Illusions of Rationalism
I’ve been wanting to write something called “the case for dynastic politics” but I couldn’t really think of a good case for dynastic politics — what I was really coming up with was a case that we ought to admire the Kennedy family’s sense of noblesse oblige, but that’s a different story. It did occur to me, however, that some of the hostility to dynasticism stems from a sort of misguided desire to pretend that electoral outcomes are this incredibly rational process. So if we all point at Caroline Kennedy and say she’s only under serious consideration because of her name, then maybe if we all object loudly enough to this it’ll turn out that the other 99 Senators are there because they’ve passed a set of rigorous credentialing examinations or something.
But of course that’s not how things work at all. The whole business of electioneering is full of irrationality and tradition all the way from top to bottom. The notion that all members of the Kennedy family are ex officio considered plausible candidates for public office is weird, but it’s a particular oddity that exists against background conditions that are also odd. And in fact when Americans hear about French politics where politicians are expected to attend the ENA and then go work in the bureaucracy before getting into politics, that seems incredibly odd. But politicians write rules for bureaucrats to follow and supervise bureaucrats, so why shouldn’t experience in the bureaucracy be considered essential?
83 Responses to “Illusions of Rationalism”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 17th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
I think you’re missing (or ignoring) an essential point of the whole Caroline Kennedy thing – this isn’t about “electioneering” or an “electoral outcome” – this is about an insider being APPOINTED to an what is usually an elected position.
If Caroline Kennedy wishes to enter the electoral fray and submit herself and her dynasty to the voters, more power to her and I hope she does just that.
But if she’s going to get to third base I’d rather see her get a triple, or someone else get there by hitting a bunch of singles and doubles, rather than by being born there.
December 17th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
It’s one thing if the people decide they want to elect a candidate because he or she shares genetic material or the marital bed with another popular politician, then so be it.
But it is laughable to think that Caroline Kennedy is the most qualified for the position, and it would dumb for a variety of reasons for the NY Gov to appoint her.
December 17th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
while theres no way to stop people from dynastic voting, this isnt that situation, considering shes never run for anything, have very little public opinion on record, and all most people know her for is kennedy as a last name, supporting obama, and being a little girl in a picture..hardly great reasons to hand someone a senate seat..
if she wants it, then fine, put up a policy website, let people know her thoughts, and in 2010 run for the seat. but claims of “electioneering” and such to show how out of touch it is to not feel well about this possible outcome are not valid, since this isnt an election, its basically a christmas gift, with no work done to earn it.
December 17th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
She is taking Hillary Clinton’s seat, but replacing Ted Kennedy as the public face of a whole organization of policy and political operatives. They are a clan, a faction, a quasi-political party, an interest group, but it’s not a Mom and Pop operation. Operationally, they are a major stakeholder in the progressive movement, the liberal legislative caucus and the Democratic Party, and they will have a seat at the table. This is the one that makes sense right now, it seems.
As to appointment vs. election: I am sure that she had figured out that she will have to win two elections very quickly
December 17th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
I can try to make a case for dynastic politics:
1. A dynastic politics can sometimes encourage prominent families to change focus from purely money-making to pursuing political honors and glory. Which has it’s own downsides, but if you do have great inequality of wealth, it might be a benefit to encourage some of the oligarchs to pursue glory over money.
2. It gives people concrete, personally-linked examples of real politics (my great-grandfather was Doge and was a hero at Lepanto, I too want to be Doge and a military hero, etc.). I.E. history moves from an abstraction to something that some people feel is embodied in themselves (essentially, a feeling that history happened to me, not nameless ancient abstractions).
December 17th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
The whole business of electioneering is full of irrationality and tradition all the way from top to bottom.
And privilege. That’s the key word you’re missing here. Privilege derived from wealth or incumbency or powerful social connections or what have you. I fail to see why privilege derived from surname is particularly offensive. (Which is not to say she’s anywhere near my ideal candidate.)
December 17th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
This subject is pretty worn over the last 3 days or so; but whenever I see Caroline’s qualifications (which actually aren’t that bad, she just hasn’t run for anything) I don’t see names of people who are better qualified. And Cuomo is dynastic as well. I’m more worried about Jeb Bush right now.
December 17th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Ethel,
No, Matt isn’t missing that at all. The point is that elections themselves are rather arbitrary, determined by factors such as name and family. So getting selected by the governor for such reasons is hardly any worse. Would Caroline Kennedy be any more qualified if she were elected? No, she’s unqualified period. Yet she is no less qualified than most of the elected representatives, who were voted in for just as silly reasons. So why does it matter how she gets into office?
