Kathleen Parker, writing on the opinion page of today’s Dayton Daily News, says, “Kennedy may not deserve seat, but it doesn’t matter.” Parker writes that, in her judgment, New York’s Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, is more deserving to be appointed US senator than Caroline Kennedy.
Parker’s assumption seems to be that discerning who is the most deserving should be the determining factor that should guide the New York governor’s choice of who to appoint to the US Senate. Evidently Parker has a criteria to judge deservingness in which Cuomo is considered more deserving because he has a longer history of public service than Kennedy, that he has worked harder, that he has accomplished more.
But, it seems to me, another way of thinking about who “deserves” appointment is to think in terms of who most deserves to be given great trust. Who deserves to be considered incorruptible and whose ideas deserve to be listened to?
Ultimately, the people our democracy should entrust with decision making authority are those people who have a vision of a common good, who are most committed to working for the common good, and who have the personal capacity to communicate and lead effectively. It is a person’s commitment to and capacity for problem solving, to promoting the general good, that should be the criteria in our democracy that most determines who “deserves” to be awarded political office.
It is a safe bet that Caroline Kennedy, in the US Senate, would be incorruptible and conscientious and that she would be guided by sound principles. I think she would protect and advance the common good and that she would, therefore, make a great senator. Caroline Kennedy, according to the above definition of deservingness that emphasizes the common good, clearly “deserves” top consideration for appointment to the senate.
