In the 1770s Massachusetts made a very definite statement about its opinion of mindless hereditary aristocracy. This week a majority of polled voters in that same state made their own kind of statement.
Most Massachusetts voters said they preferred Hugo Chavez's buddy Joe Kennedy II. Just like his ancestor, he prefers the apparently orderly authority of a dictator to freedom and democracy. Kennedy appeared on commercials for Citgo that tried to restore the Venezuelan state oil company's image after Chavez stole elections. Analysts agree that the state has a soft spot in its heart for the Kennedy name. If you ran a pit bull named Kennedy up there it could win a congressional seat.
True, the Kennedy family has brought to the state a national leadership role larger than its declining share of the electoral college and congressional represetnation. It's not hard to understand why they would have a sense of loyalty. However you have to look behind the name. You cannot expect that all the members of a family will have the same qualities as those that have led in the past. This is not Rome, Senate seats should not be seen as a family trust. Then again we are a democracy. The voters have the right to choose.
Problem is that I am not sure what the Kennedys have accomplished outside of being tabbed as natural leaders. President Kennedy had some noteworthy moments. Robert Kennedy's reputation for ruthlessness died when he was assassinated. What had Ted Kennedy actually done? I may be simply misinformed, but what did he do to earn his leadership role outside of being the brother of a president? What have any of the other Kennedys actually done whose names have been tossed forward for public office?
Assigning someone a position of importance based upon a family name and little else smacks of aristocracy. Massachusetts is not the only state that gives a pass to its first families. However it was at one time the first state to toss that idea of authority aside.
No comments:
Post a Comment