it?"
It states exactly what I have felt about modern royalty in the countries which have kept kings and queens and such. But doen't the USA have a differnt sort of Constitition? Ben Franklin is said to have Described it as "A republic, if you can keep it madam." Can we keep it?
she not only *is* a dynastic product, she *acts* like one as well. As Rep. Ackerman says in today's NY Times, she's a Palin:
This muse be a meaning of "dynasty" of which I was previously unaware.
Cranky Professor's post amounts to "She'd be a very effective senator, and since I dislike the policies she'd favor, I don't want that." What about "She'd be a very effective senator" doesn't satisfy you, Megan?
Oh, but who will be president one day?
Caroline's 15yo son:
John "Jack" Bouvier Kennedy Scholossberg.
Now that is a name!
Yeah, Al Gore's father was a senator, but Al Gore started in the house, not a governorship.
Honestly, the idea that you think that you think leaves me thinking that you need to rethink things.
BTW, I voted for Bush twice, Obama once. What does that make me?
One for three. Next question.
NoT: So their credentials are slightly less "vaunted" in terms of the offices held by the various progenitors of their families, but Gore and Kerry still fit the description of "the only people who take up public office tend to be from a political family" largely because in America, it isn't enough for a politician to be an effective leader, or to get the best conditions for his/her constituents, we also hold them to an almost Mormonesque level of morality that I would argue 90% of Americans, particularly American males, could never meet, and so, only having a family to clean the halls before and behind you in the background and smooth things over with the media, or having family "cred" to cause voters to gloss over your indiscretions (or, as with Teddy-boy, get charges with evidence swept under the carpet) etc seems to be the only really sure way of gaining political power. It's a self-reinforcing system.
Lady, you voted for Bush Jr. TWICE and NOW you're all huffy about dynasties?
Megan's also a bit worried about the housing market. And don't get her started on those irresponsible George Bush, Jr. tax cuts!
Perhaps we could get a pool going on how soon after 20 January 2009 Ms. Independent Libertarian gets concerned about Congressional oversight of the increasingly suspicious Obama Administration.
Hey August Angst, any day you want to get on a bike and see if you can keep up with my overweight, one-legged, 43 year old ass you're welcome to come to Seattle and ride with me.
Oh, and as far as the Bushes go, hey, at least W. ran for office and won (although with some help from his Dad's buddies on the Supreme Court the first time around). Ditto Jeb Bush. Say what you will about the Bush clan but at least they went out and campaigned and won some elections. Sure, they had lots of advantages, but at least they ran, more than Caroline Kennedy and her backers think she should have to. The people who bring up Bush are ignoring the fact that Kennedy is no more qualified than Jeb or G.W. (and a lot less qualified than George H.W.) and is getting a free ride that none of the Bush family ever got.
What qualifications does Caroline Kennedy have other than the fact that he last name is Kennedy? Her legal chops are weak. The claims that she is a constitutional scholar are laughable. Her involvement in the public sphere has been minimal. She's the Democratic party's answer to Sarah Palin. A candidate who has no qualifications for the office she is being considered for but is being touted anyways because of her appeal to certain unthinking elements of the party base. The romanticizing of the Kennedy family by the Democrats is no less loathsome and repugnant than Rich Lowry ejaculating (in print and most probably in private) about the "little starbursts" he saw when Sarah Palin was on TV.
The people who tout Kennedy for Clinton's senate seat are morally no different than the ass-lickers over at Little Green Footballs who are chanting "Palin 2012" and, as far as I can tell, not much brighter.
The people who bring up Bush are ignoring the fact that Kennedy is no more qualified than Jeb or G.W. (and a lot less qualified than George H.W.) and is getting a free ride that none of the Bush family ever got.
Word. But in C-Ken's defense, unlike those clowns, she is able to think and speak in complete sentences. Which oughta count for something, if not as free pass to the U.S. Senate.
Gore and Kerry still fit the description of "the only people who take up public office tend to be from a political family"
How is Kerry from a political family?
I voted for him once, in point of fact. Not that it would have mattered in 2000, since my choice was between two lackluster sons of long political dynasties
This title makes me think of Tecumseh's battle cry: War now! War always! War on the living! War on the dead!
Which sounds about as pleasant as having Kennedy, Bush, and Clinton dynasties in perpetuity in our political system.
There's been a lot of anti-Caroline hysteria of late, and it's a bit over the top. I'm not saying she's the best candidate for the job, mind you; but she's obviously a plausible candidate in a narrow universe of plausible candidates. People are talking about her like she's some kind of grossly underqualified airhead -- but that's seems like wild exaggeration colored by Kennedy bashing. She doesn't have experience running in and winning elections*, but that's the only thing she lacks from what I can see**. She's got money, fame, looks, glamor,*** sterling education credentials (Harvard and Columbia Law), she's a life long New Yorker, she's prominent in Democratic party circles (vetted Obama's VP choices and was a co-chair of his campaign, I think), she possesses a strong relationship with the president-elect, she has a pretty impressive rolodex, she's a respected constitutional scholar, she writes well, and she's done substantive, meaningful work in policy analysis, non-profit fundraising and governance, arts advocacy, and education. She's seems to be a very straight arrow (nice family, etc.), and likely has fewer skeletons in her closet than the various elected public officials who would also be plausible candidates for the appointment. And, as Democrats who actually want to win elections (unlike libertarians who understandably would rather see us lose) realize, Caroline Kennedy is almost certainly likely to prove an unsurpassed fundraiser in 2010 -- a year when coaxing money from contributors may not be an easy task. Again, she may not be the optimal candidate from the perspective of background and experience (Spitzer's downfall makes the scene devoid of an obvious best choice), but politically -- and this is ultimately how such things get decided -- she's very plausible indeed.
