Discussions about Caroline Kennedy’s possible appointment to the US Senate seem to revolve around the question of Kennedy’s “qualifications.” Is she qualified?
It is an interesting question. When there is an important job to be done, how can we judge who is best qualified?
If the task is surgery, the question of evaluating the qualification of surgeons seems straight forward. In choosing a surgeon, the bottom line question to be answered is: Who can be trusted with this big responsibility? Who can be counted on? In choosing a US Senator, the bottom line question that needs to be answered is the same: Who can be trusted? Who can be counted on?
Photo credit: Reuters/Brian Snyder (Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg at John F. Kennedy Awards ceremony at Harvard in November)
Trust is the foremost factor in judging the qualifications of either a surgeon or a senator. The resume of a person you may choose as your senator will look quite different from the resume of a person you may choose as your surgeon, but the bottom line question in evaluating either comes down to a question of trust.
The amount of trust you put into a person is determined mostly by an evaluation of the person’s character. Evaluating whether a person seeking an important government position is worthy of trust, means evaluating the person’s overall character and overall point of view or philosophy.
Dick Cheney, when chosen by George Bush to be his Vice President, had a great resume. Based on his extensive government and executive career, Cheney seemed highly “qualified” to be US Vice President. But, Cheney has been an awful Vice President. As it turned out he was not trustworthy, not worthy of the trust of Americans. Anyone paying attention to Cheney’s established character and point of view, prior to his election, I believe, was not surprised by Cheney’s behavior once he had power. Cheney’s untrustworthy behavior as Vice-President was foreshadowed in his character and point of view.
Sarah Palin destroyed her chance to be considered trustworthy when she made her speech at the Republican Convention — repeating lie after lie of mean spirited words that obviously she, herself, had not written. I considered Palin “unqualified,” not so much because of her obvious lack of knowledge nor the thinness of her resume, but because she proved herself unqualified by saying or doing anything those in power asked of her. She proved herself untrustworthy because in the campaign, over and over, she showed lack of character and lack of independent thought.
Caroline Kennedy, it seems to me, is an incorruptible person. I believe her life story and her life history shows that she can be trusted to use her many talents with integrity, trusted to think and act independently, and that her guiding light will be a profound desire for justice and for the common good. Caroline Kennedy, I feel, can be trusted to stand for ideals articulated by her father, and, that, in keeping with those ideals, she can be trusted to be a voice and advocate for helping average people, for making America a world leader for peace, and for strengthening our democracy.
Caroline Kennedy to me is trustworthy. It is because I trust her, trust her character and trust her point of view, that I feel that Caroline Kennedy is highly qualified to be an excellent US Senator.
From the points in your statement, it is obvious possessing practical experience is irrelevant. Would the ideals she is trusted, by you, to carry on from her father’s legacy include infidelity? Give me a break Mike, is this the same argument you are going to make for Biden’s kid too. Mike, I am honest, I have a good head on my shoulders and I can assure you this, I am above reproach. I am not beholding to anyone or cause. I believe I could be just as good as Senator as Carolyn. Problem is Mike; I am not a Kennedy or a millionaire. You, I, the media, no one except those people very close to Carolyn know anything about her character. Character is learned by dealing with life’s tough issues. Maybe Carolyn has some character but none that reaches the level of anointment to a Senate seat. We have had enough anointments in government as of late to last me a lifetime. The Kennedy’s, Bush’s, Biden’s, Clinton’s, Cuomo’s, have all had their chances and look at the mess they have put us in. No thanks, we need new blood representing us, not BLUE blood.
Joe — I agree with your central point.
This post is a response to complaints I’ve heard that Kennedy is not “qualified” because she lacks a thick resume. My point is that every judgment of qualification comes down to a matter of trust, that a thick resume showing a lot of successful surgeries would be sufficient “qualification” for one to put trust in a surgeon, but evaluating the qualifications of a potential US Senator, deciding who to trust with such responsibility, is not so obvious.
I’ve heard it argued that Sarah Palin is more “qualified” than Caroline Kennedy — because Palin has been more active in politics, and has held a state wide elected office. But such an argument makes no sense to me, because it doesn’t address the key question that, it seems to me, every judgment of qualification comes down to — “Can this person be trusted? Can this person be counted on to do a good job?”
