I know this is late in the discussion (and what a turbulent discussion it has been), but as it seems that Senator Hillary Clinton will soon be approved as Secretary of State, what the F*ck. I'm wading in. I don't live in New York. I don't especially care who the next Senator from New York is, although I strongly prefer a good, progressive Democrat. Caroline Kennedy seems to be that. So do lots of others. Only a few of these have a real possibility of being appointed. That's why it was so amusing to read the jeremiads of those who wrote here that there are so many more qualified than Caroline Kennedy to be Senator. Putting aside the capacity she brings by virtue of being a particular Kennedy, and the unique position in life in which that has placed her (no small capacity indeed, and woefully undervalued by the naysayers, I think, who must simply misunderstand the way things get done almost everywhere), of course there are. Probably thousands in New York City alone. None of whom anyone outside their immediate personal and professional circles anyone has heard of. It reminds me of something I heard once about the chance of snowballs in Hell. The suggestion that somehow this is the pool we should draw from, or measure against, is laughable. That is not the system of selection we have or even aspire to.
There was some good debate about replacement by appointment or by special election. But that is irrelevant to this decision, because what we have is appointment, and Caroline Kennedy has nothing to do with that. I remember very clearly how often, and how unequivocally, so many Obama supporters clung to the (conveniently advantageous) inviolability of THE RULES when discussing possible solutions to the Florida and Michigan "problems." Apparently they simply cannot be changed midstream. So, I can see nothing wrong with Kennedy, or anyone, soliciting the appointment. And it is not "more pure" to wait for the special election in 2010, to have the validation of securing the seat from the electorate. That's sort of like suggesting someone who otherwise disagrees with the tax system, and who supports elected representatives who would change it to be more progressive and fair, is wrong to take advantage of the system that is (deducting mortgage interest, for example, or claiming a child as a dependent).
There was also some bother about dynastic politics. Um, qu'elle surprise. We have dynastic everything. First, politics is OFTEN dynastic. Examples more than abound (coming from Chicago, I could fill this diary with a list dozens, or hundreds, long). I hate it, too. But it is, apparently, what we want, since these people are elected democratically. Sure, there are structural impediments to level playing fields, which, if I were King for a day, I would change, but these obviously are not insurmountable (we, for example, somehow manage to discern whom to vote for based on merit not marriage, or birth, or even wealth, or longevity, or winsome smile). In a democracy, even a representative one (more or less), we truly get what we deserve. Much of what we write or talk about by way of preference or "improvement" is often an accounting for the lazy, or the ignorant, or the misinformed, or the stupid. All people who vote, damn it! Second, not just in politics does dynasty exist. In employment, in society, in civic organization, the power and forward reach of family is everywhere. Fortunately, because we are large enough, with a strong dose of meritocracy thrown in.
But mostly there was vitriol (so many of us here the bitter enemy not just of the good, but the very good) about Caroline Kennedy's lack of qualifications. This seemed the most ridiculous point of all. As many pointed out, she is qualified under the requirements (we assume purposely minimal) set out in the United States Constitution. Sure, there is qualified, and there is qualified. By that people typically mean experience, and we read over and over "What has she done?" This usually was offered not as a mere curious interrogative, but derisively or chidingly. That, I think, is what is bothersome about this whole blog-driven tempest. When I consider what would qualify a Senator, I think 1) compatible ideology (in the soft sense of the word), 2) good heart and earnest effort, 3) capacity (intellect, resources), and 4) integrity of purpose. All of this "what has she done" blather seems like nonsense or subterfuge. At least when we are talking about being a member of Congress. And certainly hypocrisy. I also wonder if something else isn't at work -- more specifically, gender.
By the accounts I read, Caroline Kennedy is whip-smart, she has worked diligently to improve the lot of others less fortunate or able (often without remuneration, which somehow was turned into a drippingly bad thing -- she just volunteers on Boards and attends parties: I would only say that blacks and women have sued for years to break down the barriers of Board and civic organization membership, and to integrate into a community's social scene, in significant part because that is JUST where the wheels of commerce and decision making turn), she has unquestionable social and financial capital, which she is willing to expend, and great integrity. All of that and she is a God damn Kennedy. While I think she has led an accomplished life, and has likely had more valuable experience simply by sitting around the Kennedy table than almost all of us, including elected politicians deemed so well qualified here, will ever have, somehow more achievement was demanded.
The DailyKos community is not always so demanding. The easiest example is netroots hero Scott Kleeb, who, at the time he ran for Senate last year from the state of Nebraska with, as I recall, nearly unqualified enthusiasm here, was a 32 year-old college educated rancher. I invite you to review his "scant" accomplishments here in answering the question "But what has he done?" Remembering that this was before he was elected, when you were asking individual voters to "appoint" him to the Senate with their votes. And to compare this CV with that of Caroline Kennedy, both in rank achievement or limited to 32 years if you like. Of course, this was the typical response that first diary when Kos announced that Kleeb was in:
DAMN! He is FINE!
Seriously. Read the comments. Who knew that "universal fuckability" is a (predominating) substantive qualification for the United States Senate.
And maybe one of the reasons that Caroline Kennedy accomplished "so little" is that she spent time at home raising her children while her husband pursued a career. She had the ability to do so and presumably the interest. I know it's a complicated question, but I think we are trying to develop career paths, including political ones, that do not penalize or resent women for this choice. Why get involved now after years of, what, profligate inactivity? Maybe it's because her children are older and she now thinks she can pursue a more professional, demanding career.
Finally, experience is also much less relevant as a legislator than, say, as an executive. A legislator, unlike George W. Bush, is never the ultimate decider. Many come inexperienced and learn. She will be among 100. She will have a well-informed staff. She will have leadership to follow. A Senator can always find someone to tell him or her how to vote when in doubt. She can vote just like her uncle. Or maybe Bernie Sanders. Pick your favorite. It happens all the time. Often out of sheer laziness. I don't think there is much doubt that she will add the weight we expect to the Democratic vote in the Senate And, frankly, that's all most of us care about. Vote the right (our) way. In that regard, we really couldn't care less about experience. That's what makes me wonder about all of the negative heat in this matter.
In the face of relentless Caroline-bashing, I would simply ask: Is Scott Kleeb more qualified than Caroline Kennedy?