"but it is a certain feeling of gratitude toward that family for what it has done for the country"

Can't we just buy them a nice fruit basket or something instead?

Yes John B, exactly. Eloquently put. Sometimes sentimentality can inform wisdom. Who knows what Bobby could have achieved? That's one debt that can be paid.

John,

I see your point, but it's what you said about Ted that I find most compelling. Here is a guy that was basically appointed to the senate as well, and went on to have a remarkably distinguished career (the same could be said of Hillary, btw, although her Senate career was far less unambiguously distinguished). That doesn't mean that the appointment was right, or that we as a nation wouldn't be better off if there were no power centers capable of usurping democratic processes. It wasn't and we certainly would be. What it might mean though is that there's more to a name than the name. Whether its genetic or cultural, or whatever combination, I do think the Kennedy's do have something 'in the blood' that makes them good politicians, and not just in the sense of being able to win elections and garnering power for themselves, but by doing something (net) positive with the offices they win, i.e. being leaders and promoting respectable policies (and certainly by the standard of the last 20 years). Is that so silly a claim to make given the preponderance of empirical evidence, i.e. the number of them that we legitimately hold up as success stories, if with warts? I mean, from athletes to plumbers to architects, lineage a pretty strong effect on vocation in all manner of fields- should politics necessarily be different? (and btw, seeing Caroline on the stump during the election, she seemed quite skilled for an amateur)

To be clear, I'm not saying that any such judgments are remotely sufficient to substitute for democratic processes. But we have an appointment here, so there's nothing democratic about it (not least in the hands of our corrupt political establishment). And whomever is chosen, the decision will be speculative and based largely on the idiosyncratic judgments of a small coterie of people, to the limited extent that any relevant judgments are made. People here and elsewhere are taking out their frustration at an undemocratic appointment process on a potential appointee with no control over that process. It's entirely misplaced.

"a certain feeling of gratitude" - WTF?

Clue for Judis: noblesse oblige = the wealthy man's obligation to the hoi polloi, not v-v

bigm & tep said it best.

If the "democratic process" produced the Senate we have now [the trillion dollar bailout Senate] it might not be all that extreme to suggest a few appointments from time to time instead. But in the end, alas, it is really a zero-sum game because we are still faced with the same predicament: how much to weigh the framework of experience over the content of their moral and political values.

Indeed, I recall when John Roberts and Samuel Alito were being questioned by the Senate regarding their qualifications to be Supreme Court justices. Newspapers like the Washington Post waxed on and on didactically about how supremely qualified they both were. Their very conservative political values were noted, of course, but ultimately deemed irrelevant as these august editors layed out their socratic arguments one academic premise at a time.  

One thing, however, we could be supremely certain about was that any ruling coming out of this new political alignment on the court would have little or no impact at all on the lives of the editors personally.

george walton

The people who consider it a disgrace need to get over themselves.  It is just a Senate seat and she would soon have to face the voters.

Ninety percent of the Senate is, to be kind, undistinguished.  

I suppose that since I am closer in years to guys like John Judis and this is probably why I am so tired of this contra Caroline Kennedy week here at tnr. What is up with everyone? With our current Senate infested with politicians with names McCain, Bush, Rockefeller, Bayh, Dodd, and Kennedy, and state elected officials with names Cuomo, Brown, Jackson, Romney, and Ford, and with recently departed Senators like Chafee, is it just this week that tnr editors and commentators are realizing that nepotism is, well, sort of in our political DNA.  

The world is unfair. I say that Bill Yard is better than 99% of all political journal editors but is he on any masthead (other than the marquee of my favorite posters in the whole wide world?)  No. If you look at the arc of my life, I am probably better qualified than at least half of our current Senators and Governors but should that make me a Senator? Hell, no, I have no money, no name recognition, no family political lineage (and quite frankly, one or two cousins too many as long term guests of the State of CA's) and would get my brown meritocratic ass incinerated in any election, state or local. I have ABSOLUTELY no qualms with Caroline Kennedy as an appointed Senator. The NY voters will decide in 2 years - and then again in another 2 years - if she is worthy of their vote.

I hate to say it but this week tnr has reminded too much of the whiners and wind mill tilters that I read in The Nation. Get real. The Democrats need winners. As pgutermann so eloquently stated, we are after all, talking about the Senate which has hardly been a showcase of meritocracy.

I'm am bored with all this Caroline Kennedy handwringing this week at tnr. Time to move on.