December 17th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I mean, even voting wouldn’t produce a rational outcome, at least not in a primary with more than two candidates. Arrow’s Theorem, anyone?
December 17th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
“And in fact when Americans here about French politics where politicians are expected to attend the ENA and then go work in the bureaucracy before getting into politics, that seems incredibly odd.”
Why is that odd?
I’ll take an attempt at meritocracy over dynastic politics any day of the week…
December 17th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
I don’t think it’s the fact there is a case for dynastic politics so much that it’s hard to escape it. Caroline inherited money, political connections, and a name that makes her electable. That automatically means she’s the front runner for this Senate seat. And that’s looking at things from a purely political stand point. As much as people want to look down on being appointed to the position, Caroline Kennedy stands a very good chance of getting elected to the post in 2010 if she does get the appointment. So why on earth would anyone look a different way? Those are simply the facts of life.
December 17th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Just because voters aren’t rational doesn’t mean that dynastic politicians are okay. And in certain cases the irrationality of an electorate is a good thing. For example, we know that voters tend to kick the incumbent party out of office whenever the economy goes bad, regardless of whether that party had anything to do with the economy going bad or not. So it isn’t a rational decision, yet it at least has the benefit of putting new people in power, which maybe means some fresh ideas, which means there may be a better chance of a smart recovery program. Maybe not, but the point is it improves the chances of someone else having a chance to do something right.
The problem with Kennedy has nothing to do with whether she is qualified or not (we really have no idea how she will be as a legislator) the problem is that its a fair assumption that the only reason she is being considered for the job happens to be because of her last name. The problem isn’t that this is an irrational decision (since there is a chance she might end up doing a good job), its that it reinforces the idea that power belongs to an elite class. No one on the left should be in favor of that.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Realist – then why bother to have elections at all? Why bother to differentiate between positions that are generally filled by election – i.e., the “will of the people” (except it special temporary circumstances such this one), and those that are filled soley by appointment?
For all the trash that is talked about Hillary Clinton, she at least went out and campaigned among the people and let the people give her a thumbs up/thumbs down after a very prolonged period in which her views and experience were debated and considered by the public. Like anyone else who runs for public office she was forced to express her viewpoints and be challenged on them. She was forced to build campaign amongsst and build coaltions among a wide and divergent body of people. And after 6 years, she went again and repeated the drill, this time with a public record to back her up.
I just can’t believe that among all of the elected and re-elected public officials in New York State’s 20 million people, that someone with virtually no publicly expressed viewpoint or electoral or representative experience should be given an inside track and be appointed to what is generally an elected position with based upon input from well-connected insiders but none from the actual voters.
At the very least the position should go to someone who has successfully put themselves before the voters – who has a public track record – who’s viewpoints and demonstrated ability to represent constituents are known.
Regardless of whether one considers elections to be “arbitrary” – they do serve an extremely useful role in bringing forth all sorts of manner of qualifications in front of the public and giving them the choice.
There’s more to “qualification” then just paper credentials – having been considered and approved by the voters, especially in terms of having been reelected when actually representing people is considered, is something that shouldn’t just be tossed away as an abstraction.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Generally I come down strongly in favor of the collective wisdom of the electorate, but I suspect there can be some benefit from having the occasional appointed Senator sprinkled into the mix. Let’s face it, there are certain personality traits that are useful to a politician running for office but which can be detrimental to actual governing. A commenter on one of the blogs I follow said Caroline should “leave it to pros.” My reaction was, yeah, because they’ve been so good at it, right?
The noblesse oblige thing is kind of creepy, but it would be hard to argue that the Kennedys have not been sincerely altruistic. So were looking at a two year appointment that might give Caroline a leg up on actually running for the office in 2010 (only for the two more years of Hillary’s term), but only if she shows promise as an effective Senator until then. I don’t see the harm.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Ethel-To-Tilly said: “this isn’t about “electioneering” or an “electoral outcome” – this is about an insider being APPOINTED to an what is usually an elected position.”
That’s true, but I can’t get worked up about it after Nita Lowey and everyone else stepped aside 8 years ago for a certain Hillary Clinton, who had never held elected office. Hillary was essentially handed the Democratic nomination in a state that highly likely to vote Democratic because she was the sitting first lady.
