CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
Dec. 19, 2008 – 12:30 a.m.
In Defense of Dynasties
By John Bicknell, CQ Staff
Thomas Hart Benton, a giant of the Senate in the 19th century, said of John Quincy Adams, who died in the Capitol: “Death found him at the post of duty; and where else could it have found him?”
Benton was no idle flatterer, and he was no ally of Adams.
But he understood what motivated the man he so often opposed. And he understood the provenance of that motivation.
John Quincy Adams’ devotion to duty came from being an Adams.
It is easy – and a little bit of a trap — to use the Adamses to defend the idea of dynasty in American politics.
One could argue that they are the exception rather than the rule, in terms of greatness.
Of course, both father and son were as vilified as any man in their time, so much of that greatness has been recognized only in hindsight.
And that brings us to Caroline Kennedy. And Jeb Bush. And John Salazar . And Jesse Jackson Jr. And Lisa Madigan.
Gallons of ink (and electrons) have been spilled over the past weeks — by liberal Democrats as well as conservative Republicans — decrying the very idea that Caroline Kennedy should be seriously considered as a successor to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton , D-N.Y.
Much of the spilling has been done by people who variously considered a partial-term senator to be qualified to be president, or a partial-term governor to be qualified to be vice president.
But suddenly, Caroline Kennedy is not fit for office? (Some couch their resistance as being only about an appointment, but the argument is made even in electoral circumstances.)
Much of this complaining, from the press and from the general public, has less to do with the potential heirs to the throne than it does with the short attention spans of the public and the press.
Voters and reporters get tired of the same old thing, the same old names, and they want something new.
Not better, necessarily, just new.
We are told that the New York Senate seat is too valuable to trust to a beginner, that Kennedy has never been engaged in the crucial issues of the day, and, most preposterously, that the absence of elective office on her resume makes her unqualified (please check current holder of same seat).
To which I respond: Please, send us more Caroline Kennedys.
No one can tell me what a “qualification” for a Senate seat is. As with presidents, there have been great senators who came to the post having never held elective office before. Some of them, God forbid, even had experience in fields other than politics.
Fellow CQ columnist Richard L. Connor states flatly that “Experience matters and Caroline Kennedy does not have it.” But he doesn’t say what kind of experience.
Of course, Kennedy has all sorts of life experience. Because it’s different than the usual run of lawmaker, the chattering class calls her unqualified.
What life experience qualifies a person to be a senator? There is no answer to that question. We need more diverse life experiences in the Senate, not fewer, more people who have not spent their entire lives pursuing elected office, who have not directed all their energies to politics.
Is Caroline Kennedy a potential senator only because her name is Kennedy?
Yes.
I seem to remember someone else who fits that description.
He was age 30, barely old enough to run and roundly “unqualified” to be a U.S. senator. And, whatever you think of his policy preferences, Uncle Ted seems to have made something of a successful career of it, affecting the destiny of the United States in profound ways.
The nation is a richer, better place because of the Udalls, the Frelinghuysens, the Rockefellers, the Roosevelts, the Bushes and, yes, the Kennedys.
The Senate could use more people who understand duty as a familial responsibility rather than as a catchphrase to justify personal ambition.
In the last analysis, think of the question in the reverse.
Should John Salazar be barred from the Senate for no reason other than his brother was a senator?
Are we to accept that a successful governor like Jeb Bush cannot be a senator because his brother and father were president?
Those who decry dynasty argue that handing a Senate seat to someone because of their membership in a particular family is undemocratic.
But there are few things more undemocratic than disqualifying people from public office because of who their relatives are.
John Bicknell can be reached at jbicknell@cq.com.
Comments
Strike the Bushes for many obvious reasons & I'm with you. The Bushes are richer, indeed, yet they have on balance made the nation less healthy due to actions and inactions. Patriarch Bush was better due to some restraint & moderation. "Wouldn't be prudent" come to mind.... not much else that is positive. "The nation is a richer, better place because of the Udalls, the Frelinghuysens, the Rockefellers, the Roosevelts, the Bushes and, yes, the Kennedys."
Ms. Kennedy should not be "disqualified" because of her family, nor should she receive an appointment to the Senate because of her name. The same for John Salazar. At least Jeb Bush, Beau Biden and Ted Kennedy will be elected to the Senate before they take a seat there. What Mr. Bicknell says about family traditions of public service are very correct. However, such family traditions does not exempt members of those families from getting there by facing the voters first. There should be no advantage of incumbency because of your family name.
"The Senate could use more people who understand duty as a familial responsibility rather than as a catchphrase to justify personal ambition." The Senate could use less people who understand government office as a an opportunity for personal eenrichment and celebrity. It's a given that success in politics requires a level of moral flexibility beyond that of the average person, and a suspension of honorable qualities such as integrity and responsibility. It's also a given that family members often share similar goals and attitudes. Hence political dynasties - families of low moral character who have learned a good scam; why not continue working it for generations if it's paying off?
The bushes may enriched some country, but it sure hasn't been this one. No more bushes ever !
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: