Hmmm - Maybe there was an even more Stupid Article

I was enjoying a fully retro evening here -- sipping an "Old-fashioned" - mmm whiskey and sugar, two great tastes that go great together -- and reading the dead tree version of the Washington Post, when I spied a front page story by Anne Kornblut attributing the failure of Caroline Kennedy to be appointed Senator from New York to the glass ceiling facing women in politics.  As supporting evidence for the glass ceiling argument, Kornblut cites the examples of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, adding Kennedy's name "to a growing list: women who have sought the nation's highest offices only to face insurmountable hurdles."  

This is one of those instances where a genuine problem (the overall and undeniable underrepresentation of women in electoral politics) is trivialized by use of bad examples.  As an initial matter, let me say that I am an unabashed Kennedy fan -- my first vote in presidential politics was for Ted Kennedy in the 1980 Democratic primary in Massachusetts.  I had earlier gone to see him announce for the presidency in Faneuil Hall in Boston on a cold, sunny day and was deeply disappointed that he did not knock Carter off for the Democratic nomination.  Notwithstanding my affections for the Kennedys, the thought of Caroline getting picked for the Senate without ever having stood for public office made me deeply uneasy.  Her performance following her public announcement of interest in the position did little to assuage my uneasiness.   

Kornblut suggests that those of us who were not on the Kennedy bandwagon and who found her public persona unimpressive were acting out of sexism.  Evidently this was the same sexism that denied Hillary Clinton the Democratic nomination and led to so many of us being mean to Sarah Palin.  This is just so much bullshit.

Hillary Clinton attracted 18 million votes, won numerous primary elections, and only lost the nomination because she ran into a guy who just happens to be the single most talented candidate that I have seen in my lifetime.  Her narrow defeat was hardly an embarrassment and it certainly did not reflect any broad scale rejection of her candidacy on the basis of sex.

Sarah Palin showed herself to be manifestly unfit for the position for which she was chosen.  Any person who values knowledge, thoughtfulness, and maturity in a candidate could not help but feel uncomfortable with her candidacy, a feeling expressed by several conservatives during the campaign.  But despite being a woman and having an exceedingly thin resume, she got the VP nod from McCain and the rather passionate allegiance of a sizable chunk of the conservative electorate, many of whom were men.  The ticket she was on managed to obtain nearly 60 million votes, a pretty good showing in a difficult Republican year.

Caroline Kennedy did not have much basis for a claim on the New York Senate seat beyond her family name.  Many Americans view this as a not particularly solid basis for high office in a democracy.  The fact that she failed to make a particularly strong impression on the public had everything to do with her performance and virtually nothing to do with her sex.

The end result of this kind of article is a trivialization of a genuine issue.  There should be more women in elective office -- our Congress should reflect much more closely the make up of the population.  But this was just not the case with which to make this argument. 

Oh, and by the way Anne, Governor Patterson picked a woman for the position. 

Comments

[oddjob]

Sorry, don't enjoy whiskey in any incarnation, sugar or no. (Okay, actually that's not so because I can do a whiskey sour, but obviously there has to be a hell of a lot of sugar. Otherwise it's just another yucky thing that "tastes like medicine".)

(Meanwhile I like the taste of gin. Go figure.)

[oddjob]

This is one of those instances where a genuine problem (the overall and undeniable underrepresentation of women in electoral politics) is trivialized by use of bad examples.

For real! How does someone produce such unadulterated crap and not get torn apart by the editor??

[Sir Charles]

I try to be ecumenical when it comes to alcohol - whiskey, be it scotch, bourbon or rye, vodka, gin, rum, tequilla -- it's all good as they say.

[oddjob]

(HMPH! That first sentence was supposed to be in italics!)

[oddjob]

it's all good as they say

I see you equate "alcohol" with the hard stuff (as our parents' generation tended to). Interesting.

[oddjob]

Another way of viewing the matter of Caroline Kennedy is to ask yourself, "If her surname had not included "Kennedy" would she have been a Senate candidate at all?" The answer is obviously "NO!"

That is by no means to say she is an unworthy human being or that she has nothing worthwhile to contribute to the body politic, but given her long, long aversion to publicity why on God's earth would you suddenly expect such a person to be named a senator???

I can't help suspecting this is an example of Ted Kennedy being a busybody. He needs to come to terms with the very real possibility that when he passes the era of Kennedy prominence in national politics may pass.

[ikl]

That was a truly awful article. It didn't really make any sense from start to finish. I was surprised to see the Post put it on the front page.

As far as Kennedy goes, I suspect that she would have ended up being pretty effective and very progressive - Teddy who she is close to being a good example of someone who is a terrific Senator despite having pretty much no prior experience at anything and not being unusually bright.

