Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Caroline Kennedy and the Senate

What is the author's ideological view? Does he have strong basis for his statements? Is there any slant in this essay? Do you agree with him?


Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008

No to Caroline: Senate already weighed down with the privileged

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

The problem with Caroline Kennedy’s presumption to Hillary Clinton’s soon-to-be-vacated Senate seat is not lack of qualification or experience. The Senate houses lots of inexperienced rookies — wealthy businessmen, sports stars, even the occasional actor.

The problem is Kennedy’s sense of entitlement. Given her rather modest achievements, she is trading entirely on pedigree.

I hate to be a good government scold, but wasn’t the American experiment a rather firm renunciation of government by pedigree?

Yes, the Founders were not democrats. They believed in aristocracy. But their idea was government by natural — not inherited — aristocracy, an aristocracy of “virtue and talents,” as Jefferson put it.

And yes, of course, we have our own history of dynamic succession: Adamses and Harrisons, and in the last century, Roosevelts, Kennedys and Bushes. Recently, we’ve even branched out into Argentine-style marital transmission, as in the Doles and the Clintons.

It’s not the end of the world, but it is an accelerating trend that need not be encouraged. After all, we have already created another huge distortion in our politics: a plethora of plutocrats in the U.S. Senate, courtesy of our crazed campaign finance laws. If you’re very very rich, you can buy your Senate seat by spending as much of your money as you want. Meanwhile, your poor plebeian opponent is running around groveling for the small contributions allowed by law. Hence the Corzines and the Kohls, who parachute into Congress seemingly out of nowhere.

Having given this additional leg up to the rich, we should resist packing our legislatures with yet more privileged parachutists, the well-born.

True, the Brits did it that way for centuries, but with characteristic honesty. They established a house of Parliament exclusively for highborn twits and ensconced them there for life. There they chatter away in supreme irrelevance. The problem is the U.S. Senate retains House of Commons powers even as it develops a House of Lords membership.

Don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against Caroline Kennedy. She certainly has led the life of a worthy socialite helping all the right causes. But when the mayor of New York endorses her candidacy by offering that “her uncle has been one of the best senators that we have had in an awful long time,” we’ve reached the point of embarrassment.

Nor is Kennedy alone. Vice President-elect Biden’s Senate seat will now be filled by Edward Kaufman, a family retainer to hold the seat until Joe’s son returns from Iraq to assume his father’s mantle.

In light of the pending dynastic disposition of the New York and Delaware Senate seats, the Illinois way is almost refreshing. At least Gov. Rod Blagojevich (allegedly) made Barack Obama’s seat democratically open to all. Just register the highest bid, eBay style.

Sadly, however, even this auction was not free of aristo-creep. Deducing from the U.S. attorney’s criminal complaint, we find that a full one-third of those under consideration are pedigreed, including the first-born son of the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

Caroline Kennedy could someday become a great senator, but if she wants the seat let her do it by election. There’s one in 2010. To do it now by appointment on the basis of bloodline is an offense to the most minimal republicanism. Every state in the union is entitled to representation in the Senate. Camelot is not a state.

© 2008, The Washington Post Writers Group

No comments:

Post a Comment