You know, kind of, you know
No no no no no no no no.
I can tell you what I think I’d bring to this, which is, you know, I’m not a conventional choice, I haven’t followed the traditional path, but I do think I’d bring a kind of a lifetime of experience that is relevant to this job. I think that what we’ve seen over the last year, and particularly and even up to the last — is that there’s a lot of different ways that people are coming to public life now, and it’s not only the traditional path. Even in the New York delegation, you know, some of our great senators — Hillary Clinton, Pat Moynihan — came from, you know, other walks of life. We’ve got Carolyn McCarthy, John Hall, both of them have an unconventional background, so I don’t think that that is, uh — so I think in many ways, you know, we want to have all kinds of different voices, you know, representing us, and I think what I bring to it is, you know, my experience as a mother, as a woman, as a lawyer, you know…
That’s Caroline Kennedy explaining with a startling lack of articulacy why she should be appointed a US senator. I’m always on the lookout for code, and that’s a code I don’t think I’ve seen before. ‘Other walks of life’ and ‘all kinds of different voices, you know,’ is code for people with no relevant experience whatsoever going into politics, and it’s not in and of itself a thing to be cheered. Total lack of relevant experience is not absolutely always a disqualifier, but it does at the very least need to be offset by conspicuous talents and skills of the right kind – like, for instance, being able to talk in an adult way in public. Caroline Kennedy is 51 years old and a lawyer, and she talks like a teenager. So – she has no relevant experience, and she’s remarkably bad at talking in public, and the only reason to suggest her at all is because she is a Kennedy. Hmmm…that reminds me of something…what could it be…Oh yes, it’s the current president. And even he doesn’t say ‘you know’ every five words like a high school kid.
In my book, her being a Kennedy is a reason not to appoint her, and also a reason not to vote for her, just as in my book Hillary Clinton’s being a former president’s wife was a very strong reason not to vote for her. I detest this nepotism thing we’ve got going and I wish people would stop encouraging it. I don’t want a Kennedy dynasty or a Clinton dynasty any more than I want a Bush dynasty; I don’t want any damn dynasty. And I don’t want people from you know, other walks of life, either. This isn’t a game.
“My experience as a mother, a woman, a lawyer..” I admit, it doesn’t stray far off the beaten track.
Then again, “my experience as a moose shooter, a hockey mom, driver of a pickup truck, wife of a skidoo racer… oh yes and Governor of Alaska” has been tried and found wanting.
If the lady concerned had changed her name to Sarah Kennedy, things might have been different.
lawyer counts as variety in politics? if it was scientist or philosopher, perhaps she could get a point for variety.
The “mother” thing really gets up my nose. I had a mother, you had a mother, every sod has had a mother, and with all respect to my own mother, I don’t think that her mothering abilities particularly qualified her to be a US Senator. It’s as if mothers were astronauts or physicists who had gained new, arcane kind of skills, that were not known of in more primitive times.
It’s the same with actresses and film stars – they make such a big deal out of being mothers. Listen, my mother managed it all right, and didn’t think it was something to boast about.
I just love the idea that Hillary, who had her eyes set on high public office from high school, came from an “other” walk of life….
OTOH, KB, someone who really thought about and worked on what it meant to be a mother, as opposed to just bearing children casually, might make a very good choice for a democratic [in the general sense] leader. Just sayin’. And read ditto for positive values of ‘father’…
Dave – I wouldn’t vote for someone who said, Vote for me, I’m a really good dad! Every bloke thinks he’s a good dad, just like every bloke thinks he’s a good driver.
I’m happy somebody finally brought-up the sancrosanct institution of parenthood. My experience with friends who are parents tends to point-out a lot of un-wisdom even after years of practice. The honest ones admit it.
Just go to the grocery store or local “family restaurant” if you want a demonstration.
Speaking from my experience as a mother, I can only say that I am completely flummoxed by these claims of wisdom.
My child turned out splendidly, but I don’t know how it happened. It certainly wasn’t anything I did.
