Royalty and democracy don’t mix well. Between the Bushes, the Kennedys, the Clintons, and the hundreds of lesser-known families with prominent positions in state and local politics, nepotism is clearly endemic to American politics. Family history can give you a leg up in almost any business. It provides the next generation with a wealth of connections, family lore, and experienced counselors. The business is talked about around the dinner table, and even children can’t help but learn a lot from early on. But politics — especially in a democracy — should be different.
Scot Lehigh has it right. While an upstanding citizen and promising leader she may be, Caroline Kennedy lacks the qualifications and experience to take on the role of US Senator from the Empire State, filling the hole created by Hillary Clinton.
The voters don’t HAVE to elect within a family, but often choose to. I really don’t think the Clintons count; it’s only been one husband and wife. I once read that we consistently elect the candidate for POTUS with the most royal blood, an interesting argument for divine right:)
would we ever want to get rid of the estate tax? We do not need an aristocracy in America, thank you very much. The estate tax should go back to what it used to be.
<
p>I’ve also gotta disagree with this blog. People are quick to jump on the she-doesn’t-have-experience card, likely knowing very little about her experience. She’s raised hundreds of millions for good causes and her role in the primary cannot be overlooked. I thinks he proved during the election that she could handle the stump (and she’ll get much better with practice, too) and her ability to get people together and advocate for what’s right won’t be matched by many, anywhere. But she’s never been elected to higher office. Eg-gad! Because only elected officials can be elected to higher office!
<
p>All of this is very silly. No matter who gets the job in the end, it’s not going to be fair and it’s going to go to someone who’s peddling influence, not merely based on the merits. If that’s the way it’s going to be, I’d rather the position go to someone who can help inspire another generation and help Obama get things done on Capitol Hill. I can’t think of anyone better able or more qualified to do that than Caroline Kennedy.
So clearly she’s qualified for the Senate! đŸ˜€
directly with the governor of illinois. đŸ˜‰
it’s more than a lot of them have done.
<
p>she could have spent her time making hundreds of millions instead of raising it, David.
<
p>Fact is, it seems like she’s the most popular choice in polling so far, anyway… so, if the people want her, who are we to argue? There’ll be another election in 2 years. She’ll have to prove herself in office if she wants to keep it.
much higher than any other potential candidate. If the people of New York are interested in her, then by all means appoint her. The people of New York can always vote her out in the next election cycle if they choose. (shrug)
Whoever is appointed gains the perks of incumbency and goes into the next election with a big advantage.
<
p>Just eliminate appointments. Leave the seat empty for a little while and have an election.
for gubernatorial appointments. New York, nevertheless, affords the governor that privilege, so it is what it is. If the people of New York don’t like that arrangement, they can always pressure their legislature to change it. Short of that, Paterson can appoint whoever he chooses. If a certain individual seems to be supported by the public, there’s no reason why the governor shouldn’t appoint that person. And right now that looks like Ms. Kennedy.
<
p>Now, the advantage that Kennedy would actually hold when the seat comes up for reelection is debatable. If she’s vulnerable, someone will challenge her and the people can make a choice at the ballot box at that point. The people of New York are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. If they’re digging Kennedy, more power to them. If she were polling in the single digits, Paterson wouldn’t give her a second look. If she gets appointed and she sucks, the people can vote for someone else.
I say appoint them until the next biennial election. I’d much rather have the advantage of incumbency than the disadvantage to the state for being underrepresented.
but what exactly are the qualifications to be a Senator? I have a hard time when people bring up qualificaiton for an elected office because I think qualification can come in an infinite number of ways. People said Obama wasn’t qualified or that McCain was qualified. Many believed Clinton to be qualified yet her rĂ©sumĂ© couldn’t have been more different from McCain’s. But again, many people deemed both qualified. I am not challenging whether Kennedy should be Senator, but more generally I have been wondering lately what exactly makes one Senate material. I just think “qualified” is entirely to subjective.
Got ’emright here.
1. You have to be at least 30 years old.
2. A citizen for at least 9 years.
3. An inhabitant of the state for which you were chosen.
<
p>I’m pretty sure Caroline is more than qualified.
Since it is only a husband and wife in politics they are still just one generation. Maybe if their daughter enters politics, and her children enter politics, we can call the Clinton’s a dynasty.
<
p>With the Bushes, one member of the family has held political office for the last four generations. They go back all the way to World War I. The family has been well off for even longer.
<
p>With the Kennedy’s it’s been only since the 1950’s, in Massachusetts, longer only if you count Rose’s family history. Caroline is only the daughter of a US President, who was a US Senator. The family made their money during Prohibition, prior to that they were poor Irish immigrants. The Kennedy’s only feel like a dynasty because their are so many of them.
<
p>Personally I think Caroline is a much better choice than many of the other people who have requested the job. If I had a choice, and I don’t part of me wants Fran Dresher, not because I think she has the experience, just because I want to hear her on C-Span telling the gentleman from Utah to stuff it.
<
p>True, there’s no doubt that a big name is a leg up in politics as well as business. But here’s the difference — all of the examples you cited, like Bush, Clinton, Kennedy, were actually ELECTED by the people. How is this “undemocratic”? I just don’t get how “democracy should be different”? Should the members of better-known families in politics not be allowed to run?
<
p>I have no idea whether Caroline Kennedy should be appointed. You certainly have a point that maybe the Gov. should give somebody without the “big name” a chance. But if she runs and is elected in 2010, then your post suggests that this is a problem. I don’t see it.
… commentary on the freakonomics blog suggests that Senate appointments, either ‘dynastic’ or otherwise, aren’t a good indicator of senate longevity. I think this puts to rest the ‘power of incumbency’ myth so prevalent in these discussions.
<
p>
<
p> Apparently, Governor David Patterson has done his homework…
<
p>He is quite blatantly saying that A) one of his criteria for selection is the belief that the nominee, when he/she becomes ‘the candidate’, ought to have a better than even chance of winning the seat when election rolls around and 2) incumbency (such as it is in these instances) plays little part.
<
p>