Am I the only one who’s unhappy about the idea of Caroline Kennedy being appointed to fill Senator Hillary Clinton’s seat?
Certainly, I can agree that she is very bright, well-spoken, accomplished, attractive; she’s probably even capable of performing the job of senator. But most people in the country, perhaps even in New York State, couldn’t explain what is in her resume–other than her last name–that would make her a contender for this position.
If she were to run for the Senate and win, I’d be delighted! The country needs more women who have the intelligence and skills (and, yes, experience –I looked that up on Wikipedia) that Caroline Kennedy would bring to the job. And the process of running for election would give her an opportunity to demonstrate her credentials and her broad appeal within the electorate.
But her becoming a senator by appointment would prove the cynics right: All one needs to get ahead fast in the USA is the right name, the right parents, the right income. Want to make it big in politics? Be a Kennedy or a Bush or a Clinton.
As an instructor in an urban community college, I can’t wait to hear the reactions of my students when I ask them about this probable appointment. Most of them didn’t vote in the last presidential election, despite my entreaties, because they believe politics is an antidemocratic exercise that promotes and enriches the well-connected while pretending to represent the entire populace.
My guess is that these students will consider the appointment of Caroline Kennedy to the Senate as just another example of the powerful taking care of their own.
Or maybe I’ve missed the point. Please–tell me why I’m wrong.