If Governor Paterson sees fit to appoint Caroline Kennedy in this legislatively created undemocratic process despite her lack of political experience, I predict she will quickly become and be recognized as a jewel in the diadem of the Senate.  Because of who she is, in her character as well as her family, she will be listened to in a more attentive way that are other freshman senators.  Even so, she would have to face the voters in 2010 and 2012, albeit with the advantage of incumbency.  If this prediction were to be borne out, I cannot see a downside, either for the people of New York or of the rest of the nation.

Hear, hear - appointing Caroline wouldn't be a disgrace. It may sound like I'm being facetious, but non-disgrace is probably a sufficient qualification for a Senate appointment. "Not measurably worse than any of the others under consideration" is also a pretty strong recommendation (again, I promise I'm not being facetious). That said, it won't be a disgrace if someone else equally or more "qualified" gets the nod (though I'd leave off the list Eliot Spitzer, anyone with whom Paterson has had an affair, and that Blago guy, if millions of prayers are answered and it turns out he needs a new job before too long).

Fidel Castro!  What exactly were you doing in 1960?  I was only nine years old at the time.  We lived in north Florida (which is to say we lived in the "south").  My parents supported JFK.  Although I was too young to understand, I do remember the grief I got from my friends about my parents supporting JFK, who was viewed by southerners as too friendly with Negroes (as they were called back then).  For those too young to have experienced the early 1960s, JFK was definitely a world changer.  He was reluctant (as Beschloss depicts in his book Presidential Courage), but if "change" is the hallmark of a great leader, JFK was the one.  And the world was made a better place because JFK was President.

Thank you John, and also thank you Jaunty for a stirring post.  

I'm dismayed over this week's orgy of Caroline Kennedy bashing -  including the choice of phtotograph yesterday - of Caroline cluthching her head, as if to convey "You ditzy confused broad".  I'm also puzzled over the sturm und drang this week at TNR.  Caroline Kennedy and Rick Warren.  Why are progressives doing what they do best - organize the circular firing squad?  My God, we should be rejoicing.  In ONE MONTH we'll control both Houses of Congress and the White House.  We have a popular Presdient elect - when's the last time a Democrat has won a pluarility of the vote?  

Stop sniping at Obama over Warren, over hs cabinet picks not being sufficiently "progressive".  Be glad.  Today is the last day dated "20" that we have to suffer under the worst Administration in U.S. history.

dubyadoubte,

Yessiree, there is a certain barnacle of stupidity that seems to latch onto the over exercised brains of goofy liberals, often right at the moment that these loons are poised to capture power. You can count on it like baby rabbits.

Do you think that the GOP would waste time and capital on this kind of suicidal shit?  Not hardly...

The whole problem with Caroline Kennedy is that NY voters know who she is, but don't know what she stands for. You can't triangulate from her father, uncles, cousins, what her positions are.  Kerry Kennedy actually said she doesn't know whether Caroline is pro-choice or not.  What is known about her views? That is why people run for office --starting off at lower positions, establishing platforms, picking pet projects.  She is a well-known face,  but what issues will she champion?   Hillary as first lady actually established her interest in health care and other issues before running for the senate.  Caroline talks about education, but where does she stand on the big issues facing NY today?  How would she vote on an auto bailout bill?  Immediate withdrawal from Iraq?  FISA?  Abortion?  Does she even know herself?

Good for old John B., from another old guy who remembers that dreadful November 22, 1963, and the murders of April and June 1968.  I'm just fine with Caroline Kennedy as a stand-in.  Good lord, guys, give it a rest, and that includes Wieseltier.  It's not as if we're short on real issues to worry over.  

For the record, I've never been bewitched by the Kennedys, who have produced their share of human wreckage and failure in addition to what they've suffered at the hands of others.  So mine is fairly disinterested testimony, or at least not the product of weepy memories of Camelot.

Brother Jaunty, you killed with that post, as usual.

Today, Caroline Kennedy came out in favor of gay marriage and explictly repudiated Hillary's vote on the Iraq War.  With liberals getting the high hard one from The One, I am pleased to see a member of a high profile family with a long history of defending minorities stepping up to the plate.  She threw down the gauntlet and I heard her loud and clear.

I have no doubt Uncle is speaking through her and it reminds me of what a loss this country would have without a Kennedy in the Senate, imperfect as it may appear.  Who loved Teddy when he came in?  Hasn't he been the liberal demon for 40 years?  And still one of our finst Senators ever?  About Caroline, I just don't care - the arguments againts her from TNR writers are impeccable theoretically, but also tedious, mean and so lacking in context as so become mind numbing quickly.

