Fantasy, Celebrity And Dynasty Politics
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Several people have already taken a whack at the embarrassing Ruth Marcus column arguing for Caroline Kennedy’s appointment to the Senate from New York. Marcus expresses enthusiasm for something that is a sure sign of a serious sickness in our political system, which is the increasing role of dynasticism in our politics. In Marcus’ case, though, this is combined with an embrace of celebrity politics as well as what I would call fantasy politics. Not every argument for dynastic succession and office-holding is necessarily focused on the person’s celebrity, as it is not always the case that the heir is a famous socialite, and very few are tied up with bizarre fantasies of political fairy-tales. Lisa Murkowski holds her office thanks to good, old-fashioned nepotism (or, technically, filiatism), but does not benefit from any particular celebrity status, much less weird pseudo-hagiographical cults built around her father. Kennedy is a special case: she is famous because of her father, and has inherited the strange mystical adoration that some liberals still insist on showering on him, and so benefits three times over from the dynastic connection.
There have been many cases of actors entering politics, trading on either their fame or their ability to assume a pleasing role or both, but as others have already observed the actor-candidates earned their offices through campaigning and demonstrating some basic competence in matters of policy. An appointment for Caroline Kennedy would mark such a shameless embrace of dynastic politics that it might even make members of the Nehru-Gandhi family blush. What makes the Caroline Kennedy case so disturbing, and Marcus’ enthusiasm for it so appalling, is not merely that it grates against every democratic, meritocratic, and liberal instinct, but that it represents a full embrace of unreality.
Many Palin critics mocked her selection as something out of a cheesy Disney movie; Caroline Kennedy’s advocate in Ruth Marcus is openly declaring her desire to have Enchanted performed in the Senate. The blurring of politicians and celebrities, which became one of the main themes of this election, would be surpassed here by the replacement of mundane politics with fantasy. Her support for Obama, perhaps even more than Ted Kennedy’s endorsement, was deemed to be important because of nothing more than the symbolism of it and the continuation of the Kennedy myth that it represented. Were she to be appointed Senator for the same reason, it would mark another step in the tawdry, sentimental Princess Dianification of our politics.
Filed under: politics
7 Responses to “Fantasy, Celebrity And Dynasty Politics”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Exactly what needed to be said.
Caroline Kennedy seems decent enough, but what she has done to merit a Senate appointment is beyond me.
Even if the Kennedy cult had some basis,
. . . Caroline Kennedy has nothing special to recommend her.
“Kennedy would bring to the table a serious understanding of the Constitution — she’s written a book on the subject ”
Apparently writing a book on the Constitution requires a “serious understand”? Barack Obama taught Constitutional law, yet recognizes a penumbral right to privacy invented by the Supreme Court whilst disregarding what privacy the Fourth Amendment guarantees.
Both seem, to me, to be rather weak appeals to authority.
Excellent point, and Marcus’ column is quite frankly an embarassment that belongs in The Onion. However, you said: “An appointment for Caroline Kennedy would mark such a shameless embrace of dynastic politics that it might even make members of the Nehru-Gandhi family blush.” No way. No how. The Nehru-Gandhi family can play dynastic politics better than anyone, anywhere. You think nominating Caroline to the Senate is bad? How about Rahul Gandhi as a possible Prime Minister in 2009? If the Congress somehow comes back to power, you can count on it happening.
‘Nanny’ state? Drescher eyes Clinton’s Senate seat
Gov Paterson could use the Illinois method. The bidding starts at 500 thousand. Do I hear 500? 500 from the stocky man in the gray suit. Do I hear 525? . . .
‘Many Palin critics mocked her selection as something out of a cheesy Disney movie; Caroline Kennedy’s advocate in Ruth Marcus is openly declaring her desire to have Enchanted performed in the Senate.’
LOL
‘Barack Obama taught Constitutional law, yet recognizes a penumbral right to privacy invented by the Supreme Court whilst disregarding what privacy the Fourth Amendment guarantees.’
That sounds a lot like when people say ’show me where in the Constitution it says we have a right to privacy’. It’s wrong too IMO.
The Constitution is not the place to look if you want a list of all the rights you were born with. It only mentions a few. And it mentions pretty clearly that the rights listed aren’t the only rights we have. You’re fourth amendment rights existed before the amendment was written and would exist even if the amendment wasn’t written. The Bill Of Rights was completely unescessary and in fact causes more problems that it solves.