In a liberal woman’s dialogue of heart and head, guess which wins?

Howard Sutherland writes:

VFR does a great job of exposing the deceits and follies of the faux-conservatives (neocons and their ilk). But the open liberals are still out there, too (as you well know), pushing their nation-wrecking insanities and inanities on the rest of us.

Here, appearing “from the Left” in the Investor’s Business Daily, is Ruth Marcus, pretending to debate between her heart and her head whether Caroline Kennedy should be given a U.S. Senate seat from New York simply for being that late, sainted, liberal’s dreamboat John Kennedy’s daughter. The “debate” in Marcus’s column is kabuki—her heart had trumped her head (e.g., “But what a fitting coda to this modern fairy tale to have the little princess grow up to be a senator.”) before she ever started typing.

You have written some controversial things about what role women should have in politics and statesmanship. Sister Ruth’s column about sweet Caroline is a pretty strong piece of evidence that the answer should be none whatever!

LA replies:

Marcus is without shame to push Caroline Kennedy for the U.S. Senate on the basis of her silly feelings (her “lower” part) over her reason (her “higher” part). This is not exactly Yeats’s “A Dialogue of Self and Soul,” where in the end the poet, in Nietzschean mode, rejects the claims of religion and chooses his self and the Eternal Return of this-worldly life over his soul and heaven:

I am content to live it all again
And yet again, if it be life to pitch
Into the frog-spawn of a blind man’s ditch,
A blind man battering blind men…

Ruth Marcus, in choosing her heart over her head, takes, shall we say, a somewhat less heroic stance, declaring without embarrassment:

I know it’s an emotional—dare I say “girly”?—reaction. But what a fitting coda to this modern fairy tale to have the little princess grow up to be a senator.

Dare I say that people who make their political decisions on a “girly” basis, and state publicly that this is their basis, do not belong in the realm of politics at all?

But the deeper argument is that this kind of public self-indulgence is an inevitable result of expanding political participation by women. Women are initially given political rights on the basis that they are equally qualified as men, and are being judged by the same standards by which men are judged. But once women arrive full blast in the political/journalism arena, their feminine, “girly” selves are liberated and unleashed. Looking at the role of women in contemporary Western public life, the Muslims have grounds to despise us and to think we’re washed up.

As for Caroline, in her occasional forays into the public eye during her adult life, has shown herself to be a dullard. She has inherited none of her parents’ talents, smarts, charm. So it’s purely the name, the memories.

By the way, have you noticed, the media are referring to her now as Caroline Kennedy. What happened to Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, her name for the last 20 years?

On the sainted JFK, see my post showing a significant connection between St. Barack Obama and St. John F. Kennedy that no one had thought of before. The charism may well have passed on Nov. 8, 1960.

HRS replies:

I wondered what had happened to Schlossberg. Have they been quietly divorced, or is it simply political packaging to use only the Kennedy handle? As for Caroline’s getting the nod, from a state that has allowed such carpetbaggers as her uncle and the Chicagoan wife of a shabby president to represent it in the Senate, I suppose nothing should surprise.

New York’s accidental governor, Paterson, must be straining to appease all the special pleaders who think they deserve favors. Should he replace Mistress Hillary with a black? (Maybe not—Paterson is one, and Obama just got the brass ring) A Jew? (probably not—Schumer is one) An Hispanic? (May have to do that—looks like they’re America’s future) An Oriental? (They think they deserve it, and it might appease them over Wen Ho Lee) An Indian? (They think they deserve it, too, and we don’t want any of them following Jindal) A homosexual? (They definitely think they deserve it, and Tom Duane is slavering over the possibility) Somebody handicapped? (Nah—Paterson fills that square, too) A woman? (Probably—Hillary is one, after all, and protected groups are not supposed to suffer any reduction in their share of the goodies) A white man? (Are you kidding!? Well, maybe if he’s a homosexual). Oh, I love Noo Yawk (well, the Adirondacks, anyway).

If the GOP’s leaders had any sense, they would look at the Democrats’ assorted ethnic and pressure group pander games and vow never to copy them. As it is, they try to out-pander only to get bitten by their beneficiaries. Anyone remember Colin Powell?

- end of initial entry -

Dan R. writes:

Wikipedia says:

Although she is often incorrectly referred to as “Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg,” she did not change her name when she married.

LA replies:

That’s very strange, then why did the media always call her Schlossberg? Usually they respect the person’s name choice.

Dan replies:

As for the media, I’ve had the same impression as you, so I just don’t know.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 11, 2008 11:06 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):