Political entitlement — liberal hypocrisy?
Paula: All this fuss over this Governor of Illinois’s corruption. Just indict the guy and be done with it; it’s not the first time we’ve seen some corruption in high places and won’t be the last. What really gets me is how in the same breath we’re told respectfully that Caroline Kennedy has thrown in her hat for Hillary Clinton’s seat and will probably get it. Now there’s a level of entitlement, given she has no political experience and doesn’t even think she should need to run, that I find pretty unsettling.
Robert: I did not have a negative reaction to Caroline Kennedy wanting to be Senator. I figure a certain amount of celebrity and royalty is par for the course. I may be one of those folks simply dazzled by the celebrity, but the fact is that I “like” her. I have the sense that a person like her is the type of person who could make a great senator. She’ll use her celebrity for good causes.
To continue in the same line — the governor of the State of New Jersey spent $60 million of his own money to run for Senate and won. Does that bother me? No. Why? Because I think Corzine is a good guy. If I thought he were sleazy, then I wouldn’t have liked it. But I support his views and so I do. That’s essentially what goes into the way we tend to feel about these people. If we support their views and like them, we overlook the context; if we don’t, we decry it.
Paula: But that’s what appalls me. The hypocrisy — you’re admitting to it outright. I hate the way in which certain sorts of cool-appearing people get away with things. The Kennedys get a free pass, while poor shleppers, without the glitz and the entitlement, get slammed around mercilessly. It’s why I like to defend Nixon — I feel that, as guilty as he was, he was treated far worse than a Kennedy or that ilk would have been in the same position. There’s a kind of high-handed hypocrisy operating here on the part of the “liberal elite” that reflects what I think rightly infuriates the other side. All my being cries out against it. I know I’m party to unfair preferences all the time unknowingly, but I won’t lend my support to it knowingly.
Robert: Paula, this has clearly touched a nerve in you. I still don’t get it. And before you throw off charges of “hypocrisy,” how about a little more persuading? I fail to see the hypocrisy you speak of. And I have no idea what this has to do with liberals. In any event, you’re wrong: I do not criticize conservative candidates who spend a lot of their own money to win office. I did not find anything wrong with Arnold Schwarzenegger running for governor of California. Schwarzenegger had to submit himself before the voters. And in that sense, he earned his way into office. Same with Corzine. Caroline Kennedy, assuming she gets appointed, will have to face the voters very soon, and she’ll have to work her behind off traveling around the state, visiting all the small towns in upstate New York, kissing babies, talking to working-class guys in factories, going to bowling alleys, etc.
You’re completely missing the boat here: politics is always about selecting a candidate you like as well as a candidate you think voters will like. The Republicans rallied around Ronald Reagan in the 1970’s because he was handsome, telegenic, had years of experience communicating with voters on the radio — because they thought he was a good sell to voters. He wasn’t the person who had “earned” the job, whatever that means. In fact, that means nothing in elected politics. There’s no such thing as “earning” or being “more deserving” of high office.
You think Obama earned his election as presidency based on “deserving” his position? He won because voters saw something in him. Part of what they saw in him — and what I saw in him — was that he could reach other voters! Call it starpower, call it popularity, call it celebrity — it’s part and parcel of politics. Richard Durbin, the senior Senator from Illinois, certainly put in more years and labor than Obama, but so did almost any national Democrat on the scene. But so what? No one, save for Hillary Clinton, was able to capture the imagination of voters like Obama.
Paula: My first inclination would be to say that spending one’s own money is not the same as simply banking on a family name. But of course, the money could be inherited and therefore we’re back to the same sort of thing. Which is why I would favor limits on campaign spending. I just find hypocrisy operating, more with liberals in this particular case, because of their persistent argument for fairness and equality. I don’t deny that Reagan banked on the power of image (though he did have experience with labor negotiations and as a public spokesman for GE even before he was governor). But regardless, I expect more from the Democrats, given their platform — their candidates should be chosen based on merit and not on star power or some kind of knee-jerk political correctness. I know that we make decisions all the time based on appearance and likability, but I think the party of fairness ought to make every effort to oppose such tendencies — to teach through example.