Now plausible candidates are stepping aside and/or endorsing Caroline Kennedy (Schlossberg or something, yes?). If there were an election, she’d be handed the Democratic nomination just as Hillary was, and she’d be highly favored to win in the general election.
It’s nice have elections since we call ourselves a democracy, but as long as the state party is handing out nominations to the rich and famous behind closed doors, the general election is basically a rubber stamp.
And it’s hard to blame the state party for favoring the rich and famous when the candidate will have to raise $30-40 million to compete. In this case, the candidate will have to do it twice in four years.
I don’t like dynastic politics, or the role of money in elections, or the tendency of the electorate to vote automatically for names they recognize. But I’m having trouble getting upset about this particular instance of those problems. I think that if Caroline Kennedy (Schlossberg?) were to run, she’d be overwhelmingly favored to win. And I think she could be a valuable asset in the Senate.
The real challenge is voter education and election reform over the long term. In the short term, we’re likely to see not only Caroline, but also Beau Biden and possibly Jesse Jackson, Jr and a Salazar relative in the Senate. That whole list gets pretty disturbing. I’m reluctant to cry sexism, but the fact that the woman on the list is generating the greatest outcry is starting to bother me, too.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
and basically – why should anyone who is bright and ambitious and hard-working bother to enter politics in New York State, knowing that no matter how good they are or how great a job they do, that there will always be some celebrity ready to move ahead of them – especially galling in this case where it doesn’t involve doing anything harder then pulling out the old rolodex.
How long until Chelsea Clinton is of age to be named to the Senate? Gotta be pretty soon…
December 17th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Given that FDR was widely viewed as an unqualified dilettante cruising on a famous name and inherited riches well into his first term, I’d recommend withholding judgment on Caroline Kennedy’s qualifications for the job.
At base, what counts is 1. what does the candidate want to do, what interests and motivated them, 2. how much do they understand what they’re doing and are able to transform their positions into action?
If Caroline Kennedy has a substantive platform, and can demonstrate her effectiveness at winning enactment of her issues, then there’s no reason to fuss about the fact that she has a famous name – as long as there’s a quid pro quo with the American people for results in return.
As for avoiding dynastic politics, well the Athenians were right that elections favor those with privilege. Government by lottery, anyone?
December 17th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Wow, this whole post pretty much sums up why I hate Lord Yglesias. I don’t even know where to begin when criticizing this post, but thats probably because I am not as smart as Lord Yglesias and Caroline Kennedy since I was not born a trust fund baby with a guaranteed social standing.
There is a reason people hate government and the congress, and its because we see a lot more Ivy League then Big Ten in our leadership. Kids who get into the Ivy’s tend to be the children of wealthy donors. Kids who tend to get into the Big Ten tend to be the children of factory workers. They understand where the majority of Americans are because they are from there, people like Lord Yglesias discussed the prols once in soph philosophy.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Yes elections are determined by name and family.
That is why the son of a Kenyan college student and a Kansas girl with the name of Barack Hussein Obama beat the son and grandson of admirals with the name of John Sidney McCain.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Steven Attewell, you’ve got to be kidding. FDR was an experienced politician who’d served as governor of New York and assistant secretary of the Navy. Also, he had previously been the Democrats’ nominee for Vice President. Ms. Kennedy, on the other hand, has never run for office, any office. So clearly a comparison between FDR’s and Caroline Kennedy’s experience does not justify your demand that we withhold judgment on Kennedy’s qualifications. It is true that FDR’s enemies accused him of being a dilettante. So what?
You say: “If Caroline Kennedy has a substantive platform, and can demonstrate her effectiveness at winning enactment of her issues, then there’s no reason to fuss about the fact that she has a famous name…”. But she does not have a substantive platform, and is not planning to demonstrate her effectiveness at winning enactment of anything. She’s asking to be appointed.
If instead she wants to get into office by persuading voters that she can effectively represent them, that is a very different matter.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
But politicians write rules for bureaucrats to follow and supervise bureaucrats, so why shouldn’t experience in the bureaucracy be considered essential?
I think this question answers itself.
It’s not like elected officials are a great alternative to bureacrats — being ruled exclusively by either one would suck. But hopefully the two types of rulers can act as a check on one another. And we can act as a check on both of them.
