Translate

Sunday, December 07, 2008

Spamalot

Glad to see I'm not the only one who was somewhat underwhelmed by Caroline Kennedy's offer to take over where Hillary Clinton leaves off. Nothing personal, mind you -- when you grow up in a not-too-far-off-the-boat Irish family, you are conditioned from an early age to appreciate the Kennedys. Still, so far overall, the stage is being set for considerably less actual change than we were led to believe in. Imagine that.

Maybe this is an East Coast/West Coast thang, but there's a perception of all these East Coast bluebloods handing the reins off to one another's scions as the occasion arises. Why does a Clinton have to be replaced by a Kennedy or a Cuomo? Will another Kennedy be procured to replace Uncle Ted when his time comes, or will Marty Meehan get a crack at the big man's chair?

The idea that just because the Saturday evening news announces a legacy appointment like we're all supposed to be automatically excited about it is, while not unexpected, still no less obnoxious. Caroline Kennedy may be a perfectly adequate or even an excellent replacement for Hillary Clinton's signature brand of anal cynicism and pinpoint triangulation. But times are too serious to just take the last name on good faith.

There's an enormous problem in the Senate right now with entitlement, with the sense that its members owe their allegiance to each other and not to the public.


There's always been that sense to some extent, but naturally as the fiscal requirements of even getting into the game continue to escalate, so do the odds that all comers are equipped with said entitlement. Handing the seat right over to her is gonna make it a hell of a lot harder for Dems to squawk about the perils of political dynasties when Jeb! runs for Mel Martinez' vacated seat.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

...but there's a perception of all these East Coast bluebloods handing the reins off to one another's scions...

It's not a perception, but a sad fact. Sad because there's so little outrage about it, in a country that was founded on the supposed ideas of meritocracy and opposition to hereditary privilege. In Europe, they have their own anti-democratic practices -- for instance, it's usually the party elders that promote you to positions of power, rather than the electorate, who is mostly used to legitimize a deal already sealed. But even the Europeans are ashamed to flirt with political dynasties.

And, in America, it's not just an East Coast thing, I suppose. The Clintons are from Arkansas, aren't they? The Midwest has the Daleys, and the West has the more local potentates known as the Udalls.

Anonymous said...

Yeah. I thought I was the only person who voted for Obama in the primary, vs. Hillary -- whom I rather like, actually -- for this very reason: no friggin' dynasties. I worshiped Bobby Kennedy -- hell, I still do -- but, well, I just hope one exception doesn't make me a complete hypocrite. Or maybe it's just that I've learned something since 1968.