The possibility that Caroline Kennedy might be appointed to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate provoked a good deal of emotional responses. Ruth Marcus, writing for the Washington Post said that though she rationally should not want Caroline to be appointed Senator, her heart wanted Caroline be in the Senate to make for a kind of fairy tale ending to her story – of a father assassinated, a brother tragically killed in an accident, a mother dying young – and now, the young noblewoman, the only remaining survivor of her famous family, taking public office.
Richard Bradley writing for Slate, on the other hand, strongly opposes the possibility of Caroline Kennedy getting involved in public service. He mentions several times that he is biased in the matter – as he blames Caroline for trying to block the publication of a book he wrote about her late brother. But he insists his opposition to her is “more than personal.” Clearly from the piece though, it is at root personal. I was somewhat surprised that Slate published the piece at all as the tone struck me as a bit too cheap and personal. Some more editing might have improved the piece – but I thought Bradley’s personal bias came through rather strongly – and that it was based mainly on his perception of having been wronged.
Glenn Greenwald did not come out and specifically oppose Caroline’s appointment – but he wrote a post challenging our political culture of “nepotistic succession.” Although the piece was quoted and much discussed, I thought Greenwald missed the point here. He writes:
There are numerous factors that account for this artistocratization of our politics. Viewing political officials through the combined prism of royalty and celebrity naturally generates interest in, and affection for, their family members. The same deeply sad mentality that makes it worthwhile for celebrity magazines to pay many millions of dollars for celebrities’ baby photos is part of what makes so many people eager to vote for the sons, wives, and brothers of their favorite political star. Independently, a rapid worsening of America’s rich-poor gap stratifies the society in terms of opportunities and access and breeds a merit-deprived aristocratic culture.
I think Greenwald ignores the more mundane explanations for what he calls the “aristocratization of politics.” For example – you don’t need to bring up “the combined prism of royalty and celebrity” and “a rapid worsening of America’s rich-poor gap” to explain why any person is more likely to trust the son or daughter of a friend than a stranger. There is truth to the idea that knowing a parent helps us to know their sons and daughters. This is natural, human, and probably to the good. The important thing is to not assume the qualities of the parent are the qualities of the child – as the Bushes demonstrated. Bush was certainly his father’s son – but he rejected his father’s moderation and common sense in favor of radicalism and ideology.
As for Caroline Kennedy in the New York Senate – I’m not sure that she would be the best choice. But she would be a good choice. The Kennedy name is extremely valuable – and more so on her, given who her father was. She could be very influential solely because of her name.
I think it’s worth taking the chance.