As far as the actual topic — I have nothing but contempt for Caroline Kennedy in this matter. If you want to be a Senator, do what everybody else does and fucking run for office. She’d have huge advantages in either Mass or NY, or any of a dozen other liberal states. A Senate campaign is hard work, but she’d win unless she screwed it up. Instead, she wants it handed to her. I don’t know why I’m surprised by this, since she is a Kennedy, but she always seemed to be a less-reprehensible example of the breed.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Is JimboSlice Petey’s less-eloquent backwoods cousin?
December 17th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Ethel-To-Tilly said: “and basically – why should anyone who is bright and ambitious and hard-working bother to enter politics in New York State”
Indeed. But then, I think all you New Yorkers are a little crazy.
More seriously, holding lower offices is highly valuable, and you never know, you may get lucky someday.
In the meantime, maybe some of them could reform the system to provide more public financing and reduce the insane fundraising burden? Right now it would take an Obama to beat the system, and Obamas only seem to come along once or twice a century.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
I swear, the Giants only start Eli Manning at quarterback because his father and brother were great quarterbacks.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
this is about an insider being APPOINTED to an what is usually an elected position.
But the vestiges of the Senate’s first century as a not-particularly-elected position remain. Six-year terms plus many de facto lifetime posts plus the lure of executive branch positions and/or the governor’s mansion mean that there are a lot of appointments in which the following special election is basically a rubber-stamp for the incumbent. John Barrasso, anyone?
Stop thinking of it as a democratically-elected chamber, and start thinking of it as the House of Lords — after all, it’s apportioned by land, not people. And while the Senate remains the House of Lords, people like Caroline Kennedy will end up there.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
…this isn’t about “electioneering” or an “electoral outcome” – this is about an insider being APPOINTED to an what is usually an elected position.
Well, then change NY’s constitution. I don’t see why it’s any more “unfair” to appoint Kennedy to the post than it is to appoint Maloney or Slaughter (or whomever). Somebody’s going to get the nod. While it’s true she hasn’t spent her whole career toiling away as an elected official, the other plausible appointees haven’t been toiling away in a career promoting the arts and advocating for public education. It’s not clear to me which type of career background makes for the more qualified candidate. Moreover, should Kennedy get the nod, any Democrat who feels he/she will make a better senator is free to run in the 2010 (or 2012 for that matter) primary. I think Kennedy may make a fine Senator, I’m rather excited about the prospect of her entering public life, and I therefore don’t have a problem with her appointment. But I also have no problem with another Democrat’s deciding to challenge her for the nomination. Again, incumbency will no doubt be a big advantage in two years’ time, but that big advantage will belong to whomever gets the appointment.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
If you want to be a Senator, do what everybody else does and fucking run for office.
With respect, I’d suggest you take a count of the number of sitting senators who have actually fucking run for office in a seriously competitive election.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
From what I’m reading here, it would appear that Gov. Paterson should appoint a nobody with no money or connections, but great qualifications, but that person must be able to run on his/her own in 2 years. Got it.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
…why should anyone who is bright and ambitious and hard-working bother to enter politics in New York State, knowing that no matter how good they are or how great a job they do, that there will always be some celebrity ready to move ahead of them.
Because there won’t “always be some celebrity” to move ahead of them. Bloomberg is a self-made man. So is Schumer. So is Patterson. So is Peter King. So are a lot of NY’s recent leaders (Monihan, D’Amato, Koch, etc.).
December 17th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
I liken it to show business, and not in a bad way. There are probably thousands of great actors/writers/directors etc. that we will never see on TV or movies or Broadway. That’s because there are more qualified people than there are availble jobs. So if you’re, say, a producer looking to cast a part in a movie to, say, a young, unknown actor in a supporting role, you don’t have time to read every single fine actor who could be great in the part. You rely on your friends, agents, others in the business to whittle it down for you, and likely as not you end up with someone who has better connections than some of the others. But still, that person is talented and will succeed in the role, or else be less likely to be cast again.
Caroline Kennedy is probably just as qualified as a lot of people in politics to be the Senator for New York – though doubtless there are others who are more qualified. But without an election, you need another way to narrow it down, and her connections, family name, appeal to popular sentiment and perhaps unconscious desire for a monarchy (not to mention the right liberal/progressive orientation) are some of the ways you might reasonably consider doing that narrowing.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Insofar as I can tell, Caroline Kennedy has co-authored a few books (who % authorship is impossible to determine), served on several boards (how active participation again impossible to dwtrmine), and had a fancy title with the NY Board oif Education that amounted to being a volunteer part time fundraiser (quite successful).
Which seems to mean that being a U.S. Senator would be the first fulltimne job she ever has held.