Latest posts by Paula Marantz Cohen (Posts)
- Thoughts on the Henry Louis Gates incident - July 25, 2009
- The importance of Obama’s election: Art conditioning life - June 20, 2009
- Student writing: Is it bad? Is it good? Does it matter? - February 16, 2009
- Political entitlement — liberal hypocrisy? - December 22, 2008
- Jewish grandchildren and Obama - November 6, 2008
Print This Post
I’m with Paula on this. And, by the way, when Reagan ran for President, he had already served two terms as governor of the nation’s third largest state, which at the time had an economy larger than most nations’. If one reads “Ronald Reagan: A Life in Letters,” one learns that Reagan was (a) a natural writer and (b) had, over several decades, done a lot of thinking and reading and writing about major sociopolitical issues. The myth of the amiable dunce is precisely that – a myth.
Before the primaries I had a brief fantasy about Caroline Kennedy running. Fantasy — because I had heard her speak on her book “The Right to Privacy,” and thought she was fabulous and qualified. Brief — because I thought there was no way she’d run for anything, ever. Like Reagan, Kennedy is also a natural writer and has “done a lot of thinking and reading and writing about major sociopolitical issues.” It would be hard to make the argument that she’s some sort of political neophyte.
Appointments happen, it’s built into the system. One day, it’s Harriet Miers, the next day, it’s Caroline Kennedy. I think we’ve got a long way to go before liberals come anywhere near the cronyism of the Bush administration, but they probably have picked up a few tricks. If they pick CK on this one, I think the country will benefit.
I don’t think it makes much difference in the big picture whether Caroline is appointed as a junior senator from NY. If she doesn’t accomplish anything worthwhile in the next two years, somebody else will run and win her seat in 2010. Meanwhile, Chuck Schumer will continue doing what he’s been doing, so New York State is not going to suddenly become a motherless child.
Maybe she’ll try it and decide it’s not for her. Maybe she’ll turn out to be great at it. I don’t see her clinging to a career in politics if she doesn’t feel she’s doing it well.
I don’t know that expecting more from one group of people than from another is not a form of hypocrisy in itself. Most of the debate about using torture in interrogating suspected terrorists boils down to “I know other countries do it, but America must be better than those other countries.” I’ve heard the same argument from pro-lifers. “America must be better; it must be a shining beacon on the hill.” Why? Sure, Democrats pay a lot of lip service to merit (actually, I always thought Republicans/conservatives/Objectivists were supposed to be more meritocracy-oriented), and then rally around an old liberal dynasty. So? It’s just human. They don’t have to be better than that.
Olga, I don’t know that I agree that “if she doesn’t accomplish anything worthwhile in the next two years, somebody else will run and win her seat in 2010.” That kind of celebrity could potentially keep the seat for quite a while by just sticking close to senior Democrats, continuously blaming others for New York’s problems, and not getting caught with any hookers.
Personally, I chaffe at the thought of anybody being appointed to the United States Senate for their very first step into politics. I’m disappointed with how ready both parties are to thrust neophytes onto the national stage… and how ready the American people are to let such powerful positions go to pretty faces.
Jason, I’ll gladly take back my position on Caroline if it bothers you, because my position on who will be a junior senator from New York is moot, as I live in New Jersey. I don’t have a dog in this fight. Somehow I don’t see Caroline fighting for this seat if she’s not universally appreciated, because she doesn’t have to, and she doesn’t need that, but that opinion, too, is moot.
You object to neophytes trying their hand at something so many experienced elders have failed to accomplish, without first paying their dues. Fair enough. I wouldn’t necessarily dismiss them as pretty faces just because they don’t have decades of failures to show for themselves yet, and my question is: would you (and Paula) hold them to a higher standard than you would their older, more experienced counterparts, and would you judge them harsher if/when they fail?
To be clear, my concern isn’t that she might be incapable of being a US Senator. My concern is that she has shown no more qualification for the job than any other neice of a Senator, but Democrats seem to be happy to waive time in the “minor leagues” because of her dad and her uncles. It’s a huge publicity stunt for the Democrats. The United States Senate has become even more of a farce with regard to the US being a representative democracy.
And it’s not that I think there should be a certain time-in-local-government requirement for somebody who wants to become a US Senator… if she were actually running for the office, I wouldn’t say anything. But US Senator is an immensely powerful and important job, and for somebody with absolutely no resume to be appointed to the seat because of who her daddy was… well, that just strikes me as antithetical to the principles this nation is supposed to embody. I don’t understand how anybody can think otherwise.
Putting the shoe on the other foot, how would you (or Paula or Robert or Caroline Kennedy or Barack Obama) feel if Sarah Palin appointed Neil Bush to fill Ted Stevens’ seat? Are dynasties and nepotism things that we want to encourage, or discourage?
Amendment XVII
(Ratified April 8, 1913)
. . .
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
. . .
