Caroline Kennedy sat for a 30-minute interview yesterday with Dominic Carter on New York 1 television. As Carter indicated several times, Caroline was not given the questions beforehand, and there were no preconditions about what could or could not be asked during the interview.
What came across most during the interview is Caroline Kennedy's commitment to public service - not a sense of entitlement, as some of her myopic critics have said, but a devotion to serving the public that comes from her family, and, yes, her name. Think about it. Here is a woman whose father and uncle were assassinated - one President, the other campaigning for President. She has raised a family, could remain in private life, work as a lawyer and author, out of the limelight, but instead she has a burning desire to do put herself out and do whatever she can to help her country. Given what we've seen in all too many of our politicians of late, this is a rare quality indeed.
And her views on the issues are excellent. I was especially impressed with her "deep respect for the Constitution". In an age in which we go to war without a Declaration, in which the FCC daily tramples on our freedoms of speech, in which prosecutors throw reporters in jail for not giving up their sources, we have a crisis in respect for the Constitution that goes far beyond the abuses of the Bush administration. I don't recall either current New York Senator making respect for the Constitution such a crucial issue.
New York 1 does not have embeddable videos. You can see the entire 30-minute interview right here. Tell me you don't think the state of New York and our country would be uplifted with Caroline Kennedy in the Senate.
21 comments:
Hmmm. Lets see. Her commitment? Expresses a desire to not want to run for the office where she might have to meet the unwashed masses. Check. Her deep commitment to the Constitution? Where has she demonstrated that in any public life? Check. What about her expressed views on housing, economic regulation, the military, environmental regulation, energy, etc? Wait! She dosn't have any and refuses to take any questions toward such. Check.
Buhbye!
anon: You obviously have not only not seen the 30-minute interview, you have not done much if any research. She has authored or edited three books about the Constitution, and offered her views on health care and other important issues in the interview.
But you would rather numbly repeat "Check Check" than look at the facts. I don't blame you for not wanting to sign your name to your comment - if I knew as little as you do, I would be embarrassed to publicly admit it, too.
doesn't vote regularly, has never held en elected office but thinks she should be appointed to one. Went to only A list private schools but loves to talk about public education. Feels for the poor and downtrodden that she can almost see from the family compound, the private jet, the chauffeur driven limos, and the other birthrights that define her life.
What has she actually accomplished that actually transcends the basic expectations for someone in her position and advantages??
How many people "in her position" have published half a dozen books, chaired the committee that selected the VP-elect, and worked to improve public education (as she explained in the interview).
As to not holding elected office - neither did Hillary Clinton, Moynihan, James Buckley, RFK, before they were elected to the Senate from New York - which is what Caroline will have to do if she is appointed now.
Like the previous "anonymous" poster, you really haven't done your research about Caroline Kennedy - you spout unsubstantiated generalities.
she often takes the subway....she's a woman of the people.
I don't know much about her positions but this is what wikipedia has on her.
- Kennedy said that she supports legislation legalizing same-sex marriage
Marriage should not be a role for government, but as long as government is involved, I do agree that gays should have the same rights.
-Is pro-choice
Fine, but I hope she recognizes that this should be left up to the states.
-Is a strong supporter of gun control, and favors restoring the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004.
Unconstitutional and dangerous position.
-She believes NAFTA should be looked at again
Typical answer - how about eliminated?
-Supports the federal bailout of American automakers
Bailouts are unconstitutional, immoral, and bad economic policy.
-Says she "opposed the Iraq War from the beginning."
Great, but does she support sending more troops to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and perhaps Iran like Obama? I believe Ralph Nader responds to this position adequately:
"Barack Obama is heading into the mother of all quagmires in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If you picked one place in the world you don't want to send U.S. soldiers... no foreign power has ever conquered that area and these tribal people will fight and fight and fight and there's no win there. Now I am really ashamed that someone who comes from a third-world background, like Barack Obama, is so unbelievably insensitive about the history of that area and how many U.S. Soldiers are going be slaughtered."
I notice Caroline wrote several books about liberty. Leaving aside the 2nd amendment, hopefully she is opposed to such assaults on freedom as the FCC, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, War on Drugs, etc.