Interesting that the NY Times, now that it owns the Boston Globe, has adopted the Globe’s old fellatial posture toward the Kennedys.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Don’t cry for me, Hyannis Port
December 17th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
I do think that at least one of the now 4 vacancies should be filled with a ‘Mr Smith goes to Washington’ type relative nobody. Esp Illinois. Yes, it’s cheap empty symbolism, but you need that every so often.
Alternatively there’s a reality show about every darn thing these days; why not ‘who wants to be the junior US Senator from Colorado’
December 17th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
…it’s nice have elections since we call ourselves a democracy, but as long as the state party is handing out nominations to the rich and famous behind closed doors, the general election is basically a rubber stamp.
Nonsense. No doubt the eventual Democratic appointee will be favored, but it’s far too early to write off the prospects for a Republican in 2010 — a midterm year election (always challenging for members of the sitting president’s party) that will almost certainly take place against the backdrop of a weak economy. Peter King is rather obviously eying the seat, for instance, and I don’t see why he wouldn’t be a highly formidable opponent.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Insofar as I can tell, Caroline Kennedy has co-authored a few books (who % authorship is impossible to determine), served on several boards…Which seems to mean that being a U.S. Senator would be the first fulltimne job she ever has held.
Insorar as I can tell you’re talking out of your ass. Of course if I’m wrong you’re more than welcome to provide cites detailing the history of Ms. Kennedy’s work schedule.
December 17th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Steven Attewell, you’ve got to be kidding. FDR was an experienced politician who’d served as governor of New York and assistant secretary of the Navy. Also, he had previously been the Democrats’ nominee for Vice President. Ms. Kennedy, on the other hand, has never run for office, any office. So clearly a comparison between FDR’s and Caroline Kennedy’s experience does not justify your demand that we withhold judgment on Kennedy’s qualifications. It is true that FDR’s enemies accused him of being a dilettante. So what?
You say: “If Caroline Kennedy has a substantive platform, and can demonstrate her effectiveness at winning enactment of her issues, then there’s no reason to fuss about the fact that she has a famous name…”. But she does not have a substantive platform, and is not planning to demonstrate her effectiveness at winning enactment of anything. She’s asking to be appointed.
If instead she wants to get into office by persuading voters that she can effectively represent them, that is a very different matter.
————————————————-
Re: FDR, I was making a broad point – a perception of unqualified-ness doesn’t always hold. My point is that even thought FDR was widely perceived as a lightweight, people were wrong about him; it may be the case that the same is true of Caroline Kennedy. It may of course not be the case, but we won’t know for a while.
Re: platform, what I’m saying is that the very nature of the appointment system is undemocratic, and the only way you find out whether it was a good idea to appoint a particular person is what they do in office – i.e, enact an agenda. But this an appointment, not an election – picking Kennedy versus any other candidate is no more or less democratic than any other; the question of whether it’s a wise pick I am arguing we’ll have to wait and see from the results.
December 17th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
For all the trash that is talked about Hillary Clinton, she at least went out and campaigned among the people and let the people give her a thumbs up/thumbs down after a very prolonged period in which her views and experience were debated and considered by the public.
As will Ms. Kennedy should she ultimately gain the appointment from Patterson. Indeed the campaigning will be well underway within a year — and she may well face a primary challenge. You do realize this is a temporary appointment, don’t you? Now, I’m guessing you don’t think it’s fair for Ms. Kennedy to get the temporary appointment. But why couldn’t we say the same thing about Maloney or Slaughter or Cuomo (or whomever) if one of them gets the appointment? I think your beef is really not with Caroline Kennedy, but rather with the authors of New York State’s constitution.
December 17th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Re: Kids who get into the Ivy’s tend to be the children of wealthy donors. Kids who tend to get into the Big Ten tend to be the children of factory workers.
Er, I’m a graduate student currently at a research university in the Big Ten, and I can assure you that most of the students here are solidly middle class or above, and not the children of factory workers.
Unfortunately, the class bias in American higher education extends FAR beyond the Ivy LEague.
December 17th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Kids who get into the Ivy’s tend to be the children of wealthy donors. Kids who tend to get into the Big Ten tend to be the children of factory workers.
Now that sure explains all those New York kids at the U of Michigan. Arrogance has always been dynastic as well.
December 17th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
“I can assure you that most of the students here are solidly middle class or above, and not the children of factory workers.”