It is certainly a risible speech. However, the parenthood status of a person is at least an objective fact unlike states of ‘spiritual awareness’ or other assertions routinely made in public blathering eg by the followers of alternative medicine. It may make non-parent persons feel excluded, but if the person is delivering content (unlike Ms Kennedy) it may usefully signify what viewpoint they have in their involvement with the issue at point.
The chief lesson I have from being a parent is to reinforce that I have ‘much to be humble about’.
No, ChrisPer, blathering about one’s parent status doesn’t make us “non-parent persons feel excluded.” It’s merely irritating for its irrelevance, signifying nothing more than meaningful than if I were to say, “as a biped, I believe. . .”
Try again.
Quite. There are any number of objective facts that people can assert about themselves, so merely being an objective fact is not a qualification for mention. Being a mother is not a rare or exceptional objective fact, and furthermore it requires no training or education or special qualities or anything at all apart from working equipment. Being a mother may teach attentive people various things, but not all people are attentive, so by itself it’s just…frankly, nothing.
There’s also the fact that mentioning it has a veiled anti-feminist overtone – it ties into the whole ‘family values’ code for sending women back to the kitchen and nursery schtick that is so popular with both parties.
Other than that, it’s just swell.
Well, Dave, when people run for office on their experience you have to judge by results. So if a candidate said I was Mayor of City X, and in my term of office crime went down 10% and public transport use increased by 15%, that is something that can be measured. But saying, hey, I’m a great mother, you have to wait for the kids to grow up, and then have their worth assessed. And you know about kids, the little buggers always let their parents down.
One of Tony Blair’s brood was had up for extreme drunkenness. He, Tony Blair, should have been sacked as PM at once. Winston Churchill, who is usually voted as Greatest Britain Person, had very dodgy offspring – one committed suicide, and another was known as the most obnoxious arse that ever lived among his contemporaries.
Do you remember that film The Seduction of Joe Tynan? Where much was made of the fact that Joe Tynan wasn’t paying enough attention to his teenage daughter’s tantrums, instead he was selfishly trying to get on the Democrat ticket?
BTW, the series John Adams is showing on British telly, where that stern Republican is taking his 14 year old son on dangerous voyages – that would have damned his chances of office in today’s child-cosseting family-centered climate.
(Brilliant series, as well).
richard: the only reason for accepting your offer is if we would thereby eliminate the “celebrity” culture. Better Prince William than Bradd Pitt?
But, seeing as you Brits are as celebrity besotted as we are…that wouldn’t work. So, no thanks! :)
JoshS, why try again? Of course its irrelevant, but its also true that many non-parents people find parent-privileging blather excluding – don’t some of them use terms like ‘breeders’ to disparage and exclude them back?
But the fact that it’s irrelevant is what counts, because of the way you phrased it – as if the excluding were Josh’s point and as if apart from that the mother thing is unobjectionable. Look at the way you worded it, surely you’ll see that. She said optimistically.
Sigh. Yes, what Ophelia said. With respect to what we’re talking about, I don’t care (and I don’t think anyone else should) about feeling all woe is me and excluded. I care about the utter irrelevance of citing motherhood as a qualification for public office. I find it irritating that you seem to be equating people’s hurt feelings about being “excluded” with the far greater problem inane non-sequiturs getting a pass from people aspiring to power. It’s not the same. I don’t care if Caroline Kennedy says things that make me feel included (what is this, the Oprah show?) – I care that she says stupid things, that her platform is content-free, and that there’s little serious outcry about it.
I worded part of that terribly. I hope this is more clear:
I find it irritating that you seem to be equating two unequal things:
1. people’s hurt feelings about being “excluded”
2. the far greater problem that people who aspire to power get a discursive pass when they cite the most irrelevant qualifications in order to pander to the overly inflated sense of ego most Americans have.
They are not equal. Number 1 is the cop out du jour in political conversation. One of the worst sins we can accuse a public figure of is not being “inclusive” or being too “divisive.” As if everything would be hunky dorey if Politician A just made the right cooing noises while bringing us milk and cookies. That’s not the problem. The rot is far deeper.