Henry - I'm afraid I don't share your interpretation of the Constitution:
1. On gun control, unlike the 1st Amendment, which clearly says "no law" shall be passed that restricts freedom of speech, press, etc., the 2nd Amendment says the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" by the government. I would say this gives the government the right to pass laws that restrict some weapons, such as assault weapons, as long as the people still have the right to bear other arms. If the Founders had wanted no laws whatsoever about guns, they would have used the same "no law" language in the 2nd Amendment as in the 1st.
2. What gives you the idea that bailouts are "unconstitutional"? Last time I checked, the preamble had a "promote the general welfare" phrase.
***
As to Nader's views on US involvement in Afghanistan - well, we're already there, so the point is how to best get out of there, in a way that does the least damage our interests. Saying it's not a good place to be, as Nader does, is only stating the obvious.
The constitution enumerates the powers that the government DOES have, thus anything that the federal government does that is not spelled out in the constitution is unconstitutional. As the 10th amendment reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
You cite the General Welfare Clause in support of the bailouts. Well, this clause requires all of the federal government's expenditures to be for things from which everyone can directly benefit (highway, military base). The shareholders of Freddie, Fannie, and Bear Stearns, for instance, are a small limited class of persons whose well-being hardly enhances the general welfare.
Also, the federal government is not allowed to favor shareholders of one company by relieving them of their risk or debt over shareholders of another similarly situated company whose risk and debt is permitted to stand without violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Additionally, the Contracts Clause makes it clear that no state may interfere with a contract; the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment restricts the federal government from doing so.
--
With regard to Afghanistan - how can the best way to get out of there possibly involve sending 20-30,0000 more troops?
"You cite the General Welfare Clause in support of the bailouts. Well, this clause requires all of the federal government's expenditures to be for things from which everyone can directly benefit (highway, military base)."
If the auto companies went bankrupt, the whole nation would indeed suffer greatly - from unemployment, which would result in further reduction of consumer purchases, etc. That's the way our interlocking economy works.
As for Afghanistan: if I had criminals holding me hostage in my home, I'd be happy to have police come and free me and arrest the criminals. I of course would not want or expect the police to stay in my home after that.
If the government takes taxpayer money and gives it to the automakers, they are just going to lose the money and ask for more. We have to let these companies go bankrupt and let the capital they are using be redeployed so the people who can run a profitable auto company will take over. The problem is they have these union contracts that are too lucrative, and all these benefits for health insurance and pensions. They have too much debt on their balance sheets and can't make cars profitably. What we really don't want is the government determining what kind of cars they should be manufacturing - if you think they are losing money now, just wait until the government is running things.
Remember, the government doesn't have any money - they have to redirect it from other people. What about all of the jobs we have to destroy in order to preserve these ones? Why should we tax profitable companies to subsidize unprofitable ones? It's moral hazard to the extreme.
We certainly need an automobile industry in this country - but not this one. We need an industry that is making cars that the public wants to buy at a price they can afford. By letting these companies fail, the market will restructure and people will have new jobs. It's this notion that the government and federal reserve can run the economy that has led us to all of these problems.
You're arguing policy now, Henry, not constitutionality.
You think the government is making a mistake in helping the auto companies. I'm not happy about it, but I'd rather see that than risk a full-scale Depression and unemployment rates of 25% or higher. Either way, the government has the right under the welfare clause to help the auto companies.
And Caroline's support of the bailout shows no disrespect for the Constitution.
Well, she, you know, thinks she ought to be, you know, given the seat because, you know, she's a Kennedy.
I don't want to hear another liberal talk about how dumb Sarah Palin is after mindlessly supporting this woman Caroline Kennedy. Pathetic.
Well, you're going to hear me keep saying how dumb Sarah Palin is, and how bright Caroline Kennedy is - and what a good choice I think she would be for Senator. Although, technically, I'm not a liberal, but a progressive libertarian, which you would have known if you had bothered to read a few more of my posts on this blog.
But my guess is you're not much of a reader - people who babble on about "mindlessly" and "pathetic" rarely are.
Paul - I don't remember reading anything from you about how dumb you think Sarah Palin is. My comment was a general thought on the irony of a dipstick like Caroline waltzing unscathed through the path to what is, ostensibly, the most august deliberative body in the world - when an person like Sarah Palin, with far more experience, was mercilessly ridiculed by kool aid drinkers more interested in party than country. But you took my comment personally, so either you reveal a deep insecurity, or you haven't figured out that it ain't always all about you.
