The Price of Seniority
US Capitol Building
Timothy Noah opens his Ted Kennedy profile on this note: “Talk about inauspicious beginnings. At the tender age of 30, the youngest sibling of President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy seemed pathetically unqualified to enter the U.S. Senate.”
The point is to highlight the irony that Ted went on to become the greatest of the Kennedy brothers. But it’s worth being clear about the fact that he had such an impressive career in part precisely because he initially got a job he wasn’t qualified for. The Senate operates largely on the basis of seniority. A guy who can enter his fifth term and only be 54 years old is a guy who’s going to be able to wield some major influence for a long time. And yet Massachusetts must have had many better-qualified potential senators who, had they gotten the gig, never would have acquired Kennedy’s legacy not just because they would have lacked Kennedy’s skills but because they would have been too young.
This winds up having some odd systematic effects. It’s nice, for example, to see a veteran progressive legislator like Bernie Sanders get a “promotion” up the Senate. But the man’s 67 years old, so he’s never going to amass tons of seniority and we’re never going to hear about “powerful Energy Committee Chairman Bernard Sanders of Vermont.” And yet Vermont is a reliably liberal state. If some other, equally progressive but much-less-qualified man had won that Senate seat instead, the cause of progressive politics might have been much better served in the long run. In large part, I think this is just one of several reasons why both houses of congress ought to reduce the significance of seniority (and also of committee chairmen) but given the system we have in place it’s something savvy political activists should keep in mind. When you’re looking at a fairly safe seat, it’s very good to find a young candidate.
40 Responses to “The Price of Seniority”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 26th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
It seems that the media has taken a rain check on its reporting duties amidst all this hagiography of the Liberal Leopard.
It’s disgusting, really, to think that while Matt makes a big deal about Uncle Ted being the first Senator to have a website, he forgets a couple other firsts he accomplished. He was the first Senator to be involved in the CRIME of RAPE. He was the first alcoholic Senator.
And no one ever seems to remember Chappaquiddick. He was the first Senator to murder his mistress and get off, scot free, because of his political connections.
Perhaps the blase attitude he took toward terrorism, and people losing their loved ones due to it, is rooted in the casual disregard for human life he cultivated.
August 26th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
What strikes me as very odd looking at the list of current Senators is how old they all are. There are only 9 under 50 and 2 under 45, while 13 are 75+. People like Kennedy, Biden, Baucus etc were all elected in their 30s.
Incidentally, that might have been a factor in the appointments of Bennet and Gillibrand, who are the two youngest members. Gillibrand’s seat is certainly safe, so she might have the best chance for a very long career.
On the plus side, Feingold will only be 70 when he’s served 30 years (which I would expect him to do), so we may well be in for some good changes then.
August 26th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
FWIW, the youngest US Representative from Massachusetts is Jim McGovern (age 49) followed by Stephen Lynch (age 54). Attorney General Martha Coakley is 56. Lt. Gov. Tim Murray is 41.
August 26th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
He was the first Senator to be involved in the CRIME of RAPE. He was the first alcoholic Senator.
I really, really, really doubt either of those are true. The history of the Republic has been filled with very unsavory politicians, many of whom had slaves I’m sure they wouldn’t have minded raping, and certainly access to copious amounts of alcohol.
And no, I assure you, nobody has forgotten about Chappaquiddick. Virtually every article I’ve read today mentions it, and the thread on this site was pretty much 100% arguing about various aspects of it. It’s such an amusing aspect of the conservative that he always seems to be stuck looking 40 years in the past.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
This winds up having some odd systematic effects.
Seniority is also why Barney Frank would probably consider a move to the Senate in Massachusetts a demotion. There are a few other corollaries:
- the Senate is considered the graveyard of presidential ambition, because it turns people into senators who talk in Senatese. (See: John Kerry.) Obama knew that.
- the Senate isn’t a compelling venue for other ambitious pols, either. You had Hillary Clinton take SecState and Ken Salazar take Interior: both were relatively low on the Senate ladder, in their mid-50s, and the path to seniority lay well in the distance. (Salazar’s replacement, the somewhat anonymous Michael Bennet, is the youngest current senator at 44; Colorado’s hardly a safe state for the Dems, though.)
The current system seems to work for someone like Jim Webb, who brings to the chamber something of an old-school attitude. He’s not really looking for a chair, will vote against the party line on a few issues, and if he loses re-election, he’ll write a book about it.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
“When you’re looking at a fairly safe seat, it’s very good to find a young candidate.”
I think this reality — that in order to gain seniority, one must start early and *stay* for decades — is exactly why, as you wrote in an earlier post, “we’re fated to be ruled by the sort of people who are really desperate to cling to power.” Which is a compelling explanation for the depressing levels cynicism and immorality that we see.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
…never would have acquired Kennedy’s legacy not just because they would have lacked Kennedy’s skills but because they would have been too young.
YgelsiaFAIL.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
“but because they would have been too young.”
matt, you’re stepping on your own punch-lines.
what you intended to lead up to here, and put in italics, was “too old”.
you really should correct your typos, you know? esp. when they spoil your own point.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
I was a Congressional intern around 1975, when Congressional seniority was reformed in the House, and a couple of long-time Chairman were sidelined. Wright Patman, a New Dealer, who had come to Congress from Texas’ 1st Congressional district in 1928! had become Chairman of the powerful House banking committee in 1965. By 1975, he was clearly ailing. But, in the ornate committee room, with his own portrait as a past Chairman staring down on him, I saw him take charge of the questioning of a defiant witness, and to wield his power, ignoring the fact that he was theoretically no longer chairman. It was a thing of rare beauty: the thundering voice of authority dominating the proceedings and all having business before the Committee.
There were many downsides to the system of strong chairman and strong seniority, but, it did support a more powerful and self-confident Congress.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
The Republicans were already on to this tactic when they started looking for Supreme Court nominees in their forties.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Makes me wonder if Joe DeLong (http://www.news-register.net/page/content.detail/id/518612.html) will end up being the next Senator from West Virginia.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
August 26th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
The Republicans were already on to this tactic when they started looking for Supreme Court nominees in their forties.
I don’t think anyone in their 40s has actually been nominated, have they? Unless Roberts was 49 or something.
Anyway, that’s another ridiculous consequence. The Supreme Court is now no longer for the best legal minds in the country, but the best legal minds between age 50-55 only. And it leads to stuff like Sotomayor’s potential short lifespan due to diabetes being a legitimate issue.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
“He was the first alcoholic Senator.”
There are accounts from the First Contintental Congress that clearly indicate that some of the attendees were what we would call in our time severe alcoholics.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
He was the first alcoholic Senator.
Hilarious!
August 26th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
You capture an important part of the Senate well. Great post.
To pseudonymous in nc: you make sense but the rumors around MA were that Frank wanted Kerry’s seat if he won. Granted that is five years ago and a change of party.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
I think you should read Phil Greenspun’s thoughts on Kennedy’s passing. IMHO, it’s a lot more sensible than your honorific. Had Kennedy left the government – like George McGovern – and gotten a real job – again, like George McGovern – he may have found out that good intentions aren’t always enough.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
The south also has a dynamic dating back to the primagenture days of younger children going into politics immediately since they didn’t inherit the plantation. Because of this, the house and the senate have been dominated by southerners, since they had the most seniority, given that they had been politicians from a young age.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
And instead of the “fuck you, I got mine”, J-Rob tries a variation on that theme, namely “my compound is good, all government is bad”.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
The south also has a dynamic dating back to the primagenture days of younger children going into politics immediately since they didn’t inherit the plantation. Because of this, the house and the senate have been dominated by southerners, since they had the most seniority, given that they had been politicians from a young age.
I think the more parsimonious explanation for the dominance of Southern committee chairmen under the seniority system was the overwhelming dominance of the Democratic party in the Solid South. In other parts of the country, seats alternated between parties every so often. Not in the South in the century after the end of Reconstruction.
August 26th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Teddy’s dead?
Ding, Dong!
The Pig is dead.
August 26th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
While I share in the mourning of Ted Kennedy’s death, and while I consider myself a liberal and Democrat, I admit to having a hard time, as I have in the past, with the “Kennedy white-washing” going on. I’m not talking about Chappaquiddick, but about the many things documented in Seymour Hersh’s excellent book, The Dark Side of Camelot. The opening chapter of that book posits that John F. Kennedy, aided by his corrupt and powerful and megalomaniac father Joe, bought/stole the 1960 election. Young Ted Kennedy carried some of the bags of money, literally. The rest of the book is filled with eye-opening stuff, and at the end, I don’t come out liking these people, as they were then, very much. (Mostly I felt sorry for them.)
