The Globe is reporting, of course, on potential successors to Senator Kennedy. The article makes the point that while there are several strong contenders, “The shape of the race – and the Kennedy political legacy – will hinge on whether another Kennedy seeks to keep it in the family.”
There was a famous case in England in the seventeenth century called the Oxford Peerage Case. The de Vere family, one of the great old Norman families that had come to England with the Conqueror, had held the earldom of Oxford for hundreds of years. There were many famous and capable de Veres. The 18th earl, Henry de Vere, died without a son, and so there was a lawsuit between Robert de Vere, a cousin, and Lord Willoughby de Eresby, who claimed through a female (which was disfavored at the time). The decision, which was in favor of Robert, is in my mind one of the very few really eloquent law cases, and I think it is relevant to the vacant Massachusetts senatorial seat. Here is Lord Chief Justice Crewe:
I have labored to make a covenant with myself, that affection may not press upon judgment, for I suppose there is no man that hath any apprehension of gentry or nobleness, but his affection stands to the continuance of a house so illustrious, and would take hold of a twig or twine thread to uphold it. And yet time hath his revolutions; there must be a period and an end to all temporal things–finis rerum–an end of names and dignities, and whatsoever is terrene; and why not of de Vere? For where is Bohun? Where is Mowbray? Where is Mortimer? Nay, which is more, and most of all, where is Plantagenet? They are entombed in the urns and sepulchers of mortality! Yet let the name of de Vere stand so long as it pleaseth God.
The point is not that we shouldn’t elect a Kennedy to the seat–de Vere won the lawsuit, after all–but rather that time has his revolutions, and that we should put aside our affection for the Kennedy name and history and choose on the merits. I’ve made my views known on this before–I don’t think it’s a good idea to elect even well-qualified candidates to office if they are part of a political dynasty. But even if you don’t share that view, I hope that all Massachusetts voters will approach the coming campaign with the understanding that no one–not even a Kennedy–is entitled to the vacant seat.
TedF
…we should definitely NOT elect someone whose family member(s) have also served in public life? You almost seem to contradict yourself between the first and second sentences of your final paragraph. I can’t agree with that. It’s reasonable to say it’s not automatic; I believe even the MA constitution calls hereditary titles “absured and unnatural” (I disagree but I digress), but certainly nobody should be penalized from coming from a political family either. IF people want a Kennedy then the one who makes the most sense if former Congressman Joe Kennedy II since he has already held similar office.
I am making two points:
<
p>(1) My less controversial point, which I think you agree with, is that a Kennedy is not entitled to the seat just because he or she is a Kennedy. This should be a truism, but I think there is an unfortunate tendency to think in terms of political dynasties that we need to confront and curb.
<
p>(2) My more controversial point, which I first made about Hillary Clinton during the presidential campaign, is that it’s a bad idea to elect spouses or close family members of office holders, no matter how qualified, because it promotes political dynasties and is bad for the democratic culture. You obviously don’t agree with this. I would just say that I find fairness arguments unpersuasive here. I don’t care whether it is fair or unfair to political children or spouses to vote against them because of their parentage: no one has a right to hold office. I am not, of course, saying they should not be permitted to run for office. I am just saying that I wish people would vote against them so that we can stop our drifty towards a hereditary political class.
<
p>TedF
A key reason I supported Hillary in the primary is precisely because she played an active role during her husband’s years in the WH. I thought the country did very well during the Clinton years and was looking forward to a return of the 2-for-1 Clinton team.
I always thought that if she got elected, he’d be on a 4 or 8 year vacation while she did was she was elected to do.
<
p>She’s pretty independent. Her reactions lately to stuff her husband has done has re-enforced my thoughts on this.
…although I can’t imagine her husband having some role, like his recent trip to North Korea. I was thinking more along the lines of her own experience of eight years being the kind of First Lady she was, which was experience her Democratic rivals couldn’t hope to top. I saw it as the next best thing to being the incumbent from an experience standpoint.
First sentence above should read “…can’t imagine her husband NOT having some role.”
I am completely disinclined to vote for any Kennedy to this seat out of principle. I think Ted gave nearly five solid decades of public service and he went out on top. But I also think the time is ripe for what John F. Kennedy once called ‘a new generation of leadership’ and I think that it is refreshing that we get this once in a lifetime opportunity (in this bluest of blue states anyway) to see a real changing of the guard in the Senate. And any candidate should be chosen on their merits. I am incredibly excited about our crop of potential candidates and find them all qualified for the job and am eager to see them debate. Unlike our gubernatorial election, we will be choosing from amongst the cream of the crop and not the lesser of three evils. All three frontrunners (Coakley, Capuano, and Lynch) are distinguished public servants in my view and I am honestly undecided. I also think they have more experience than Vicki Kennedy, more aptitude than Joe Kennedy, and more seriousness than any other Kennedy looking at the seat.
<
p>I think the three all come from humble working class roots in stark contrast with Kennedy, Kerry, or the billionaire Republicans we elect as Governor, which is a refreshing change. Coakley would be our first female Senator and I think that brings a refreshing perspective, she is also someone with a solid legal background which would serve her well for SCOTUS appointments and lawmaking in general. Lynch has a solid commitment to working class families and a bit of a maverick streak which I appreciate (voted against the big bad bank bailout, is pro-life). Capuano is my own congressmen and has been a tireless progressive advocate especially on health care, civil liberties, and the Iraq War and has real legislative bona fides as well. So I am eager to see which one ends up the winner, would be happy with any of them as my Senator, and can feel the change in the air and an excitement about politics I haven’t felt since Obama won.