BTW - a progressive libertarian? LOL! So you're a moral liberal, lassez-faire capitalist? Or maybe a socialist classical liberal? Or even better - a libertine anarcho-corporatist! How mindlessly pathetic! Ha!
Of course you don't remember - and the explanation of what I mean by "progressive libertarian" is right here on this blog, if you bothered to read.
But, yours is not to read, or think, but to throw around words and insult - which I actually am glad to see here, because it provides a good record of the low level of some of the people who oppose progressive and libertarian principles.
Putting policies aside, Shane does make one good point about the lack of media scrutiny for Kennedy.
Presidential Historian Doug Wead talks about this in his blog:
"Media types who were outraged by the inexperience of Sarah Palin are now dewy eyed over the prospect of another Kennedy in power. "
Full article:
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/12/29/caroline-kennedy-what-would-joseph-pulitzer-say/
As for the confusion over "progressive libertarian", I guess it arises from the fact that certain progressive positions are incompatible with economic freedom. So perhaps you are a civil-libertarian who supports interventionist economics. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, h.j., and the Wead link.
I'm not sure whom Wead is referring to with "media types". My own writings about Palin, and most of the numerous other criticisms of her on the Internet and in mass media, expressed outrage not about her "inexperience," but about her lack of basic knowledge and judgment, as indicated in her responses to Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric.
Wead's invocation of Todd Lincoln is also not very apt - there's a very big difference between a Senator and President - I certainly would not support Caroloine Kennedy right now for President.
As for what I mean by progressive libertarian, here's my article, I'm a Progressive Libertarian
Civil liberties are indeed the basis of my libertarian position, but I am also interested in less government involvement in our economic policies, and a laissez-faire approach where possible.
For example, I'm in favor of no income tax on anyone or any business earning less than one million dollars per year.
But, as I explained to Henry above, I see the "welfare" clause in the Constitution as obligating the government to step in in times of severe crisis, which is what I see happening now.
It just seems to be another case of government being the problem posing as the solution.
Take the housing crisis - Congress passed laws like the Community Reinvestment Act which required banks to make loans to previously underserved segments of their communities, thus forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks.
The Federal Reserve accompanied this by setting artificially low interest rates and causing all these malinvestments.
So, we built way too many houses, and when builders realized this, the "bubble burst" and the prices starting coming down. However, instead of letting the market correct itself by equalizing supply and demand, the government tries to fix housing prices at levels higher than the market would set them.
These strategies are the same ones that caused the Great Depression to last so long.
This is the logic being used:
We will solve the problems brought on by government intervention by further intervening in the market.
I agree completely that government encouragement of housing loans with no checking of income and assets is in part responsible for our current crisis. But this doesn't mean that the government is incapable of doing something helpful now.
As for FDR: I agree with Nobel laureate Paul Krugman that what caused the Great Depression to last so long was FDR not doing enough, soon enough, to counter the disasterous belt-tightening response of Hoover.
With 25% of the working population out of work in the 1930s, there is no way that the market could have corrected itself on its own.
Here's an analogy: your body is much better off if its immune system can fight off infections and illness on its own. But if your lungs are filling up with fluid from bacterial pneumonia, you'd better take antibiotics as soon as possible.
I agree with Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek who described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed today:
"Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.
To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression."
--- Friedrich August von Hayek, in a speech in June 1932. Hayek wrote "The Road to Serfdom" in 1944 and won the Nobel Prize for economics in 1974.
:) Ok, you prefer Nobel laureate von Hayek, I prefer Krugman.
But one thing you should know about von Hayek: he predicts, in the Road to Serfdom, that increasing the size of government will lead to totalitarian states, as in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union (see, for example, ch 7, "Economic Control and Totalitarianism"). But last time I checked, we just voted the Republican party out of Presidential office - an example of democracy at work, not totalitarianism - and our government is bigger these days than it was in 1944.
My take on this: if libertarian political principles are at least somewhat respected, then Hayek's fears about big government leading to serfdom are unfounded.
Post a Comment