By the way, Oddjob, Ted Kennedy was famously told in a debate when he ran for Senate for the first time in 1962 "If your name were Edward Moore instead of Edward Moore Kennedy, your candidacy would be a joke." Doesn't mean that Caroline would be similarly effective, but I think that the important question here is whether she would be a good Senator, not whether she would be considered if she weren't a Kennedy. As it is, we got a Blue Dog from NY who I think will end up being a very effective Senator, but it not necessarily a sincerely committed progressive - her voting record will probably be far enough left to keep her from being primaried, but perhaps no more than that. The thing is, I don't see anyone else in the NY Congressional delegation who would have been an obviously better pick . . .

[Sir Charles]

Oh, I like beer and wine too.

ikl,

You raise a valid point about Ted's experienoe when he got into the Senate. However, he at least showed a flair for public life that wasn't evident in Caroline.

My personal favorite anecdote of that campaign being young Teddy shaking hands at a factory in the morning and one of the workers saying:

"Is it true you've never worked a day in your life?"

Ted allegedly stammered and muttered to the effect that no, he had indeed not done much in the way of work. Whereupon the factory worker is alleged to have responded:

"You ain't missed a fucking thing."

I'd certainly like it to be true if it isn't.

I suspect that freed to run statewide, that Gillibrand will prove to be perfectly progressive. We shall see.

[ikl]

Great Ted Kennedy story!

Teddy is more of an extrovert, but he also isn't the most articulate fellow in the world either. I remember being surprised at his lack of complete sentences when I first saw him in a debate. Maybe Caroline wouldn't hold up well in the public eye - the last couple of months were not encouraging. But Obama's apparent endorsement would probably be good enough for me. The other factor in play here is that Kennedy has a powerhouse staff. I'd have figured that Caroline would have inherited a lot of it.

Gillibrand comes from a Republican political family. So I'm not sure that her underlying policy committments are all that progressive - they might be but might not be. Nothing about her background screams progressive though. I think that she'll move left now pretty sharply because this is politically smart and she seems very on top of things. But that isn't the same has actually having the underlying commitments. In other words, she will probably be more like Chuck Schumer or Diane Feinstein than like Pat Leahy - votes the right way the vast majority of the time but doesn't often go the extra mile for liberal causes when it might be inconvenient to do so.

[Corvus]

Well, I did some googling earlier today, and it seemed as if Gillibrand supported EFCA, which is the top bill I am worried about right now. If she is for gay marriage to boot, then blue dog or not, she probably can't be that bad. Gun control is the one "Liberal" issue that I probably care the least about—as a free speech absolutist, I have always felt it disingenuous to support curbs on any part of the Bill of Rights, including to Second—so if that's her only actual divergence from the party, then she probably isn't that bad.

[Delicious Pundit]

That's so funny, I also had an Old Fashioned upon coming home from work, although I find myself to be out of rye so it was less than perfect (though hardly sub-optimal).

Kirsten Gillibrand's grandmother was Polly Noonan, who was a big cog in the Albany Democratic machine back when it was really something. She'll be okay, I think. But I'm biased, because an Upstater hasn't been Senator in my lifetime (Moynihan's Sullivan County farm does not count), and here's one who went to the same high school as my cousin.

I also note that Gillibrand replaces a Senator who lost the Presidential nomination because of her unapologetic Iraq hawkishness. So it's not like she's replacing Wayne Morse or anything.

[Black Mage]

Slightly Offtopic:

You voted for Teddy? Don't get me wrong; Ted Kennedy is one of the greatest senators in history, who has accomplished more for the people of this country than either of his brothers. He will be spoken of in the same breath as Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Robert La Follette.

But in a national race he would have been mincemeat. So was Carter, but Carter had a slightly greater chance of NOT being mincemeat. And in light of what Reagan turned out to be electability should have been the foremost consideration: he had to be stopped.

Mind you, this WAS a primary race 28 years ago, so it's all entirely academic now...

[oddjob]

I remember reading the Moore zinger before, and he was right at the time. However, there's a huge, huge difference between Ted and Caroline in temperament. Caroline has spent her entire adult life (up to now) doing the exact opposite of Ted. She shuns the public limelight.

No natural politician does that.

As I said before, I'm not suggesting Caroline has nothing to offer the country, including in its political sphere, but there are serious, serious reasons for doubting that she has the temperament necessary to be the politician all senators must be. Joe Kennedy is a natural as far as that goes, but Joe is not cut out for being deferential, waiting his turn, etc. He wants to run things as he sees fit (& so also is not cut out for the job, which is why he's no longer serving in Congress). So it goes. Perhaps someday Patrick Kennedy will be one of Rhode Island's senators, but at the present time I'm not convinced there's a Kennedy to be had as a senator once Ted resigns.

[Sir Charles]

Black Magic,

I was 20 and an unapologetic liberal. Some of us don't change much. I understood by general election time how much the country had changed. I wrote my senior thesis two years later predicting the 1980 election would be seen as a realigning election. I've pretty much lived in the political wilderness since then. The idea that a black, northern, big city liberal would win a rather convincing victory for president would have struck me as a pipe dream for a long time. Thank you George Bush.

oddjob,

Well said about the Kennedys.