The job of surgeon is easy to define, the job of US Senator is not so easily defined. But central to doing an acceptable job as senator, I feel, is personal integrity, and a point of view that includes a passion for justice and fairness and a commitment to advance American principles — well grounded in our constitution. Personal integrity alone is not sufficient, but it is a necessary and essential component. Joe, you say, “I could be just as good as Senator as Carolyn,” but, in order for me to agree that you are highly qualified — that you deserve to be trusted to do a good job as senator — I would need to know more about your point of view. I’m saying Kennedy is highly qualified, in part, because she has personal integrity and because I feel it is safe to conclude that her point of view will be one consistent with the Kennedy legacy and with the well established point of view of her Uncle Ted’s.
Palin proved to me that she was unqualified, that she did not deserve to be trusted, regardless of her resume, because, as I said, she showed during the campaign a lack of personal integrity and showed a point of view concerning American principles that I considered dangerous and wrong headed. Palin proved to me by her behavior in the campaign that she was not a person who could be trusted to do a good job.
Caroline Kennedy, it seems to me, is a person who is very trustworthy to do a good job. I am not comparing her to other potential candidates; I am not saying that she is the most qualified and that she is the best person for the job. I am just saying that in my judgment she is highly qualified. George W. Bush in 2000, using the criteria I’m suggesting, I feel was obviously not qualified, and many of the legacy blue bloods you refer to certainly are not qualified. I am bothered that there is much reason to conclude that Hillary Clinton is lacking in personal integrity.
I agree with the central point I hear you making — to watch Caroline Kennedy waltz into the US Senate, because of her celebrity and wealth, is troublesome. Our democracy is not working as it should be working. Our democracy is failing us. Our government is corrupt, out of touch, and full of incompetent, untrustworthy individuals who are simply trying to promote themselves, simply trying to “cash in.” As a nation, unless we can get our democracy to work — to make a government of the people, for the people — we are doomed. Our democracy is failing to produce the high quality candidates for office that it should be producing. We need the wisest and the best of our citizens to rise within a vigorous democracy to be our leaders, but, our democracy is so weak such a goal seems impossible.
Mike, what has Carolyn Kennedy done that demonstrates she can be trusted? What did Sarah Palin do that demonstrated she can’t be trusted?
Mike, ignore my previous post. I had just read your last post. Then I scrolled up to the top. I now have my answer, you trust liberals and not conservatives.
Mike, I respect your belief that Carolyn is trust worthy because you prefer her ideological leanings. I also understand you prefer her because you also believe she is trust worthy and really a “good” person. I also agree with you this is what the electorate, of all our elected officials, should demand. I am open to trusting Carolyn after she is dragged through the same juice presses, as was Sara Palin. If Carolyn holds up to such scrutiny, which we both know she will not receive, then I will yield you your reasoning.
Joe and Rick — thanks for extending the discussion. Joe, you write, “I am open to trusting Carolyn after she is dragged through the same juice presses, as was Sara Palin.”
You make it sound like Palin was undone by an unfair press. Palin allowed herself to be managed and handled by the RNC experts — allowed words to be put into her mouth to be parroted by her, and spent over $150,000 of RNC money on clothes. The fact is, by showing so little backbone in the conduction of her own campaign, Palin became the master of her own demise. And now that the dust has cleared, Palin, it seems, more or less agrees with this analysis. So, to advance a theory that Palin was undone by an unfair press that dragged her through a juice press, it seems to me, is to present a revisionist view of recent history that is simply not accurate. Palin gave the press all of the guns and all the ammunition with which they shot her down — and she kept giving them more and more ammunition throughout the campaign.
I’ll repeat what I wrote in my post: “Sarah Palin destroyed her chance to be considered trustworthy when she made her speech at the Republican Convention — repeating lie after lie of mean spirited words that obviously she, herself, had not written. I considered Palin ‘unqualified,’ not so much because of her obvious lack of knowledge nor the thinness of her resume, but because she proved herself unqualified by saying or doing anything those in power asked of her.”
