Below The Beltway

While Justin, and apparently Chuck Todd, seems impressed with the possibility that New York Governor David Paterson might name Caroline Kennedy to fill Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat, my thoughts on the matter are more along the lines of what Mark Daniels has in mind:

[I]f Kennedy were, say, Caroline Smith, do you think that Governor David Paterson would have even taken her call?

For that matter, do you think that Hillary Rodham Clinton, late of Illinois, Arkansas, and Washington, D.C. could have decided on the brink of the 200o senatorial election in New York to move to the Empire State and run to take the place of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a lifelong New Yorker and thinker on public policy who became one of the best senators in the history of the Republic? (That, by the way, is an assessment shared by conservative columnist George Will regarding the late Democratic senator.)

And would George W. Bush have had a shot at becoming governor of Texas in 1994 and then, President of the United States?

Dynasties, whether at the local, state, or national levels, have not been unknown in the US, of course. Right now, I’m reading Francis Russell’s 1976 book, Adams: An American Dynasty, telling the stories of John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and their progeny. The Adamses produced two presidents and a vice presidential nominee, not to mention a few business magnates and historians. But each worked long in the vineyards of public life before running for major offices.

Bushes, Clintons, and possibly, Kennedys, don’t need to bother with such pedestrian pursuits. But is royalty the way we want to go in the United States?

If Paterson appoints Kennedy to the Senate seat, it might be applauded by those who think that the person who takes Clinton’s place must be a woman or must have star power. It might even keep New York Democrats from going to war with one another; arguing against Caroline Kennedy in the Senate might, for Dems, be a bit like arguing against Santa Claus appearing in the annual Macy’s Thanksgiving parade.

But what are we saying to young people about folks who get elected or appointed to office merely because they have the right last names? Parents might say something like: “If you work hard, commit yourself to what’s best for the country, and undertake a lifetime of service to others, good daughter or good son, you’ll get to watch others get the senate seats and the governors’ chairs.”

If Paterson were to make his decision based solely on the competence and experience, it’s fairly clear that Kennedy would not be a serious candidate for office. She’s less qualified than Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, or any other of the people supposedly on Paterson’s “short list” for the Senate seat.

The difference is that, unlike Kennedy, none of these candidates possesses a last name that causes Democrats to genuflect as if they’re talking about God. The fact that she has less political experience than Sarah Palin doesn’t matter, because she’s a Kennedy.

Paterson may well pick Kennedy, but let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that he’s doing it for any reason other than the fact that she happens to have the same last name as a dead President.