Equal marriage rights is the issue where the pedal hits the metal with Democrats.  Like Denzel Washington says to his trainee in "Training Day" - "You'd better decide right now -  are you gonna be a sheep or a wolf?" Obama proved himself to be a sheep, so be it.  Give me a polite Kennedy-Wolf representing my views any day.

Carloline is in a position where she has nothing to lose by being the representative of her family name and everything to gain.  I can easily see  her standing in the back of a truck in the middle of Castro calling for calm and sharing her pain.

She staked out some unpopular positions today and that technically get her nowhere. God bless her for it.  Despite the erudite complaints from Dr D and William Y, which had me half convinced (who can argue with those two?), I'm afraid I'm still in.

My gut is talking here and not my head, she'd be terrific and just what we need.

I think Jefferson Smith would be a much more credible Senate appointee than Caroline Kennedy.  

Maybe.  Je m'en fous.  But New York seems to have decided that senatorial politics is all about celebrity.  That's just not right.  Grow up.

I'd rather this dynastic stuff stop with Caroline Kennedy, but it won't, because the real money is locked up inside these very wealthy families, as it is in Mexico, France, Spain, and a few hundred other countries around the world. So we have to live with it and make the best of it.

And one small benefit - quite small - is that a dynastic pick does carry along with it some history. Anything that helps our tragically forgetful citizenry to remember, anything at all, helps. At least she has a past. I find these oddballs with no discernible history of any kind (e.g., Sarah Palin) truly terrifying.

I know it's politically incorrect, but some families do turn out great people because of the opportunities they've been afforded and traits they've inherited. I suspect Caroline is one of the better ones in that clan.

Writers like David Lebedoff should be pleased, those who feel the meritocracy is too in control. (He may be right.) A few irrational picks like Caroline may help things.

And you can't judge an Irish woman by the conduct of Irish men. Have you read Edna O'Brien's "Some Irish Loving"? If there must a be a Kennedy in the Senate, I'd pick Caroline.

There are many reasons for even the many people who like me greatly admire John Kennedy to nonetheless object to the gifting of a senate seat to his daughter.  (I don't recall Alice Roosevelt Longworth being offered one.)  But many others have well covered reasons for such an objection.

However, I do have some quarrel with the sentiment behind this line of Judis':  "...And the difference is that many Americans feel they owe the Kennedy family something for their service."

Are politicians really "serving" us when they seek high office?  In the case of Jack Kennedy, according to many of his biographers, he was more serving the ambitions of his father who wished the family to be crowned with the grandeur of the presidency.

Politicians are men with a drive to power.  In many cases, having made a great deal of money, there is no new satisfaction in making more of it, so they seek the even higher satisfaction of political primacy.

The drive for political power is much akin to the drive for money (another form of power).  And serves as either a substitute for riches, or, if riches are possessed, is the next and bigger thing.

Not to mention that, at least in contemporary America, a stint in high elective or appointive office pretty much sets you for life.

Political office brings adulation, connections, adventure, opportunity, money (legally or corruptly) and power itself.  If a politician does a good job, he is serving his constituents and his country well.  But, he is also serving a need within himself.

To suggest that any politician nowadays is serving in some highly self-sacrificing sense is hard to buy.  George Marshall, perhaps.  George Washington, maybe, when he might have preferred Mt. Vernon to the presidency.  

But any deep notion of a politician as altruist, I'm having trouble buying.

Wandrey, I second you re Jaunty's post.  A lovely little semi-classic.

Boy, I hate to disagree with jaunty, but I think the whole premise of this post is cracked.

America owes the Kennedy clan nothing.  Many, many families have given loved ones in service for this country.  Shall we have a lottery of families that have lost loved ones in the armed services?  America did not take JFK or Bobby away from their family, a couple of murderous men did.

I simply cannot understand the thinking behind what Judis wrote.  We don't award political office to people or families out of gratitude.  I find that prospect appalling.  I don't care a jot for the nostalgia or yearning for what might have been that the Kennedy family inspires.  What on earth does that have to do with anything now?

So, pace my truly admired friend Jaunty, I DO find the prospective appointment of Kennedy truly dismaying.  Yes, the Senate is rife with political legacies.  That doesn't mean that I have to smile and like it when one is so blatantly thrust upon us.  And gauzy recollections of the 60s move me not one little bit.