This apparently illegitimate election of John Kennedy opened up the Senate seat that Ted won later–as Matt points out, at the young age of 30. I like the many positive aspects of John and Ted and Robert like everyone else, and I don’t mean to erase the good parts, but ever since reading Hersch’s book a couple years ago, I’ve had a hard time getting past these inconvenient facts (or, at least, these assertions of Hersch’s) whenever Kennedy-worship starts up. Do these facts not matter? Does the fact that “this stuff goes on all the time” or “that’s the way it’s done” erase the need to talk about it?
Does anyone know if Ted Kennedy himself acknowledged some of these things during his later life? Did he express any regret? Did he profess to an epiphany that changed his thoughts on such things? Did Robert, later after his brother’s death? Does this matter? It does to me, I guess. I’m not saying we forget all of the great things Ted Kennedy, or John or Robert did, but do we have to totally erase these concerns?
This comment is really not meant as a hit job, and I hate to bring it up the day after the guy died; it’s more of a response to all the non-critical hooplah, like this quote from the front page of Daily Kos today:
Where is the critical, historical eye? Do we have to deify these people? The Kennedy siblings, like Michael Jackson, were brought up by a sick man. There is a story in the book, if my memory is right, where Joe Kennedy brings an 18 year old girl home for family dinner, and later while the house is still full of people, including his wife, goes upstairs to have loud sex with the girl. The Kennedy’s were children of a kind of abuse, as I see it. Why can’t we talk about them in their full three-dimensionality?
This is just the way of things, I guess, how history is made. But if I felt this way about the lack of balanced, non-deifying coverage in the wake of Ronald Reagan’s death, someone I definitely did not like or agree with, then to be fair I have to ask for that same balance when discussing Ted Kennedy, who I liked and mostly agreed with, but who was just a man.
August 26th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
But if I felt this way about the lack of balanced, non-deifying coverage in the wake of Ronald Reagan’s death, someone I definitely did not like or agree with, then to be fair I have to ask for that same balance when discussing Ted Kennedy . . .
I don’t think you have to worry about. All the coverage I’ve seen, while not bringing up the specific dark secrets you mention, has been full of negatives. Chappaquiddick is unfailingly brought up, (outside of Daily Kos, anyway).
I actually think generally (outside of the lefty echo chamber) people are far more aware of Ted Kennedy’s dark side than they are of his tremendous accomplishments.
August 26th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Royal, I’d point out that the entire meme that 1960 was stolen from Nixon, though with some legitimate basis, doesn’t hold up to close investigation. Even if Nixon had won Illinois, he still would’ve fallen short of winning the electoral college. And though I wouldn’t be at all surprised if some hanky panky went on in Cook County, at the same time there’s no evidence that it swung the election, which is one of the reasons Republicans never pursued it. Plus, downstate Illinois also showed significant irregularities, which would doubtlessly be much more vigorously pursued by Democrats if Republicans pushed the Cook County issue.
The rest of what you say I take no real issue with. I do feel like Ted could use some hagiography, though, since invariably the first thing most people think of when they think of him is Chappaquiddick. It’s an important part of his life to keep in mind, but one event doesn’t define a man, and giving people some perspective both on the event and what he ended up contributing to the world in spite of it seems like a worthy point of discussion.
August 26th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
“He was the first alcoholic Senator.”
Umm, yeah. I’m guessing the first ten alcoholic Senators were in the first Senate ever convened. It’s one thing to be a right wing troll. We expect you to be detached from reality. But you should at least be close enough to reality to see it on a clear day from a really tall mountain. Wow. But that statement does deserve a nomination for the coveted “Stupidest Thing Ever Said on the Internet” award. It takes some really impressive stupidity to be nominated for that.
“Salazar’s replacement, the somewhat anonymous Michael Bennet, is the youngest current senator at 44; Colorado’s hardly a safe state for the Dems, though.”
Somewhat anonymous? I’m from Colorado and I’m a political junkie. And I still have no idea who he is. I’d rank him in the “Who the hell is this guy?” category. Who knows? Maybe he’ll be great, but from what I’ve seen, I have no idea what to expect. He’s the only guy I’ve never seen who could make it to the Senate and still be completely unknown. They guy is our Senator and I doubt more than 1% of the Colorado population could even recognize him. I surely couldn’t. I’m guessing average height, medium stature, brown hair, slightly balding…. But who knows? Anyone seen him?
August 26th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Zephyrus Says:
August 26th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Royal, I’d point out that the entire meme that 1960 was stolen from Nixon, though with some legitimate basis, doesn’t hold up to close investigation. Even if Nixon had won Illinois, he still would’ve fallen short of winning the electoral college. And though I wouldn’t be at all surprised if some hanky panky went on in Cook County, at the same time there’s no evidence that it swung the election, which is one of the reasons Republicans never pursued it. Plus, downstate Illinois also showed significant irregularities, which would doubtlessly be much more vigorously pursued by Democrats if Republicans pushed the Cook County issue.
============================================================
You’ve forgotten Texas and New Jersey
Nixon’s campaign staff urged him to pursue recounts and challenge the validity of Kennedy’s victory in several states, especially in Illinois, Missouri and New Jersey, where large majorities in Catholic precincts handed Kennedy the election.[1] However, Nixon gave a speech three days after the election stating that he would not contest the election.[1] The Republican National Chairman, Senator Thruston Morton of Kentucky, visited Key Biscayne, Florida, where Nixon had taken his family for a vacation, and pushed for a recount.[1] Morton did challenge the results in 11 states,[15] keeping challenges in the courts into the summer of 1961. However, the only result of these challenges was the loss of Hawaii to Kennedy on a recount.
Kennedy won Illinois by less than 9,000 votes out of 4.75 million cast, or a margin of two-tenths of one percent. [15] However, Nixon carried 92 of the state’s 101 counties, and Kennedy’s victory in Illinois came from the city of Chicago, where Mayor Richard J. Daley held back much of Chicago’s vote until the late morning hours of November 9. The efforts of Daley and the powerful Chicago Democratic organization gave Kennedy an extraordinary Cook County victory margin of 450,000 votes—more than 10% of Chicago’s 1960 population of 3.55 million[20]—thus barely overcoming the heavy Republican vote in the rest of Illinois. Earl Mazo, a reporter for the pro-Nixon New York Herald Tribune, investigated the voting in Chicago and claimed to have discovered sufficient evidence of vote fraud to prove that the state was stolen for Kennedy.[15]
In Texas, Kennedy defeated Nixon by a narrow 51% to 49% margin, or 46,000 votes.[15] Some Republicans argued that Johnson’s formidable political machine had stolen enough votes in counties along the Mexican border to give Kennedy the victory. Kennedy’s defenders, such as his speechwriter and special assistant Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., have argued that Kennedy’s margin in Texas (46,000 votes) was simply too large for vote fraud to have been a decisive factor, although cases of voter fraud were discovered there. For example, Fannin County had only 4,895 registered voters, yet 6,138 votes were cast in that county, three-quarters for Kennedy.[1] In an Angelina County precinct, Kennedy received a higher number of votes than the total number of registered voters in the precinct.[1] When Republicans demanded a statewide recount, they learned that the state Board of Elections, whose members were all Democrats, had already certified Kennedy as the official winner in Texas.[1]
August 26th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Salazar’s replacement, the somewhat anonymous Michael Bennet, is the youngest current senator at 44; Colorado’s hardly a safe state for the Dems, though.”
Somewhat anonymous? I’m from Colorado and I’m a political junkie. And I still have no idea who he is. I’d rank him in the “Who the hell is this guy?” category. Who knows? Maybe he’ll be great, but from what I’ve seen, I have no idea what to expect. He’s the only guy I’ve never seen who could make it to the Senate and still be completely unknown. They guy is our Senator and I doubt more than 1% of the Colorado population could even recognize him. I surely couldn’t. I’m guessing average height, medium stature, brown hair, slightly balding…. But who knows? Anyone seen him?
===========================================================
Ritter was an idiot to appoint Bennett, who’s tanked in polls. You are right, nobody knows who he is. If Ritter had appointed Andrew Romanoff, the outgoing House Speaker (term limited) who is an intelligent and passionate young man, recognized state-wide, the situation would be entirely different. Bennett is a cipher, and doomed to loose
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/08/colorado-senate-pretty-wide-open.html
38% of voters in the state disapprove of Bennet’s job performance so far with 31% approving. Those numbers are roughly equal to our previous survey which found the numbers at 41% disapproval to 34% approval. There are two primary reasons for Bennet’s net negative ratings. The first is that Republicans disapprove (62%) of him more than Democrats approve of him (57%). The second is that he’s getting unfavorable reviews from independents, 36% of whom disapprove of him compared to 29% approving
August 26th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
But it’s worth being clear about the fact that he had such an impressive career in part precisely because he initially got a job he wasn’t qualified for.
==========================================================
Must be very reassuring for you
August 26th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
“38% of voters in the state disapprove of Bennet’s job performance so far with 31% approving.”
