World

Caroline Kennedy, US House of Lords?

by Albert Milliron | December 19, 2008 at 11:02 am

151 views | 0 Recommendations | 1 comment

Washington Post Columnist, Charles Krauthammer, makes some observations on Caroline Kennedy and her qualification to replace Hillary Clinton's Senate Seat.

"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?

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

polylogue

at 11:39 on December 19th, 2008

I agree with Krauthammer in that the U.S. is supposed to be -- among other things -- a response to royalty. However, in practice, Americans love aristocracy. Since Washington refused the title of emperor, Americans have seemingly been desperate to peg the title to someone else. The Kennedys remain the extreme example. When a Kennedy wants public office, the Kennedy gets it -- almost 100 percent of the time.

The Kennedys are not the only ones. Look at the Bush family. George W's grandfather was a senator and the rest springs from there. There is now talk of Jeb for Florida senator. The fact that a Bush can even be considered for anything is likely a testament for dynasty lovers.

Finally, look at the number of members of Congress and members of state houses that have their seats handed to spouses or children upon retirement or death.