Yeah…students at Big Ten universities, like most public universities, are often children of parents who went to those same types of universities. Teachers and office workers. Children of factory workers are much, much more likely to not attend college and just get a job at the same factory when they turn 18 (or they used to, now when the plant closes they get to work at Walmart).
December 17th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
The bad thing about dynasticism is that the dynasts, most of them, are woefully untalented. That is what you would expect, considering regression to the mean and the small size of the candidate pool. Kennedys, of course, do have a special talent: fucking up in spectacular, often fatal ways.
December 17th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Kennedys, of course, do have a special talent: fucking up in spectacular, often fatal ways.
Given the singular lack of “fucking up” evident in the public life of Caroline Kennedy, your post isn’t terribly relevant.
December 17th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Kids who get into the Ivy’s tend to be the children of wealthy donors.
While the children of wealthy donors to Ivy League schools generally attend those Ivy League schools, many (most) of those who get in to and attend those schools are not children of wealthy donors.
December 17th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Via the WSJ
Harvard accepts 40 percent and Princeton accepts 35 percent of legacies but only 11 percent of all applicants.
The University of Pennsylvania rakes 41 percent of legacy applicants yet only 21 percent overall.
December 17th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
JimboSlice, your grasp of basic mathematics and understanding of percentages is obviously weak.
December 17th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I think the burden of proof is on people who assert that Caroline Kennedy has had a full-time job, ever. Just looking at her wikipedia bio, I sure don’t see it. She serves on the boards of various nonprofits — she’s not a nonprofit executive.
December 17th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Is the Senate a full time job?? Only if you count the 3 days of fundraising each week.
December 17th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
I understand there is a significantly significant difference between 40% and 11%.
Bottom line: if you are the son or daughter of an alum you are 200-400% more likely to be accepted to Harvard, Yale, or Penn. That is more powerful than any affirmative action program ever devised.
December 17th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
if you are the son or daughter of an alum you are 200-400% more likely to be accepted to Harvard, Yale, or Penn.
True, but this is a much different claim than, “Kids who get into the Ivy’s[sic] tend to be the children of wealthy donors.” Yes, children of alumni or “wealthy donors” might be 2-4 times as likely to be accepted, but the number of applicants who are not children of alumni or wealthy donors far exceed the group that is, and they end up swamping the children of alumni/donors in the pool of those admitted. As a consequence, people who “get into the Ivy’s [sic]” tend to come from the non-children-of-alumni/donors pool. Someone who had a better grasp of percentages, and math in general, would have realized this.
December 17th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
I think the burden of proof is on people who assert that Caroline Kennedy has had a full-time job, ever. Just looking at her wikipedia bio, I sure don’t see it.
The wikipedia entry is extremely scant with details, so I don’t think we can say it’s dispositive either way, but in in any event, I don’t see a single poster in this thread making this assertion, so who cares? I think the implication of the Caroline bashers is that she’s a lightweight — and perhaps spends all day at her riding club, or else shopping on Madison Avenue. But she’s obviously led a productive life serving on boards, raising kids, advocating for the arts, engaging in fundraisering, working on education reform, consulting in top Democratic party circles, etc., etc., etc.. So the point is, if she cobbles together a productive 60-hour week doing a variety of interesting and meaningful things, who cares that she doesn’t devote these 60 hours to only one thing? Since when is a rich variety of professional experiences a vice?
Again, if she gets the nod from Patterson, everybody will have a chance to take her measure in more detail — just as they will if Maloney or Cuomo or someone else gets the nod. And it’s entirely possible she’ll face a Democratic primary challenger in 2010, so those who don’t favor her as a senator will get their chance to boot her out in 2010.
December 17th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Good thing that that fine example of Ronald Reagan conservatism and legacy-hater George W. Bush was never, ever associated with an Ivy League institution, and neither was that paragon of leadership Dick Cheney.
No, no, the problem is all these liberal East Coast elites! We need a responsible, humble leader like down home Texan Phil Gramm!
December 17th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
I would point you to this economist article: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2333345
It concludes with:
Seems to me like Teddy isn’t opposed to legacies when it is benefiting him and his family. Personally I think Caroline might be a wonderful human being, but she has not shown the public why she should hold any elected office. She has also not shown the public that she has any commitment to them. Just as we (and Teddy) don’t want legacies getting unfair advantages in university admissions, we don’t want legacies getting unfair advantage in political appointments.
December 17th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
…but she has not shown the public why she should hold any elected office.
I’m a member of the public and I disagree; I think three decades of high-profile work on numerous critical issues have amply demonstrated her significant talents, and her commitment to making her world a better place.
