Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Say No to Hereditary Titles of Nobility
Rumors abound throughout the news media that Arizona Governor Doug Ducey is poised to appoint Cindy McCain to fill the remainder of John McCain’s senate term in the event he expires prior to the 2023 expiration of his term. Paul Mirengoff has a piece at Powerline arguing that Mrs. McCain is a qualified successor to her husband, although perhaps not conservative enough to be a good choice for the seat. With respect to Mr. Mirengoff, I suggest the issue at hand is not her qualification for the job, the issue is our nation’s longstanding rejection of hereditary titles of nobility.
It is one thing for a family member to run and be elected in his or her own right to succeed a close relative. While it happens often enough it is still something most Americans seem at least uneasy with. Running for office with the benefit of a beloved family name can be helpful to a candidate but it is also a turnoff for many voters and the genesis of much low hanging fruit for political attacks. But in the end, at least there is merit in being elected to one’s own term rather than being appointed to succeed a relative.
Frank Murkowski served in the United States Senate for two decades before he was elected governor of Alaska. Upon taking office Governor Murkowski promptly appointed his daughter, Lisa Murkowski, to finish out his Senate term. This blatant act of nepotism so enraged Alaskans that the law was changed by referendum in 2004 to require a special election to fill a Senate vacancy and was a major factor in Governor Murkowski losing his re-election primary to one Sarah Palin.
For an elected official to appoint or arrange to have appointed a family member to succeed his term in office seems entirely undemocratic. In fact, it feels decidedly aristocratic. Someone needs to remind the good Arizona governor that in America we don’t do hereditary titles of nobility. Governor Ducey may be free to appoint whom he wishes in the event of Senator McCain’s untimely death, but he should beware the unintended consequence of appointing Mrs. McCain to fill the vacancy.
Published in General
So, her primary qualification is that she’s married to The New York Times’ Favorite Republican™?
No. Run along, Cindy. The Republic will survive without you.
(And I was hoping for former Congressman Barry Goldwater Jr. ….)
Only a Criminal Deep State Nitwit could think Cindy McCain is a good choice. The gall of those around McCain to even suggest this. This move clearly shows how out of touch the RINO wing is from the rest of the country.
Is she even a Republican? This would be just typical. Republicans have great aim when it comes to shooting themselves in their feet.
It is traditional. I think Olympia Snow entered office as the widow of a senator? Then she earned it for herself.
I have no skin in this game, but I’ll throw in a devil’s advocate question: doesn’t this affirm that marriage makes two into one? That is, didn’t it implicitly recognize that having the widow of a politician serve out his term was the closest possible thing to having him do it himself?
That seems a bit of a stretch but it is an interesting line of thought.
I’d be slightly (ever so) sympathetic to this argument if she was his one and only. Maybe the governor should appoint his ex to the position.
I think you meant “Get along home, Cindy, Cindy. Get along home, Cindy Cindy.”
What a silly idea.
Sometimes it helps to quote what you’re referring to.
To tell you the truth I’m not too impressed with people that are in DC that have no family connections. I have no idea why she would want the appointment even if it was offered. Choosing between Arizona and DC should be a no brainer as a place to reside. At one time DC was a literal swamp, a malarial infested swamp. Now it is a metaphorical swamp. Cindy stay in Arizona you’re not missing anything by residing in Arizona.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
If that doesn’t convince you, see Claire McCaskill…’nuff said.
Someone needs to remind John McCain and Doug Ducey that the Senate seat is not “John McCain’s seat.” The seat belongs to the state of Arizona.
If true, this is one tradition that should be thrown on the ash heap of history. We’re a republic, damn it!
Senator McCain.
The Tennessee Star had this to say.
I don’t think they care for John, either.
Asked and answered. Thanks for that link, @chuckles.
I agree with you. In practice, I’m not sure it worked all that well anyhow, even in its heyday. The expectation was, no doubt, that the wife could be counted upon to do what her hubby would have done had he survived. When death in office was a more common phenomenon, and transportation and communication less swift and sure, this may have been seen as the most efficient way to provide voters with continuity, and a sense that the representation they voted for would indeed be provided.
Because the “wife of” often does know quite a lot about, and share an interest in, her husband’s work (doctor’s wives can tell you a lot about medicine; judges wives know a bit about the law, Abigail Adams’ letters contain knowledgeable advice to her husband) this isn’t unreasonable either. It would be presumed that a wife and husband would share values and viewpoints in a way that even brothers might not. After all, it’s tough to share a bed with a political opposite, Maitlin and Carville notwithstanding. [On a personal note, being the widow of a law enforcement officer gives me considerable credibility as a law enforcement chaplain even when that’s the only thing a given officer knows about me.]
The women who temporarily “inherited” political office did go on to win it fair and square, with their connections and experience helping to cancel out the sexism that might otherwise have prevented them from getting votes.
But anyway, I agree: nowadays, there isn’t any real practical reason to continue the practice. Women with political ambitions can, should and have run for office themselves.
One of the many (!) objectionable features of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was the way the first Clinton administration featured in her resume…though not, of course, the sins of that administration, so many of which (ironically) concerned her so intimately. Why would we want our First Female President to have, in effect, inherited the office from her husband, especially now, when there are so many women who have made their own ways into political life and power?
