Thanks But No Thanks, Caroline Kennedy

Let's get the following out of the way: If Caroline Kennedy (Schlossberg Kennedy?) were appointed senator of New York, she would certainly continue upholding her family's legacy of championing the working/middle class and fighting for income growth, education and health care for all. (Rick Hertzberg advocates well for Ms. Kennedy in this post.)

However, wasn't one of the lessons learned from last year's presidential election is the voting populace, most especially those under 35 years old, no longer wants dynastic politics? A victory at the polls by Ms. Kennedy would be fine and deserved, but appointing her as senator sets this progress back. Her educational credentials are impressive and her previous job in New York City schools and numerous other board seats show she would be successful at the fundraising portion of politics. Nonetheless, this is not enough to shake the opinion that her appointment would only happen because of her last name. It's the only reason why New York Gov. David Paterson is giving her consideration. No other person with similar credentials could ever be considered a serious candidate for the Senate.

Lisa Belkin, a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and author of one of its blogs, has a piece in yesterday's issue about how Ms. Kennedy is emblematic of the uphill, gender-weighted battle women face when trying to re-enter the workplace once their children are grown. While Ms. Belkin has valid arguments about the broad issue, using Kennedy to embody or reinforce them is ridiculous. Belkin writes:

"Whatever her political future, Caroline Kennedy is opting in, and as a result, she faces a magnified version of the eyebrows raised whenever women try to return (or, in her far more unusual case, to first enter) the paid work force full time. Take away the part about her father the president and her uncles the senators, ignore for the moment her Park Avenue address, peel away the talk of the dangers of dynasty and the power of privilege, don’t even touch the question of whether anyone would be picking apart her credentials if it were a male Kennedy who was under consideration — and what is at the core of all this shouting is what, nowadays, counts as experience."

Belkin misses the whole point. One can't take away Kennedy's father, uncles, grandfather the baron and former S.E.C. chairman, Park Ave. address, etc. Combined, they're the main reason she qualifies as a Senate candidate. I would write the same of a male Kennedy who had never held elected office before and was seeking an appointed seat (and there are plenty more male Kennedys like this than female ones, it seems).

Update: Maureen Dowd, emerging from a months-long slump, makes a compelling case in her column Wednesday for why Carolyn Kennedy is qualified to be a senator. Nonetheless, the broader issue is, Why aren't all electoral vacancies filled by election? As aberrant as Mr. Blagojevich's case is, one would think we would learn from this.