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.