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.
