What's Kennedy Done to Earn NY Senate Seat?
By: EXAMINER EDITORIAL HOT ZONE
-
December 15, 2008
One of the most essential principles that united this nation's founders was an absolute antipathy to hereditary rule. Not just kings but hereditary nobility also were scorned by Washington, Madison, Franklin and Jefferson alike. An aristocracy posed such a danger to representative democracy that Madison (in Federalist 39) warned explicitly against any situation in which “a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.”
The subject arises because of the increasing likelihood that Caroline Kennedy will be appointed to the Senate seat from New York that would be vacated if Hillary Clinton is confirmed as Secretary of State. Kennedy might be a fine person, but she has spent almost her entire life shunning public attention, public service, and public scrutiny. Yet, because she is a Kennedy — American political royalty — she has risen to the top of the list for a seat not to be won in a public campaign but to be handed to her on a platter.
This prospect should rankle all small-“r’” republicans. It is one thing for a Kennedy, or a Bush, or a Gore, or a Dodd to carry on their family traditions of public office by competing for public support with other candidates on at least a nominally level playing field. By name alone they enjoy advantages that would give pause to some of the founders — but at least they subject themselves to the consent of the governed. But for somebody to trade on family name alone, without obvious qualifications, is to take dynasticism too far. New York Gov. David Paterson should strenuously resist the pressure to appoint Kennedy to the job, and instead choose somebody with an actual, extensive record in public life.