That’s actually astonishing. Why isn’t the “not sure” category the biggest? And with Bennet, they really need to add a “who the hell is Bennet?” option. That choice would win easily.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
fostert Says:
August 26th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
“38% of voters in the state disapprove of Bennet’s job performance so far with 31% approving.”
That’s actually astonishing. Why isn’t the “not sure” category the biggest? And with Bennet, they really need to add a “who the hell is Bennet?” option. That choice would win easily.
============================================================
Actually he was pretty well known in Denver as DPS Superintendent and not particularly liked.
Not liked in the largest city in the state and unknown in the rest – you’re screwed
August 27th, 2009 at 12:12 am
“Actually he was pretty well known in Denver as DPS Superintendent and not particularly liked.”
Well, in fairness, I can’t remember any DPS superintendent that was ever liked. It’s a wonder none of them have been lynched. But I can’t remember him at all. It must have been during my three year stay in Texas. But DPS chief? Yikes! Not a good place to start a political career, but a damn good place to end one. Couldn’t Ritter have just found some random bum on East Colfax? At least he wouldn’t have DPS superintendent on his record. Well, probably not.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:13 am
The SEIU might have a problem with the idea that senate power should be determined by competence rather than seniority. Everybody know’s you’re right, but it goes against democrats core beliefs. After all, if you can actually get ahead because you do a better job, and not by limiting competition, what do you need unions or the democratic party for?
August 27th, 2009 at 12:20 am
The opening chapter of that book posits that John F. Kennedy, aided by his corrupt and powerful and megalomaniac father Joe, bought/stole the 1960 election.
As I understand it, Nixon didn’t contest the election because he had stolen just as many electoral votes as Kennedy had. Though none were as blatant as what Daley and the Chicago machine did. If only Fox News existed in 1960.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:23 am
After all, if you can actually get ahead because you do a better job, and not by limiting competition, what do you need unions or the democratic party for?
Ah yes, an advocate of the official motto of the Republican Party: “I got mine, screw you.” What’s that, you’re getting fucked by your company? Should have worked harder!
August 27th, 2009 at 7:55 am
We’re confronting, actually, a very Republican dynamic of the senate: in which power is determined by favoritism, backroom deals, and petty grievances.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:52 am
“It’s such an amusing aspect of the conservative that he always seems to be stuck looking 40 years in the past.”
Oh, spare me.
From the lib side of things:
1. Obama’s policies are good because he is another Abe Lincoln (148 years) ; do not question him.
2. Obama’s policies are good because he is another FDR (77 years); do not question him.
3. Obama’s policies are good because he is another JFK (48 years ); do not question him.
4. Obama’s policies are good because he is another LBJ (44 years) ; do not question him..
5. Bush was worthless because he got a C in college (40+ years)
6. Bush was worthless because he only went into the National Guard (40+ years)
7. Bush was worthless because he had a drinking problem in his youth (40+ years)
8. The War on Terror is an unjust war because Vietnam was an unjust war and a failure (40+ years).
Libs are selective in what they regard as important in the past, but the past can be instructive. The truths they don’t want anyone to remember are that 40+ yrs ago, Kennedy and Biden both cheated in college; Kennedy was responsible for a woman’s death; Obama was living in Indonesia as an Islamic citizen of that country. Today Obama is more like that pusillanimous POS Wilson (93 yrs ago) than anyone else. And Caesar was proclaimed a god by the Roman Senate out of sentimentality.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Weak, elephant. Plain weak. Five through seven are the closest parts to that vague thing resembling a point you have, but if you asked Democrats to list the three things they hate most about Bush, it’d be surprising if any of those came up. If you ask the same thing of Republicans about Kennedy, it’d be “Chappaquiddick, Chappaquiddick, Chappaquiddick.”
August 27th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
He was the first alcoholic Senator.
What about Joe McCarthy? Oh wait, he was just a drunk.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
elephant4life outs himself as a conspiracy nutbag here:
Obama was living in Indonesia as an Islamic citizen of that country.
Democrats, by and large, despise George Bush not for who he is, but for what he did as president. Republican idiots like you would seem a lot less stupid if you tried to do the same. If you want to go after Obama or Kennedy because of their actual policy goals and accomplishments, then have at it. Otherwise, you’re nothing but a hater. Please go away.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
[...] Kennedy to be bolder in his vision for American than nearly any other senator. As Matt Yglesias points out, Kennedy was able to achieve so much through another illiberal, anachronistic feature of our [...]