Hereditary Rule

Hereditary Rule

by Mark Luedtke

So Caroline Kennedy wants to be appointed to the House of Lords. The Princess of Kennedy feels entitled to the hereditary position. Her courtiers, men and women of letters, sensing new power for an old royal family, flit around her like hungry butterflies looking for nectar to drink, telling her, each other and whoever will listen that she's the perfect choice.

Princess Caroline doesn't hesitate to remind us of her royal pedigree. Lacking the famous good looks, grace and charm of her parents and brother, Caroline takes every opportunity to remind us she's her mother's daughter, trying to drape herself in Jackie's aura to win approval. She exudes insecurity.

But she's a Kennedy, and that's all that matters. Except we're not in King George's England. The Founding Fathers abolished hereditary rule in favor of a meritocracy. Unfortunately, there's no more medieval institution in the western world than the US Congress, where all-powerful aristocrats grow fat off the labor of working Americans. They use the IRS and corporations as tax collectors instead of horsed henchmen stealing crops and livestock at the point of a sword, but that's a cosmetic difference.

The liberal elite love everything European. Especially Europe's royalty. They make no apologies for trying to transform America into a European style country with European style welfare, double-digit unemployment and cultural suicide. I can't help but wonder, if these elites think Europe is so superior to the United States, why don't they move there?

Liberal elites value name, skin color, ideology, and connections over accomplishment. Barack Obama had the proper radical leftist ideology and connections to get into Harvard, climb the Chicago political ladder, and launch his presidential bid. Liberal elites orchestrated Obama's election based on those values despite him having the least accomplishments of any major presidential candidate in history.

New Yorkers exhibit this tendency in spades. Hillary Clinton's only accomplishment toward elected office was marrying Bill Clinton. But when Clinton shopped around to see what state would offer her the most power, grandiosely mocking our system of representative government, she chose New York. Her subjects rewarded her with a senate seat. After a few years of keeping that seat warm, she almost won her party's nomination for president. But Barack Obama was a little more liberal and a little more black, so so the elites chose him instead.

On the other hand, the traditional America values of freedom and individual accomplishment – the values that made America the greatest country in history - threaten the value system of modern liberalism. Individual accomplishment repudiates the fundamental premise of modern liberalism – collectivism – that Americans cannot succeed on their own. Any individual who seems to have succeeded on his or her own must have exploited others or cheated.

That's why liberal elites hate Sarah Palin. Caroline Kennedy is qualified for the senate, despite having no accomplishments of note, because her name is Kennedy. She inherits all privileges of being a Kennedy including a senate seat. But because Gov. Palin is a self-made woman who rose from PTA member to city council to mayor to governor by challenging the powerful and corrupt of her own party and defeating them, the liberal elite had to destroy her. This isn't so much a double-standard as a self-defense mechanism. Sarah Palin exposes the fundamental tenant of liberalism as a fraud, so liberal elites had to destroy her to survive.

But not all liberals agree with their elite leaders. Many Democrats in New York climbed the political ladder through hard work, and they want the opportunity of a lifetime – an effectively lifetime position doing next to nothing in the US Senate but collecting checks from taxpayers and courtiers and generously doling out taxpayer money to buy enough votes to insure reelection every 6 years.

But like all people, New York Gov. Patterson cares about himself and family first. Patterson inherited his office when the Feds busted Gov. Eliot Spitzer for prostitution and money laundering and forced him to resign. So we have the spectacle of an unelected governor appointing an unelected senator, and both will have to win an election in 2010 to solidify their hold on power. So Gov. Patterson will appoint somebody who can help him win in 2010.

And who better than Princess Caroline? With her pedigree, the support of New York's chattering elite, and her $100 million inheritance, Caroline is best positioned to help Gov. Patterson win.

This spotlights what's wrong with politics in America and big government in general. In one sense, aristocrats are no different than the rest of us – they work for themselves and their families. In the private sector, that means working hard, creating wealth, and creating jobs for others. Everybody wins. But for government aristocrats that means higher taxes, bigger government, corruption, and funneling ever more taxpayer money to special interests to buy votes. Aristocrats win. The people lose. Just like in King George's day.

Gov. Patterson will probably appoint Caroline Kennedy because it's good for him even though it's bad for everybody else. So much for meritocracy. Let's hope Republicans make this debate mute by blocking Clinton's appointment to Sec. of State because of her husband's eye-popping conflicts of interest from foreign donations to his library and foundation.