Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

KRAUTHAMMER: Caroline Kennedy's sense of entitlement

By Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post

Published December 21, 2008 at 12:01 a.m.

Text size  
Charles Krauthammer

Charles Krauthammer

“I don’t know what Caroline Kennedy’s qualifications are. Except that she has name recognition, but so does J-Lo.”

— Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y.

Right idea, wrong argument. The problem with Caroline Kennedy’s presumption to Hillary Clinton’s soon-to-be-vacated Senate seat is not lack of qualification or experience. The Senate houses lots of inexperienced rookies — wealthy businessmen, sports stars, even the occasional actor.

The problem is Kennedy’s sense of entitlement. Given her rather modest achievements, she is trading entirely on pedigree.

I hate to be a good government scold, but wasn’t the American experiment a rather firm renunciation of government by pedigree? Yes, the Founders were not democrats. They believed in aristocracy. But their idea was government by natural — not inherited — aristocracy, an aristocracy of “virtue and talents,” as Jefferson put it.

And yes, of course, we have our own history of dynastic succession: Adamses and Harrisons, and in the last century, Roosevelts, Kennedys and Bushes. Recently, we’ve even branched out into Argentine-style marital transmission, as in the Doles and the Clintons.

It’s not the end of the world, but it is an accelerating trend that need not be encouraged. After all, we have already created another huge distortion in our politics: a plethora of plutocrats in the U.S. Senate, courtesy of our crazed campaign finance laws. If you’re very very rich, you can buy your Senate seat by spending as much of your money as you want. Meanwhile, your poor plebeian opponent is running around groveling for the small contributions allowed by law. Hence the Corzines and the Kohls, who parachute into Congress seemingly out of nowhere.

Having given this additional leg up to the rich, we should resist packing our legislatures with yet more privileged parachutists, the well-born.

True, the Brits did it that way for centuries, but with characteristic honesty. They established a house of Parliament exclusively for highborn twits and ensconced them there for life.

There they chatter away in supreme irrelevance deep into their dotage.

Problem is that the U.S. Senate retains House of Commons powers even as it develops a House of Lords membership.

Don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against Caroline Kennedy. She seems a fine person. She certainly has led the life of a worthy socialite helping all the right causes. But when the mayor of New York endorses her candidacy by offering, among other reasons, that “her uncle has been one of the best senators that we have had in an awful long time,” we’ve reached the point of embarrassment.

Nor is Kennedy alone in her sense of entitlement. Vice President-elect Joseph Biden’s Senate seat will now be filled by Edward Kaufman, a family retainer whom no one ever heard of before a few days ago.

And no one will hear from after two years, at which time Kaufman will dutifully retire. He understands his responsibility: Keep the Delaware Senate seat warm for two years until Joe’s son returns from Iraq to assume his father’s mantle.

This, of course, is the Kennedy way. In 1960, John Kennedy’s Senate seat was given to his Harvard roommate, one Ben Smith II (priceless name). He stayed on for two years — until Teddy reached the constitutional age of 30 required to succeed his brother.

In light of the pending dynastic disposition of the New York and Delaware Senate seats, the Illinois way is almost refreshing. At least Gov. Rod Blagojevich (allegedly) made Barack Obama’s seat democratically open to all. Just register the highest bid, eBay style.

Sadly, however, even this auction was not free of aristo-creep. On the evidence of the U.S. attorney’s criminal complaint, a full one-third of those under consideration were pedigreed: Candidate No. 2 turns out to be the daughter of the speaker of the Illinois House; Candidate No. 5, the first-born son of the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

Caroline Kennedy, Beau Biden and Jesse Jackson Jr. could some day become great senators. But in a country where advantages of education, upbringing and wealth already make the playing field extraordinarily uneven, we should resist encouraging the one form of advantage the American Republic strove to abolish: title.

No lords or ladies here. If Princess Caroline wants a seat in the Senate, let her do it by election. There’s one in 2010. To do it now by appointment on the basis of bloodline is an offense to the most minimal republicanism. Every state in the union is entitled to representation in the Senate. Camelot is not a state.

Charles Krauthammer’s e-mail address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com.

Comments

  • December 21, 2008

    12:44 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jaruscha writes:

    I believe the governor retains the right to appoint someone to fill the seat. It isn't as if Ms. Kennedy has been eating tea and crumpets the whole time. Even if she had been, I would rather see someone like Caroline Kennedy in the Senate than a multi-millionaire oil tycoon get elected into the Senate elsewhere. Ms. Kennedy, should she be appointed, would have to run to keep said seat in 2010. Sounds democratic to me, no?

  • December 21, 2008

    1 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    bobjohnson writes:

    The reason we don't put family relatives on the football field (except as assistant coaches), on the basketball court, hockey rink, baseball field, is because they would be instantly shown up for their incompetence. The reason we get brain surgery and gum implants from surgeons and dentists who are qualified with years of experience, is because it matters.