Just as we (and Teddy) don’t want legacies getting unfair advantages in university admissions, we don’t want legacies getting unfair advantage in political appointments.
An appointment is an appointment. If you deem this provision of the state’s constitution unfair, then have away at trying to convince New Yorkers to change it. But it’s no more “unfair” to appoint Caroline Kennedy than it is to appoint anybody else.
December 17th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Please name 5 things that Caroline has done in her decades of “high-profile” public life. Or you could name 1 thing she did which did not borrow on her families name
December 17th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Please name 5 things that Caroline has done in her decades of “high-profile” public life.
There’s certainly plenty of information about her rather public life and career available on the web (ever hear of Google?) and, since I have no desire to convert you to my point of view, I’m going to decline your request for free research, but I’ll instead simply address your second point:
Or you could name 1 thing she did which did not borrow on her families name (sic)
Now the thing is, I don’t consider it a problem that she has benefited from being the daughter of a president (just like she has suffered for it). People complain about lack of fairness, but I think the real problem is people impugning her precisely because of who she is. In other words, Caroline Kennedy has no control over the circumstances of her birth any more than you or I do, and I believe it’s fundamentally unfair of people to hold that against her. A far better test would be to look into what she has done with her wealth and status. From what I can tell she has not — unlike several of her cousins — lived a life of dissolute excess. Rather, she has used her privilege to build a prominent role for herself making the world a better place. That’s good enough for me. I’m guessing you’re just a conservative who (rightly) fears Caroline Kennedy’s ability to flatten Peter King like a tire. Make no mistake about it: she’ll insure the seat stays Democratic.
December 18th, 2008 at 8:18 am
I think three decades of high-profile work on numerous critical issues have amply demonstrated her significant talents, and her commitment to making her world a better place.
I think that this is a perfectly justifiable argument in favor of voting for her in a senate election. I feel the party would be taking too much of a gamble by appointing her and hoping that she will be able to run the gauntlet of campaigning and constituent service.
we don’t want legacies getting unfair advantage in political appointments.
Politics intruding on political appointments! Oh noes!
December 18th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Again, if she gets the nod from Patterson, everybody will have a chance to take her measure in more detail — just as they will if Maloney or Cuomo or someone else gets the nod.
See this is the point Jasper – Cuomo and Maloney have run for public office – everybody *already* has had the chance to take their measure in great detail – they have extensive public records. And everybody also can take the measure how Cuomo and Maloney (and others) have functioned in public office. You can’t say the same about Caroline Kennedy – quit pretending that there’s no difference.
If Caroline Kennedy wishes to enter public life, I’d love to see her run in 2010 or 2012 – but in the meantime, the people of NYS deserve to have as their Senator someone who has earned the right to be there via previous electoral success and a record of public service – not someone who was given the position based on the fact that they have a famous last name and they were “interested”.
December 18th, 2008 at 9:28 am
BTW I take offense at being called a conservative because I don’t want Caroline Kennedy appointed to a Senate seat. I think there is a real divide in the liberal movement between people like Lord Yglesias and Caroline who believe in dynastic rule. Those people also believe that to solve the great problems of today you need to make the status quo as unattractive as possible, instead of making the alternative better.
There is one person arguing for conservative ideals such as dynastic rule, market based solutions, and who argued for Iraq – I’ll give you a hint, it wasn’t me!
December 18th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Jasper
Are you hoping that if she’s appointed she’ll feel obligated to grant manumission to you and the rest of the family serfs?
December 18th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I honestly don’t get the argument that if you were once elected to a certain office, that means you are more deserving of appointment to a different office–it still remains a fact that nobody voted for you to be in the second office.
Agreed. Or, to put it another way: there’s a lot to be said for a life in public service as a lawmaker who faces the voters every two to four years. But there’s also something to be said for a different kind of public service. I agree we need people in the senate who are familiar with the nitty gritty of how the legislative process works, and of how to win votes. But I also like the idea of bringing in different perspectives and experiences.
I think there is a real divide in the liberal movement between people like Lord Yglesias and Caroline who believe in dynastic rule.
Nobody believes in “dynastic rule.” Some of simply believe a person’s circumstances of birth — whether that background be lowly or lofty — ought not to be an automatic barrier to being appointed to a position. This is doubly true when that appointment is temporary, and when the voters have the opportunity to reject the appointee, as they’ll have in 2010. I think this is the far more validly liberal position; binding a person to his circumstances of birth sounds like something Burke would favor, or I dare say Hector.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Cuomo and Maloney have run for public office – everybody *already* has had the chance to take their measure in great detail – they have extensive public records.