DrDanny, it is your argument that I agree wholeheartedly with.

But, I enjoyed the way Jaunty expressed his.

DrDan,

Of course we can disagree and still adore each other. Never doubt that.

As for this issue, all I can say is that I have lived too long and suffered through too many GOP presidencies to be concerned about anything other than the ability to govern and staying in power. Of course I don't want the Dems to morph into power hungry DeLays or Cunninghams but I truly sense that if the Democrats f up this chance, I will never see another Democratic President. Thus, I see this Caroline falderol as such a classic Democratic thinking too hard issue, one that riles up all the pointy heads  - many who write and read this magazine - and to what purpose? Just putting the first dent in the yet to be driven Obama vehicle. To maintain that the Dems should appoint some nonentity meritocratic person - let's see, Mark Green is available and I believe that Dr. Frankenstein has re attached the head that Bloomberg cut off in 2001 - would be fine too but these kinds of appointments have the rather bothersome tendency to lose when they have to run against a well know, well financed Republican.

So, though I may not occupy the high moral and ethical ground on this appointment, I say pick your battles and this one seems like such a stupid one, and the intensity of the advocacy here at tnr and among so many in that crowd, seems to this observer to be the over heated, solipsism of a passle of joirk offs.

Jaunty writes, "...Thus, I see this Caroline falderol as such a classic Democratic thinking too hard issue, one that riles up all the pointy heads..."

Come on, Jaunty, even Gov. Blago realizes that a senate seat is a "f***king valuable thing."  People, hell even Democrats, have a right and a duty to raise their hands if they see such a trust being misappropriated.

One can at the same time hold Caroline Kennedy in the highest affection, consider her to be fine and worthy-- and still not consider her worthy of a free senate sea.

I don't see how Democrats debating this point will undermine the Obama presidency.

There's something disquieting in the Judis' central premise ..."And the difference is that many Americans feel they owe the Kennedy family something for their service".  In democracies, as opposed to the feudal system, high office is something the individual earns, not an entitlement based upon to whom they were born.

I find the whole "she hasn't worked her way up the electoral ladder" meme a little ridiculous.  Neither did Hillary Clinton, Pat Moynihan, Robert Kennedy, Mike Bloomberg, Bill Bradley or John Edwards.  Paul Douglas, one of the great Senators of all time, was a University of Chicago professor before he entered the Senate.  All of them were effective, dedicated public servants.  

I'm somewhat surprised by the vitriol being directed at Ms. Kennedy.  A good deal of it seems to be coming from Clinton die hards who haven't forgiven her for endorsing Obama.  They need to get over it.

Brooklyn Democrat writes, "... find the whole "she hasn't worked her way up the electoral ladder" meme a little ridiculous.  Neither did Hillary Clinton, Pat Moynihan, Robert Kennedy, Mike Bloomberg, Bill Bradley or John Edwards.  Paul Douglas..."

Uh, Brooklyn, I believe every one of those people you mention ran for senator and won.  None were appointed to the office.

I haven't seen vitriol aimed at Caroline Kennedy here.  Just irritation or resentment at the idea that someone who has not ever put herself to the voters nor even outlined where she stands on the issues, ought by some right of American aristocracy, be given something as rarified as a senate seat.

Brooklyn Democrat writes, "... find the whole "she hasn't worked her way up the electoral ladder" meme a little ridiculous.  Neither did Hillary Clinton, Pat Moynihan, Robert Kennedy, Mike Bloomberg, Bill Bradley or John Edwards.  Paul Douglas..."

Uh, Brooklyn, I believe every one of those people you mention ran for senator and won.  None were appointed to the office.

I haven't seen vitriol aimed at Caroline Kennedy here.  Just irritation or resentment at the idea that someone who has not ever put herself to the voters nor even outlined where she stands on the issues, ought by some right of American aristocracy, be given something as rarified as a senate seat.

This column was a fresh and bracing reminder of why the air in this country will be clearer when the last boomer dies.  What a stretch of muddled nonsense.  

This country does not owe people Senate seats, John.  Fuck.

stephenwo writes, "...This column was a fresh and bracing reminder of why the air in this country will be clearer when the last boomer dies."

Hey, Wo, I'm on your side.  I'm a boomer and I always thought boomers were a pain in the ass.  From kindergarten on.

So I take it y'all have been following the recent outrage in Empire State politics: A woman who's never...