Strange - there's negative reaction from traditional liberals to appointing Caroline Kennedy to Hillary Clinton's New York Senate seat that she'd be vacating after confirmation to Secretary of State.
1. Caroline Kennedy is getting appointed only because of her last name.
2. CK doesn't have any experience. We didn't think Sarah Palin's experience was enough to qualify her to be the next VP, so why now a different standard for Caroline Kennedy?
3. Maybe Governors shouldn't appoint Senators (look at the Blagojevich problem in Illinois).
Here are my comments:
1. Being Senator is different than being Vice President - one is deliberative and one is executive. Each role has a different set of traits that are valuable. It doesn't make sense to compare the experience levels of Sarah Palin and Caroline Kennedy as if they're applying for the same job.
2. What kind of experience is necessary for a job in the Senate? You need to have an opinion, an idea for how to affect change, the ability to communicate ideas, and a feel for appropriate compromise. Those are qualifications that can be innate - you don't have to have been in a particular job to become adept at those qualities - in fact, oftentimes, it doesn't help at all. There are many people in the Senate who are prominent in their state for reasons that don't have anything to do with experience in government. The original intent of the Senate was that it would be a modifying influence on the whims of the people (as represented via the House of Representatives). The Senate was assumed to be a more 'exclusive' club of aristocracy not subject to frequent elections, while the House was the rabble rousing populace clammoring for 'radical' ideas. In both cases, there isn't any one type of 'experience' that makes a person eligible.
3. If name recognition shouldn't count then what about all those people who are the sons, daughters, wives, or other family members of people with famous last names? I mean, really - George W Bush was not the first Bush in office. And neither was Al Gore the first Gore in office. Don't forget Clinton and the other Kennedy's. I don't think it should be an automatic that someone be considered for office because of their name only - but it shouldn't be a disqualifier either.
4. Caroline Kennedy has a history of advocating for education issues in the New York area. She's involved herself in issues and ideas - writing books about some of them. She comes from a family that cares about giving back. Its not as if she's been in an ivory tower her whole life.
5. What's wrong with letting the governor appoint the Senate replacement? The governor was elected by the majority of the people so its not as if the governor will make a selection that would be contrary to the people's wishes. And the replacement is only going to fulfill the current term. If they want to run again, they have to do it the old fashioned way. Haven't Senator's spouses filled in many times after the untimely death of a Senator? I just don't think this is a reasonable thing to bring up as an issue.
I wrote this blog because of the 'apoplectic' reaction on the Slate Political Gabfest this week.
I'm surprised by people's strong reaction about this. I think Caroline Kennedy would be an asset to the Senate. But, I have no information about other options and no stake in the outcome so whatever they do has a neutral effect on my life. (At least that what I think right now - what if the junior Senator from New York casts a crucial vote against my interests?!?!?!? - oh well, nothing to be done from here anyway)
No comments:
Post a Comment