As does Kennedy. She’s one of the more famous people on the planet. She’s written and edited books, served on boards, worked for the state, made speeches, headed charities. The argument that we’ll be able to know more about other candidates is specious. Just for kicks, I googled Andrew Cuomo (573,000 entries) and Caroline Kennedy (2.7 million).
December 18th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
The point of this post is beyond me other than to say despite the fact that it’s messed up to appoint Kennedy, our system is fucked up, and the French system is better.
There are very few, if any, societies that don’t have dynastic tendencies. Names turn into brands and voters/people, lacking perfect information, go with something they have heard before. That doesn’t make it right and we should strive towards a meritocracy. Appointing. C.Ken does not accomplish this. However, the French are significantly worse. The fact that the elite (much more likely to be born into this elitism, mind you) in France get cushy jobs at in the beuracracy (where they get to make people’s lives miserable face to face (read A Year in the Merde)) before getting propelled to power by their connections does not mean their system makes any more sense than ours or is any lest dynastic.
December 18th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Everyone in Congress is there because of family money and connections. Would Magoo (McCain) have gotten anywhere close to the Presidency if his daddy weren’t an important Admiral? Roosevelt scion FDR turned out to be a great President. And, I’d be willing to bet that Caroline Kennedy is likely the best choice available. We know she’s bright, and can raise a lot of money in 2010 against the marble-mouthed chowderhead Peter King. Who’d be a better choice? Andrew Cuomo? Carolyn Maloney? Bullshit.
December 20th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
What about the benefits of having a Senator who has had the experience of ever having to work hard for something? She was a name-based autoadmit to Harvard and we can safely assume she acquired her various board memberships on the basis of her last name as well. Membership on a board of directors is nothing like a real job, and her value as a (part-time!) fundraiser consists principally in being able to exploit connections she has due to being born into the Kennedy family. I’ll grant her the bar exam (that’s genuinely hard and grading is anonymous) but that’s about it.
I realize we’re not going to get many children of millworkers in the Senate, but even the children of the merely privileged have to succeed on the basis of something other than their parents’ name and connections. Caroline Kennedy hasn’t even had to do that: nothing in her life has had any resemblance to the way the vast majority of Americans live. Even associates at McKenzie have to worry about being downsized in a bad economy.
December 20th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Everyone in Congress is there because of family money and connections.
That’s an exaggeration. Just looking at my Senators, Barbara Boxer (D-CA) was born to Jewish parents (one an immigrant) in Brooklyn, who apparently weren’t wealthy enough to send her to private school. She attended Broklyn college, then worked while her husband went to law school. She ran for Marin County Board of Supervisors seven years later (and lost), and ran again four years after that (and won). She served on the Board of Supervisors for six years, after which she won election to the House. She served in the House for ten years, after which she ran for Senate and won.
Apparently her husband is a named partner at an Oakland personal-injury firm called Boxer & Gearson. Wikipedia describes him as a “prominent local attorney” (now: he can only have been so prominent when she first ran for office, since he was only seven years out of law school). That probably helped her win election for the first time, but can hardly be credited for winning ten more elections, including three terms in the United States Senate.
Clearly Senator Boxer has succeeded principally on the basis of her own merits rather than on the basis of family connections. Senator Feinstein (D-CA) followed a similar track, but husband is super-rich (her financial disclosure statement is 347 pages), so I’ll be cautious about attributing her election to the Senate to herself rather than to family money.
After my Senators, the first random Senator who comes to mind, Sen. Mikulski (D-MD), apparently grew up in a poor part of Baltimore, where her parents owned a grocery store. She is also unmarried (and generally presumed to be a lesbian), so her success can’t be credited to a husband either. She graduated from what is now Loyola College, became a local activist while working as a social worker, and then sat on the Baltimore City Council. Then she won election to the House, where she served five terms, then ran for Senate, and was then reelected four times. Count her as another in the “succeeded on her own merits” camp.
That’s just the first three Senators I thought of. I’m sure there are lots who got where they are due to family money and connections but there are probably also a fair number of others who won office without much, or any, help from family money and connections.
March 1st, 2009 at 6:36 pm
cialis
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:15 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:29 am
buy viagra online
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:21 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:09 am
Incredible site! viagra