*I frankly think this is a weak argument with respect to this particular candidate. I mean, she freaking grew up in the White House, and her uncles were Bobby and Teddy. I have a feeling she knows how the government works, and how legislation gets enacted. Moreover, while personal legislative experience is obviously a plus, Hillary Clinton has shown lack of it isn't a deal-breaker. And anyway, what's wrong with having someone with a different perspective sitting in the great deliberative body? Heaven forbid someone other than, you know, a career briber of voters, be sent to Washington to join Schumer.
**Well, she may lack natural political instincts/communication skills based on her upstate tour. It definitely wasn't an auspicious start. I personally think it's too early to tell -- and I very much doubt Patterson will write her off based on one or two initial missteps (Hillary wasn't a natural from the getgo either) but Caroline certainly needs to improve in this area.
***I can almost hear the sneering now, but y'all have to take off your good citizens caps and put on your political consultants caps: you can certainly make the case that Kennedy possesses many of the practical attributes -- especially in an era when fundraising is likely to get tougher -- especially with a mid-term coming up where Democrats are likely to be facing stiff challenges -- of someone who can beat King or Rudy (and help other Democrats -- most importantly Patterson himself -- in the bargain). Cynical or not, that, my dear friends, will surely be of paramount concern in Patterson's mind.
Finally, one word about the hand-wringing over political dynasties: our constitution got rid of royalty. It doesn't say people who grew up with backgrounds in politics and affairs of state can't or shouldn't be able to run themselves. It seems to me you'll have to change human nature to insure that. Bottom line is voters have brains, and in a democracy they're perfectly free to reject princelings, and often do. Neither Romney nor Hillary Clinton is about to enter the White House. George H.W. Bush couldn't retain it in 1992. The Republic has always known families prominent in public affairs, and always will. John Quincy Adams's foray into politics didn't sink us, and neither will Caroline Kennedy's.
Interesting how many of Jaspers positive attributes also applied to George W. Bush in 2000, isn't it?
Not that it would have mattered in 2000, since my choice was between two lackluster sons of long political dynasties
George Bush, Jr. was one of those lacklusters. Who was the other? Was John-John still alive in 2000?
I take it, then, that you are not familiar with Albert Gore Sr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gore,_Sr.
I take it, then, that you are not familiar with Albert Gore Sr.
You take it, then, incorrectly. The category was "lackluster."
"...grew up in the Whitehouse." Caroline Kennedy was five when she moved out of the Whitehouse, 11 when her mother married Onassis. I'm sure she learned a lot from her uncle, but it wasn't from her time in the Whitehouse.
They are good answers. But they are not satisfying.
They're neither satisfying nor are they good. Not saying one can't make a case for the superiority of a different appointee (although almost all the anti-Kennedy arguments are potshots at her; not specifics about how some particular other individual is better). But at any rate, Cranky excerpts a long and hyperbolic piece by someone or another extolling the mutli-tenancled influence of the Kennedy machine -- and Caroline's alleged central leadership role in said machine. And then he says how he find this vision "terryfying."
So, I guess Cranky would rather have a junior senator who ain't powerful?
BTW, I voted for Bush twice, Obama once and Jennifer Granholm twice. What does that make me?
Posted by Michiganguy | December 23, 2008 1:30 PM
Moving up the learning curve . . . slowly?
Jasper - I'd rather have a Republican, but I understand how unlikely that is.
2nd best would be a junior senator who wasn't already hooked into a multi-generational network of retainers. Like Andrew Cuomo, who made his own Beltway connections while at HUD. You know, actually having a career as a public official before being appointed senator.
--the Cranky Professor
BTW, I voted for...Jennifer Granholm twice. What does that make me?
One of the people that helped turn my home state into a place that makes me glad I'm living elsewhere now.
"avid to reinstall the talentless byblows of their bygone youth?"
Who you callin talentless? What talents should be needed for one to be appointed a senator? Please explain...
Are you saying that Caroline Kennedy is completely without talent? How would you know this? Seems to be a presumptuous claim.
Who do you think has the proper talents to be appointed Senator in New York?
This is the second time we've argued this. Put me on the side of Jasper. But let's say that everybody on the other side has the points in this argument. Where has the uproar been every time the present 'Senator Kennedy' comes up? Does he have so much power that you quake in your boots every time his name comes up? Do we already have a 'Little Joe' (Stalin) Kennedy in Democratic Party circles?