Class and Trash

The current debate in New York State as to Caroline Kennedy's qualifications – or lack thereof – for the Senate is raising more old frayed ghosts than a community theatre production of “A Christmas Carol”. And it's highly amusing that one of the objections to her candidacy is her alleged lack of experience. To which I reply, what sort of “experience”, precisely, is needed to serve in today's Senate? Having been a highwayman in one's youth would certainly seem to be relevant... or, in later years, having gained a reputation as a bore, a windbag, and an insufferable stuffed shirt. Fiscal responsibility clearly has nothing to do with it, nor does any glimmer of knowledge about history or economics. All in all, I would consider it quite an insult if anyone pronounced me a suitable candidate for the Senate. But in Caroline's case, it's also true that the words “Senate” and “Kennedy” go together like the words “India” and “dysentery” -- one can scarcely imagine the one without the other. But beyond that, Caroline is considered not only a charter member of “America's royal family” but, by all rights, the heir apparent. And this raises what may be the real objection to her candidacy.

Long ago, in a land far, far, away there was a place called The White House. It was inhabited by a high-born family known as the Kennedys, and their kingdom – or at least the part of it that basked under their direct touch – was dubbed “Camelot” by a bevy of starry-eyed simpletons who are now... well, not gone from the scene exactly, since it was them, or their spawn, who propelled Obama into the presidency. The unpleasant truth is not only that America needs royalty, but that “American royalty” rises primarily out of the ranks of liberals – you know, those egalitarian, down-with-kings, make-the-rough-places-plain inheritors of Oliver Cromwell. The psychology of this is hard to fathom, but a few clues may be offered. One is that conservatives, and/or Republicans, live by a natural, implicit assumption that there are wide differences in talent, aptitude, and motivation among members of the human species, and that while some are fit to lead, most are fit only to follow, and to serve. Their point of view is, in fact, consistent with what nearly all psychologists would have said up until a generation ago, and what a few brave ones still say – that all men may be created equal in terms of “rights” (which is, at any rate, a political/philosophical concept, not a psychological one) but it is painfully obvious that all are not created (or developed) equal in terms of abilities.

Liberals, and/or Democrats, on the other hand, are wedded to the notion that “human rights” include the right to equal outcomes regardless of aptitude and effort – equal outcomes in areas such as education (not real education, but diplomas), housing, income, political power, fame, you name it. The problem with this point of view – other than its obvious disconnect from reality – is that it leaves a great metaphysical emptiness in the minds of its holders. If no one is any better than anyone else, then no one has any more of a right to “lead” than anyone else – and this spells chaos... anarchy... and – worst of all! -- non-collectivism and non-socialism. But surely we can't have that! So some basis has to be found for assigning merit, and it's best if that basis is as arbitrary as possible with no nagging questions of ability. Add to this the liberal tendency to idolize political/social figures as opposed to worshipping a deity and there you have it – shazam! -- royalty! And the Kennedys, because they appeared to have something of the “common touch” (womanizing, getting drunk, throwing each other into swimming pools, etc.) were anointed “American royalty” back in the 1960s and have remained so ever since.

So this murmuring about Caroline's “experience”, or lack thereof, is totally beside the point. Royalty is royalty... it's all about charisma; experience has nothing to do with it. In fact, “experience” -- of the mundane sort – should, if anything, be seen as a detriment. And yet the murmuring continues, which leads one to believe that today's liberals are not quite as infatuated with sheer charisma as they were back in the heyday of Camelot. But wait – they just nominated Obama, and he won. They could have found more experienced people working in the Senate cafeteria, dishing out navy bean soup. So I really don't get it. But there is one other possibility, and that's that Caroline has more than just a “royal” family name – she has actual class. And this is something that liberals, and/or Democrats, have always found a bit upsetting, if not downright offensive. It doesn't violate their egalitarian impulses all that much to see people with a lot of money wandering around... or people with exceptionally good looks, or some other talent. But there's something about breeding, of upbringing, about carrying yourself like someone with dignity rather than like a street hustler, that they find intolerable. I think it's because this is something that one can't just go out and buy (or steal)... and one certainly cannot pretend to have it. You either have it or you don't, and like a fine aged wine it can't be acquired overnight or without many years of effort. It is, in short, completely non-egalitarian. If “anybody can grow up to be president”, very few will grow up to have what is called “class”. And this is not totally the fault of the class “system” in the U.S. -- it's mostly about people's choices. We all know “classy” people who are, to put it mildly, afflicted with “genteel poverty”. And we also know total barbarians with millions, if not billions. This is a real expression of American egalitarianism – that not only any person, but any slob, can become a millionaire, and no one will object. So it isn't about money, after all – nor is it about property, although having a “compound” on Cape Cod never hurt. It's about, to some extent, the right schools, the right clubs, the right “causes”, the right clothes, grooming, accent, and what not... but it's also about one's carriage, and one's attitude. And the beauty of it is, it's easy to spot – you can see it a mile off, which cannot be said of things like money or mere political power (or even things like artistic or musical talent). So not only does it lend an aura, it _is_ an aura. And the lucky holders cannot sell it for any price, and the unlucky non-holders cannot buy it for any price – at least not without, as I said, waiting at least a generation for it to take root.

So this is what may be making more than a few liberals uneasy about fast-tracking Caroline into the Senate. But of course they would never admit it. Because that would be admitting that she has something that they don't, and never will have. And not only that, it would expose them for the fickle mush-heads that they are, since what they worshipped in JFK has come back to haunt them, but now they know it not.

But before leaving this topic, let's contrast Caroline with the woman she wants to replace in the Senate, namely Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose name and the word “class” have never appeared in the same sentence without the additional word “no”. Does Hillary have any of the qualities enumerated above as unmistakable signs of class? No. And as much as her benighted husband tried to “channel” JFK all the time he was clawing his way to the top of the political totem pole, he and she missed the most important thing – the Kennedys, for all of their failings, have class, and the Clintons, for all of their successes, don't and never will. Can one even begin to imagine a Kennedy, for example, stealing White House furniture at the end of his or her term as president? I can't. (Why should they? They have much better stuff back in Hyannis Port.) JFK brought plenty of cronies with him to the White House, but can you imagine him and Jackie accusing the White House travel office of theft and firing them in order to create jobs for their friends? Not bloody likely. Can you imagine Jackie Kennedy doing a "photo op" at a children's hospital but bringing in healthy children of her staffers to pose with because the sick kids weren't photogenic? How about things like “cattle futures”? How about Whitewater? The examples go on and on. No, the Clintons were most assuredly not a class act; they were just the opposite, in fact. The two-headed beast that slimed its way out of the primeval ooze of Arkansas gave us all a taste of provincial Southern politics at their worst, and the fact that Hillary now represents New York cannot wash away the stink that has accumulated for many decades. And now she is moving up (OK, _back_ up) to wreak more havoc, this time on the international front. God help us all! But in the meantime, it's to be hoped that the Democrats haven't completely forgotten what it's like having someone with a touch of class around.