Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama was one of Ted Kennedy's biggest reasons, by his own account, for doing the same. And Ted Kennedy's endorsement came at a crucial time, conferring some institutional heft upon what was, to that point, a classically insurgent campaign. So I have warm feelings of gratitude towards Caroline Kennedy but, despite them, must register a few reservations about her "candidacy" for H-Rod's senate seat.
First, the same feelings I had about dynasticism when it came to H-Rod (the ones in fact that prompted me to start blogging) apply here -- in fact more so, since no one comes even close to the Kennedys. This Senate seat is in fact RFK's old seat. A single family having disproportionate politial power is pretty flagrantly undemocratic. Now, I don't advocate a legal bar on family members running for elected office, but I think they should stop themselves from doing it, and we should criticize them, on a quasi-ethical basis, when they do. And of course, I don't think we should single out Caroline - another name in the mix is Andrew Cuomo, and the "decider," Gov. David Paterson, is the son of a former New York State Senator (and when David Paterson was in the State Senate, he was in his father's old seat).
I admit some hypocrisy in finding Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Obama desirable but not her candidacy for Senate. But I think there's a clear enough line between campaign endorsements and elected office to make the hypocrisy only cosmetic.
The second reservation is a bigger deal, I think, and it's that Caroline Kennedy has refused to make a financial disclosure. She's not bound to by law - those appointed to the Senate have different requirements than those elected. And she has pledged to make the disclosures should she be appointed. But I think that would be too late. Even though it's an appointment, we'd still like to get as close to democracy as we can, right? That means information, so that New Yorkers can lobby Paterson, who is, after all, elected.
I admit some hypocrisy in finding Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Obama desirable but not her candidacy for Senate. But I think there's a clear enough line between campaign endorsements and elected office to make the hypocrisy only cosmetic.
The second reservation is a bigger deal, I think, and it's that Caroline Kennedy has refused to make a financial disclosure. She's not bound to by law - those appointed to the Senate have different requirements than those elected. And she has pledged to make the disclosures should she be appointed. But I think that would be too late. Even though it's an appointment, we'd still like to get as close to democracy as we can, right? That means information, so that New Yorkers can lobby Paterson, who is, after all, elected.
2 comments:
I'm also having CK reservations, but for a slightly different if related reason. I think I'd be pumped about her getting elected to the Senate - the Senate needs a Kennedy. But this isn't getting elected, this is getting appointed, and I think that all of your concerns, Luvh, are a much bigger deal because of the difference. Because she's a Kennedy, we should me more concerned about her getting handed things for free.
also we need to make sure to avoid the backlash against celebrity politicians for as long as possible, lest we burn the bridge obama walked in on. and for other good, non-obama-related reasons. so maybe celebrities owe us extra transparency about their history, qualifications, etc.
Post a Comment