And now for something completely different

File this one under the "musings" portion of this blog (see, it even says so under tags).

After Hillary Clinton's expected appointment to Barack Obama's cabinet as secretary of state, there has been a lot of discussion in political circles as to whom Hillary's replacement as one of New York's Senators will be in 2009. The most oft mentioned name is that of Caroline Kennedy, age 51, daughter of the late president John F Kennedy. Many news outlets (for all facts, see links or google) have reported Caroline Kennedy is the "favorite" for the seat, assigned by New York's governor to serve until a special election in 2010, then a real election in 2012. The first three reasons stated for Caroline Kennedy's candidacy in this blog post by Chris Cillizza in the Washington Post (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/12/the_case_for_caroline_kennedy.html?hpid=topnews) are the fact that she's universally known (her last name is, after all, Kennedy), her money (which makes it easier to win a number of elections in a short time span) and a passing of the torch from her uncle, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, who is battling terminal brain cancer as you read this (guarantee expires in 2009). Caroline Kennedy's actual accomplishments (seriously, ANY of them) don't make the list. The blog post actually sums up her lack of political ideology or experience in anything as a positive, stating:

"Kennedy is uniquely able to do this because she there is so little known about her issue positions or political ideology. She is the classic tabula rasa -- onto which almost anything can be put. And, because of her lack of a record (or even a series of public pronouncements on controversial issues), it will be very hard for her opponents in either a primary or a general election to dispute the way in which she positions herself for election and possibly reelection."

So having accomplished nothing and taken no stands is now a good thing? And the top three arguments for her becoming a United States Senator are that people know her family name, she's rich, and her famous uncle is about to die. The other three arguments include she's a Catholic, she's a woman, and nobody knows what she thinks. Does anybody else have a problem with this?

Dynasties happen when democracies get lazy. Two main examples really irritate me when it comes to the potential Kennedy being appointed to Hillary Clinton's seat. One comes from the current governor's scandal in Illinois, the other comparing Caroline Kennedy to Sarah Palin. In Illinois, Governor Rod Blagojevich is in trouble for having been taped supposedly trying to "sell" his appointment for Barack Obama's now vacant senate seat for political favors. However, as Froma Harrop stated in this article, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/12/welcome_to_nepotism_nation.html, there isn't really much difference in the thinking behind the governor's scandal in Illinois or the reasoning behind putting Caroline Kennedy in power. To quote the article,

"Would someone please draw a dark line of distinction between what we call a scandal in Illinois and business as usual in New York? Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is accused of trying to sell a vacant Senate seat, while New York Gov. Paterson is expected to give a Senate seat to the woman whose family can raise lots of money for his benefit."

Furthermore, for Democrats that howled about Sarah Palin's incredible inexperience upon her selection as the Republican vice-presidential nominee are the same ones now applauding Caroline Kennedy's candidacy. As governor of a state, Sarah Palin has actually run something! In fact, I would almost argue qualifications for a US senator should be even more demanding than that of the vice president, but that argument would miss the point. Is this really the best New York can do? Her (always reliable) wikipedia entry, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Kennedy, (well, there goes any credibility this post had...) lists her as being, among other things, the honorary chairman of the American Ballet Theater, as working a three day a week job raising money for New York public schools, and as having past the bar exam in New York and Washington DC. Other articles point to her ivy league education as proof of her competency, but can anybody think of another prominent politician who rose to power primarily on his or her father's presidential coattails with an ivy league education? If you said George W Bush, you thought of the same person I did.

This article from Politico "http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16664.html" lists other Senate appointees going through the dynasty process. Joe Biden's seat will likely be taken by his son and Colorado Senator Ken Salazar's job is probably going to be given to his brother. While this problem certainly isn't specific to just the Democratic side of the isle, it does real damage to our small "d" democratic process. In a culture that's increasingly obsessed with celebrity worship, the way to promote active civic participation is not through giving in and making appointments based on name recognition. As Queens Congressman Gary Ackerman was quoted as saying in this Politico article (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16512.html), Caroline Kennedy has name recognition, but so does J.Lo. If the voters decide they want celebrities in office there's not much that can be done, but in the case of appointment to a seat by a governor the public deserves a serious appointment process resulting in a serious, tested appointee. If these trends continue, the difference between American Idol and the American President will become increasingly blurred.

Chelsea Clinton 2020!