The New York Times Tries To Kill Caroline Kennedy's Senatorial Aspirations With A Single Lede
Honestly I hate this Caroline Kennedy for Senate thing because of the brain-dead thinking on the part of everyone who loves the idea so much. It’s the ultimate use of politics to fulfill one’s own somewhat juvenile need for narrative and fantasy - something both Boomers and Gen-Y’ers are prone to (but not the ironically detached Gen X’ers), and which played such a big part in the Democratic primaries last year. Most non-politically-obsessed voters resist this thinking, because they know we don’t have the luxury to indulge it now.
That said, I’m not totally sure Caroline Kennedy would be an awful Senator. She could very possibly become a lawyerly workaholic like Hillary, mastering the dull details of worthy policy initiatives. But it’s hard to see her with any aptitude for the horse-trading needed to be effective the Senate (though she did have a pony once), nor visualize her as a “Sen. Pothole.”
I’m going to add Ezra Klein’s argument that this is
another example of our unwillingness to believe that “legislator” is an actual job with a particular skill set that requires expertise and understanding and experience to be effective. Caroline Kennedy is famous. She is even involved in politics. But she has never been a legislator. She knows nothing of parliamentary procedure, congressional negotiations, or constituent service. It would likely take her some time to get her sea legs and learn how to be effective. Meanwhile, there are plenty of long-serving legislators in New York politics, and in the New York delegation to Congress, that would love this seat and could step in on day one.
The people of New York deserve someone who is going to be powerful and effective. Why should I think Caroline will be Ted Kennedy part 2?
blog comments powered by Disqus