The father of my present congressman was in congress for 23 years, and died in office. His son has been in congress for 32 years. This sort of thing has to be bad for an ostensibly free country. I’ve mentioned before that even though my present congressman probably voted the way I would have wanted him to vote 95% of the time, I always voted for one of his opponents in the primary. We don’t need dynasties. His son is a state senator, undoubtedly waiting in the wings to succeed him.
Yes, it does – but only within the marriage. Outside of marriage, husband and wife are two separate individuals. If Mary Matalin were an elected official and died tragically, you wouldn’t want James Carville to take her place, would you?
I did see recently a candidate for governor (Kansas, I believe) picked his wife as his running mate for lieutenant governor. Voters will decide if they like it or not.
This is an interesting gimmick. If elected I can’t imagine their marriage will benefit.
Just as the Founders intended!
My brain turned off with this:
“Rumors abound throughout the news media…”
I betcha Jan Brewer would be willing to fill in, pending a special election. IMHO that would be a smart choice especially if she made it clear she wouldn’t run for the permanent seat.
IIRC, we are now past the date where a special election would be called. Any appointee will finish the term.
I think the subject line of this post is a little overwrought. Not because what is being talked about literally doesn’t meet the definition of hereditary titles of nobility, but it doesn’t functionally either.
The nepotism is annoying, but looking through American history at the various political dynasties, I find that it’s extremely rare for them to get past the second generation.
John Quincy Adams was the son of John Adams. The third generation of Adams, were prominent in public life, but did not hold public office. And today you don’t hear about them.
The third generation of the descendants of William Howard Taft have been prominent in Ohio politics but don’t have the national prominence that their grandfather or father did.
The political dynasty I grew up with, the Kennedys, are just about washed up politically. The son of Robert Kennedy is actually seen more as a political crank, and never made it beyond the House of Represntatives.
The Bushes as a political dynasty are dying out, though if you count Senator Prescott Bush (father of George Herbert Walker) you could argue that with George P Bush (son of Jeb) that they’re in their 4th generation. But he’s a struggling Texas politician, and a second tier one at that.
Even with the appointments of family members referred to, I’ve not heard of a Senate seat going to a third family member once the second one left office. I’m sure it’s happened, but it’s very very rare.
Again, the nepotism is annoying, but no more than that.
Since I live in Alaska, and Lisa and Frank Murkowski was mentioned, I thought I’d make a some points.
First, I was mad when that appointment was made, and considered it a bad move. I did vote for Frank when he ran for re-election as governor in the primary. I have never voted for Lisa.
But this has more to do with policy disagreements than her nepotism.
I do have some things to say in defense of her appointment. At the time, she had her own constituency, and had already made a name for herself in Alaska politics. She not only was a member of the state senate, but she was majority leader.
Rumor had it that Frank appointed her so that he wouldn’t have to put up with her in that role. Frank and Lisa did not see eye to eye on a lot of state policy. Having political food fights with his own daughter would not have looked good publicly, and would have probably made him miserable at home (happy wife, happy life).
In the end, Alaska has been stuck with an Olympia Snowe/Susan Collins type of Republican. And that is the real reason I never vote for her. If she’s going to act like a Democrat, I’ll go ahead and vote for the Democrat instead. I’ve only done that once, as the last election she botched the Republican primary and ended up running in the general election as a write-in.
Not really. Incumbency is a powerful advantage in our elections. It’s a fruit of the tree argument. If she acquired that incumbency illegitimately then subsequent elections where she used it to her advantage means she didn’t earn all that much.
I’m an electrical contractor with a good reputation, and a solid business. My now ex-wife supported me and our business to the hilt, knew all of the ins and outs and ups and downs of my interactions with my customers, all the drama.
But I’m pretty sure that if if I had died, she could not therefore naturally step in and start wiring. Srsly?
Maybe politics is different. Maybe it’s all drama.
She ran for and won her deceased husband’s state rep. seat.
When it comes to children, politics doubtless runs in families the way other professions tend to do. Doctors beget doctors, cops beget cops, writers beget writers. Not ad infinitum, and not inevitably, but often enough to be noticeable. It’s not genetic. It’s more that a kid sees running for office, publishing a book or going to medical school as something normal people like themselves can do.
Most of my friends have absolutely no idea how one would go about writing a book and even attempting to get it published; I grew up in a household where that was an unremarkable accomplishment.
Yeah. I think politics is different. I’d say it’s about name recognition, stamina, and enough egoism to make the destination seem worth the journey. And about being willing to care (or pretend to care) and bloviate about very unimportant things.
I was trapped at a table full of state politicians at a banquet where all the other tables were filled with law enforcement officers. It was torture. Not only did I have to listen to egomaniacal guys with puffed chests bragging about how they’d screwed over so-and-so or managed to push through such and such, but mere yards away I could see cops telling good stories of the kind that cops tell best. The ones where they are the butt of the joke, and the joke is bittersweet and funny.
I felt like saying “Listen, do y’all mind if I go sit over there with the real men?”