    The real reason we elect actors, wives, sports stars, brothers and sons to the Senate is because it just doesn't matter to us. Deep down, the Senate just does not count.

  • December 21, 2008

    6:12 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    lastcowboy writes:

    You are totally correct, except for the statement claiming advantages due to education and wealth. You can still be born in a log cabin and become President. If that were not true we would not have Obama and his Wife that was jipped by the country, in the White House.

  • December 21, 2008

    8:58 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    INC writes:

    Charles K., you could have saved ink and bytes and just flat out wrote. "Caroline Kennedy is not qualified to be appointed Senator because she is a Democrat, coupled with being born a Kennedy."

    See how easy that was. you really need not rationalize your hate any longer. Recognized as a Neo-con, it is expected of you.

  • December 21, 2008

    10:15 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Oh_Wise_One writes:

    INC- I know you confused your own "hate" of neocons with Krauthammers supposed "hate" of Caroline Kennedy. CK is rational while you are not, as you are a "recognized" Liberal and don't think I mean that as a compliment.

  • December 21, 2008

    10:40 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    raysmom writes:

    INC- I'm a registered Democrat, and all that ugly little statement did was to highlight YOUR prejudices. He clearly does not hate Caroline Kennedy- he is against the continuation of elitism in politics. But please, don't let reasoning or facts get in the way of your polarized ideology- you might actually have an independent thought.

  • December 21, 2008

    11:50 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mrfxx writes:

    I love that Krauthammer ASSUMES (and we all know what that means) it is "Caroline Kennedy's sense of entitlement". Considering what she has done over the years in the private charity and endowment sectors, and that she has rarely sought the public limelight, to assume that she has not been cajoled into this (whether by family or friends or others) is an incredible leap.

  • December 21, 2008

    4:08 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    HopiMedicineMan writes:

    jaruscha
    What's wrong with an oil tycoon? Talk about prejudiced.
    Oil guys are hard-working, straight-talking characters who know where the oil is. Does Caroline Kennedy know where the oil is? Does she even care? Does she even get the connection between oil in the ground and fuel in her jet?

  • December 22, 2008

    9:23 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    bagwan writes:

    There seems to be a school of thought that says if you slap the label "neocon" on somebody you have ended the discussion. The labeled party cannot possibly make a rational argument or engage in intelligent debate. Instead of listening to other points of view you simply fall back on your bible "Life According to The New York Times."

  • December 26, 2008

    2:15 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    AvsIn7 writes:

    INC baby lighten up.

    The only hate in this thread is coming from yourself. Krauthammer spelled out a reasoned argument. Whether you disagree with his viewpoint or not, the fact that he made an argument and attempted to back up his argument I don't think can be disputed. It's the basic structure of any well written (if not well thought out) op-ed piece.

    Disagree with him all you want, but at least make an argument with some rationale behind it.

    Or just resort to name-calling (ie. "neo-con"). The choice is yours.

    ps- If you've followed Krauthammer at all I don't think you can come to the conclusion he is neo-con material. In the last two years he has been brutal towards the Bush administration in their execution of the Iraq War. But again, don't bother to mess with facts if it inconveniences you. Stick to simple name-calling - it becomes you.

  • December 26, 2008

    6:36 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    darkman writes:

    Avsin7, I wouldn't bother with INC. He is one of those posters here that seem to froth at the mouth at any conservative idea and then just go off with "neo-con! dittohead! hate!" and make absolutely no factual arguments.

    The "neo-con" term is one I find hilarious. Most of those who use the term probably couldn't define it. And the way they use it makes it seem like it should be a word like "idiot" or "bu++head", etc. Even though this is a print forum, you can just sense the sneer and disdain in the posts that use the term. And I agree with bagwan-- so many here find it easier to just say "Neo-con!" rather than using well-reasoned arguments.

    Also, why do so many on the left misuse "hate"? Since when did disagreement, or more accurately disagreement with liberal positions come to equal hate? For example, if your religious beliefs make you unable to support gay marriage then you "hate" gay people.

    It would be so much more productive if we could discuss ideas rather than just throw out emotional names-- "neo-con! dittohead! knee-jerk liberal!" every time we see an opposing view. Hey, I am not above calling someone childish or whatever in certain cases where they refuse to have a civil or rational discussion but I always back it up with evidence from posts.

  • December 27, 2008

    8:25 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    pslwd writes:

    Caroline Kennedy is not qualified to be in the Senate. She is replacing Hillary Clinton. Ms. Clinton was elected, but really she had no experience or qualifications either. Ms. Clinton got the position because people liked her husband, not becaue she was familiar with NY politics.