In some states, e.g. Massachusetts, the governor is not authorized by legislature to use his discretion; they require a full election to fill a vacant seat. In most states, the governors have always appointed interim senators as they pleased, including personal friends, relatives, whatever. They have that constitutional authority (see above). Sometimes they do it as PR stunts, e.g., in 2000, when the governor of Missouri appointed Jean Carnahan, the widow of Mel Carnahan, who died in a plane crash before the votes were in, to fill the seat he won posthumously. Then she ran during the next election to remain in office and lost. By now, she’s all but forgotten.
As for your hypothetical, I don’t understand the question. Stevens ran in the last election to keep his seat and lost to Mark Begich. I just looked it up on the “series of tubes.” However, if Begich couldn’t serve, for whatever reason, and had Neil Bush gotten a head start on establishing a residence in Alaska, yes, Gov. Palin would have the authority to appoint him in Stevens’s place, as long as Alaskan legislature gives her that right.
“In most states, the governors have always appointed interim senators as they pleased, including personal friends, relatives, whatever.”
Yes but my concern is whether this should this be discouraged. Can we not recognize that it is irresponsible to pass over better qualified public servants in favor of a neophyte pal? Ought we not to demand something better? As far as I am concerned, anybody who says “no” is feeding Washington D.C.’s bipartisan culture of corruption.
(The Ted Stevens hypothetical was just a recent example of a Republican governor who had to consider how to fill a vacant seat… if Stevens had won that close race, there was speculation that his corruption convictions would have led to his dismissal from the Senate. There was a lot of talk about who Palin would put into that seat. And I would have been horrified to see somebody like Neil Bush selected. Simply because there is no law to stop Palin from putting him there doesn’t mean that it would be right for her to do so.)
It seems to me you may be blending the issue of governors’ personal judgment with the issue of what specific powers they are granted by their position, according to the U.S. Constitution and applicable state constitutions. “We,” as in, you and I, you living in Virginia and I living in New Jersey, cannot do a damn thing to discourage governors of Alaska and New York from exercising what we may consider — and agree on — poor judgment. Would you, as a libertarian, argue for more federal laws further abridging state governors’ discretion in governing their states? E.g., amending the XVII amendment to specifically exclude celebrities, people whose families have been active in politics, people with less political experience than N years, governors’ personal acquaintances and relatives, those of senators being replaced, etc.?
I’m not confusing what is legal with what should be done. I understand the process and I’m not arguing for a change to the law. All I want is for that process to be taken more seriously. Senators writelegislation and vote on confirmations that affect the lives of every American. That’s big. To stick somebody in there who has absolutely zero experience in any elected office is, in my opinion, very irresponsible.
Based on her resume, I don’t think Paterson would even vote for her if she were running for state government and her name wasn’t Kennedy. Doesn’t that
I think it’s especially ridiculous that people don’t just tolerate that neophytes are appointed to these seats, they actually request it. The governor would do better appoint a senior Democrat from the House (like Nydia Velázquez or Louise Slaughter). But no, the Democrats will fall all over themselves for the Kennedy name. I don’t see how that Party can even claim to represent populism and grassroots interests.
By the way, I don’t agree that being a New Yorker would give me more sway with Patterson, either… I don’t have his ear directly, so I would have to simply make the argument and try to get support from a lot of people, regardless of where I vote. I’m pretty sure I had zero direct influence on what Albany did when I lived up there. I find it hard to believe I could have even less sway now than I did then.
I’m not confusing what is legal with what should be done. I understand the process and I’m not arguing for a change to the law. All I want is for that process to be taken more seriously. Senators write legislation and vote on confirmations that affect the lives of every American. That’s big. To stick somebody in there who has absolutely zero experience in any elected office is, in my opinion, very irresponsible.
Based on her resume, I don’t think Paterson would even vote for her if she were running for state government and her name wasn’t Kennedy.
I think it’s especially ridiculous that people don’t just tolerate that neophytes are appointed to these seats, they actually request it. The governor would do better appoint a senior Democrat from the House (like Nydia Velázquez or Louise Slaughter). But no, the Democrats will fall all over themselves for the Kennedy name. I don’t see how that Party can even claim to represent populism and grassroots interests.
By the way, I don’t agree that being a New Yorker would give me more sway with Patterson, either… I don’t have his ear directly, so I would have to simply make the argument and try to get support from a lot of people, regardless of where I vote. I’m pretty sure I had zero direct influence on what Albany did when I lived up there. I find it hard to believe I could have even less sway now than I did then.