[big bad wolf]

SC, i don't think you have to apologize for a vote 28 years ago. maybe it was ony we in massachusetts, but reagan did not look formidible then, he looked like an amiable crank, a guy who gave speeches to the rotary club, had a couple of minutes on AM radio in the morning, and the sometime op-ed that he didn't write; he was a guy who thought the panama canal was the major issue of the decade past. we were supposed to worry about losing to THAT GUY? it turned out we underestimated him, and since reagan had the perfect t.v. temperment---even and unconcerned he'd have been a bad blogger)---he dominated. as tip said later, the guy could be charming even when he was totally wrong; god w. and strangelove had no charm, only capacity for mistakes and evil

[Sir Charles]

bbw,

I don't apologize. After all I wasn't one of those people silly enough to have voted for John Anderson in the general election.

The depths of the country's changes were not evident until late in the campaign in 1980. I spent the Fall of 1980 living in DC and for the first time met a huge cohort of rabid young right-wingers. It was an eye opener.

The Panama Canal issue (or non-issue) is credited by many as being the launching point for the New Right. A rather odd thing when one thinks about.

[oddjob]

The Panama Canal issue (or non-issue) is credited by many as being the launching point for the New Right.

Another example of the tendency of the right to look too-often backwards. It was a huge Naval asset back in the day, but by the 1970's that day was already waning.

Yes, it was an odd thing for them to use as a political launchpad, however, it wasn't the only one. Don't forget the "tax revolt" that was going on in California in the mid and late 1970's. That was another launchpad. The refusal of the Dems. to let go of the New Deal paradigm was another. (That's not to say the New Deal was worthless, only that the Dems. weren't willing to look beyond it as a policy model even though its answers were no longer speaking to a growing chunk of the voting public. That's what the GOP is going to struggle with now and you can see it in the way they endlessly pine for the 1980's.)

[Sir Charles]

oddjob,

Agreed on all points. I would add to that the ugly backlash against busing, the nascent crusade against gays launched by Anita Bryant and Co. detailed in "Milk" and the post-Vietnam "stab in the back" revisionism, all layered on top of economic and energy crisis, alarming rates of crime, and a perception of overall decline in the society. It was a pretty toxic brew. And yes, the New Deal paradigm had ceased to speak to a lot of people who now viewed such politics as geared to the interests of minorities.

I also think you're right about the pining by the GOP for the Eighties and St. Ronnie. It just doesn't resonate with vast swaths of the electorate, especially younger people.

[jean]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1/23/94932/7072/497/688006
A story regarding Gillibrand's evolution. She is now saying she supports repeal of all the somewhat obscure initials: DOMA, DADT, and supports gay marriage.
Her voting stats for the last Congress were 93% with the Dems.
It seems she was voicing her district's interests, but now is moving on. I think.

[oddjob]

I would add to that the ugly backlash against busing, the nascent crusade against gays launched by Anita Bryant and Co. detailed in "Milk" and the post-Vietnam "stab in the back" revisionism, all layered on top of economic and energy crisis, alarming rates of crime, and a perception of overall decline in the society. It was a pretty toxic brew. And yes, the New Deal paradigm had ceased to speak to a lot of people who now viewed such politics as geared to the interests of minorities.

Oh yeah! Can you say "backlash"?

I also think you're right about the pining by the GOP for the Eighties and St. Ronnie. It just doesn't resonate with vast swaths of the electorate, especially younger people.

It's pathetic! I voted for Reagan twice (at the time I held a different political view, but even so I liked him more than I didn't and probably still would now, although I might not vote for him), but even I knew that in 1988 there was no reason to vote for him again. I don't know if you remember or not, but in '88 there were voices in the GOP expressing regret that it was not possible to vote for Regan again. Even back then at age 28 I knew very well that - age and declining mental facilities totally aside - there was simply no reason to vote for Reagan for a third term.

He'd run his course and it was time to move on. Today's Congressional GOP has yet to grok that!

[oddjob]

It seems she was voicing her district's interests, but now is moving on. I think.

Fingers crossed.....

[nimh]

I still think of Reagan's presidencies as an unmitigated disaster - well, except perhaps for his stubbornness toward the Soviets, which we loathed at the time but turned out to have its merits.

In terms of policies toward the "Third World", Reagan continued the worst and most criminal of US foreign policy traditions. In terms of domestic and socio-economic policy, his 1980 victory turned out to be a catastrophic turn for the nation, one which destroyed all that was good about the post-WW2 consensus and heralded massive upward redistribution. It sent America out into the conservative-libertarian cuckooland for decades, with only now at least a chance of partial restoration - and no guarantee of success.