Rick, you bring up a whole new issue when you conclude that I “trust liberals and not conservatives.” Yes, I believe it is important to evaluate not only a candidate’s character, but his or her point of view as well. But the label “liberal” or “conservative” often isn’t all that helpful. It’s impossible to make the case, for example, that George W. Bush is “conservative,” or that his actions have been “conservative.” Bush and his brain, Rove, seem driven not by ideology or point of view but rather, for power and control. I recognize that many politicians — regardless of the label of “conservative” or “liberal” — really don’t have a point of view that rises beyond the drive for power and personal aggrandizement. The label of “conservative” or “liberal” for most politicians is meaningless, because their guiding principle is to do whatever is necessary to be elected in the next election cycle. Ted Kennedy has his faults, but, it seems to me, that overall he has stayed true to certain principles, to a certain point of view, that seeks to give justice to ordinary citizens, that seeks to control the U. S. military, that supports highly progressive taxes and estate taxes. I think that Caroline Kennedy aligns herself with Ted’s thinking and therefore I think, as senator, she would advance a point of view that I agree with. I believe that she is a person of reliable character and integrity and is incorruptible. So, in my view, Caroline Kennedy is highly qualified to be U.S. Senator.
No rational, more importantly, unbiased person, and unbiased is the key word here, after analyzing what the national media did to Palin would conclude she was treated fairly . One candidate’s lies are another candidate’s truths. That is just the way it is in our sad state of politics. We could debate the “revision” of the facts regarding Palin but no agreed conclusion would result. For the record, I do not think Obama or McCain were the best candidates of their parties, no matter, they won their party’s nomination.
Mike, I understand you passion to have another “Kennedy” occupy a seat in the Congress. You just have not proven your case she is more qualified to be a U.S. Senator instead of the more qualified Cuomo.
As I posted prior, we need NEW BLOOD in Washington, not people who believe they are “entitled”.
Joe, you were maybe paying closer attention, than I, during the campaign to exactly how the national media treated Palin. You might be remembering parts of the media response to Palin that didn’t register with me. But, I’ll grant your assessment that Palin was, at times, was unfairly treated by the press. Isn’t everyone, who seeks to enter public life, poorly treated, one way or the other?
But I think my observation (above) is more on target — “Palin gave the press all of the guns and all the ammunition with which they shot her down, and she kept giving them more and more ammunition throughout the campaign” — and, from recent comments, it appears that Palin, herself, more or less agrees with my observation, and at this time, now removed from the campaign, it seems Palin wants to put some blame on her RNC handlers for her bad press coverage.
I’m arguing that there are two broad criteria that should be used to judged the qualifications of a potential candidate — character and point of view. I’ve not tried to argue that Caroline is more qualified than Cuomo or more qualified than any other New York citizen that might be considered for the senate opening. I’m just saying that “experience” — holding prior government positions or other elected offices — is not a criteria that I consider very important.
I wrote (above): “I am not saying that she (Caroline) is the most qualified and that she is the best person for the job. I am just saying that in my judgment she is highly qualified. George W. Bush in 2000, using the criteria I’m suggesting, I feel was obviously not qualified, and many of the legacy blue bloods you refer to certainly are not qualified. I am bothered that there is much reason to conclude that Hillary Clinton is lacking in personal integrity (therefore showing poor character).”
I also wrote (above) in response to your previous comments, “I agree with the central point I hear you making — to watch Caroline Kennedy waltz into the US Senate, because of her celebrity and wealth, is troublesome. Our democracy is not working as it should be working. Our democracy is failing us.”
But celebrity and wealth, by themselves, should not disqualify a person either.
Mike, points taken. I will admit, I do not want to see legacy appointments to any political office. I am tired of the Bush’s, I almost puked when H.W.Bush said Jeb should run for president. I am tired of the Kennedy’s, Clintons, Bidens, Cuomos, Sanchez’s, and every other example of political royalty. I don’t care what pary they are. What we need are decent people with belief in bettering this country to be our elected officials. Unfortunately, not too many fitting that criteria will even consider the position.