I'm not an admirer of Grover Norquist, to put it mildly, and I'm not sure whether I'd side with Krikorian or K-Lo in the event that it came to a vote - but this is definitely an idea worth discussing.
« Ethical Concerns And Church-State Violations | Main | Ignorance Isn't Strength » The "No Nepotism" Amendment23 Nov 2007 02:35 pm Comments (16)
How about a no nepotism policy for business? For heaven's sake, how many businesses, big and small, have gone into the sewer because the kids took them over? Of course, Fitz wants to make it sound like it is only "liberal" enterprises that have nepotism problems, but it is worth noting that the estate tax, which conservatives want to abolish, discourages nepotism by making it harder to inherit a big business outright. 
Fitz writes: "Academics don’t worry much about things like affirmative action lessening their offspring’s chances of getting into prestige institutions (that they value so highly) in part because there is an inside track of special preference in the old boys network of faculty & administration." Tell me again how Dumbya Bush got into Yale and then Harvard Business School. That had nothing to do with "academics," but everything to do with the "old boys network." The ability of "academics" to get their "offspring" into "prestige institutions" pales beside that of some other groups. Fitz always seems to complain about lesser injustices. But then consdering the grotesque evils he supports, I suppose he has no choice. (I would use the phrase "prestigious institutions myself, but then I'm far more literate than Fitzy.)
Make that "prestigious institutions," of course. I'd hate to confuse Fitzy even more.
Dumbya instead of Dubya!!?? Hilarious as usual Mr. Jim Keane. How do you come up with this stuff? Those Hollywood writers better watch out or you might snatch away all those jobs.
Astonishingly, I am with K-Lo on this issue.
This no-nepotism idea could be extended, even, gosh (!) to the Goldberg and Podhoretz clans (quelle horreur!).
"The merits of his argument aside (I am in principle supportive), and ignoring the contradiction between advocating for robust meritocracy in public life but opposing the estate tax and other measures designed to decrease the importance of accidents of birth in private life, Norquist's proposal strikes me as transparently cynical. Was Norquist fearful of political dynasty when GWB was first on the ballot? Why defend merit now? Obviously, Norquist is trying to raise anti-dynastic sentiment because Hillary Clinton could be the Democratic nominee. If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, a smart opponent will raise the dynasty issue in part as a way to tacitly link Clinton to Bush -- painting both as undeserving beneficiaries of a corrupt and patronage laden Washington..." http://diaryofalib.blogspot.com/2007/11/norquist-defender-of-meritocracy.html
So "K-Lo" wants Jeb Bush to be president. What a far-reaching imagination. If it had been three or so Clintons in a row, I guarantee she'd be for the no nepotism amendment.
I'll take concerns about Clinton representing dynastic politics seriously from anyone who expressed the same concerns in 2000.
I guarantee Grover Norquist know that this amendment has no chance. And I'd hazard a guess that his purpose is not high-minded. The point of floating this amendment is (a) to try to frame a nepotism charge against Hillary in such a way that it can be discussed without seeming personal & uncivil, and (b) to more closely tie Hillary's bid for the presidency with that of George W. Bush. With regard to the latter purpose, this is exactly what Grover's hoping for: I'll take concerns about Clinton representing dynastic politics seriously from anyone who expressed the same concerns in 2000.
The more Hillary's campaign is seen (or defended) as a Democratic doppelganger of the Bush bid in 2000, the more damaged Hillary will be in both the primaries and the general.
So, the envious gradgrinds are finding nepotism in a variety of woodpiles. Since Ross's mother is a rather fine writer, there should be a law against him being one.
Funny thing is, the very reforms of the Seventies that were supposed to make the political nominatiuon process more democratic have made dynasties all but inevitable. If the party hierarchy can't pick the people they think would make the best candidates... and the unknown candidates aren't allowed to raise or spedn the kind of money it would take to make them formidable contenders... why then, a famous name becomes a godsend! George W. Bush entered the race in 2000 with 100% name recognition, which made him the immediate frontrunner. Hillary entered the race this year with 100% name recognition, making her the frontrunner. The solution? Either make the process less democratic and bring back the old "smoke filled rooms" (the party bosses would probably pick better candidates than the people anyway), or remove monetary restrictions, and let candidates spend as much as they can raise.
Peter Leavitt is right. There is no connection whatsoever in the United States between one's parents' status and one's own. Never have the idiot offspring of the powerful and their trophy spouses inherited positions entirelyincommensurate with their ability and talent. No examples spring to mind. Gradgrinds indeed. I think the apposite HARD TIMES reference would be to Peter Leavitt as Mr. Bounderby.
Ben, thanks for the dubious Bounderby distinction, though I admit to being an investment banker.
Well, Peter, I admit to being a utilitarian caricature of Benthamite values trying to drill hard facts into poor Sissy Jupe's innocent head.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream 
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
Categories
The Atlantic, October 2008 Is Pornography Adultery?The Atlantic, June 2008 Redeeming Dubya
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I would like to propose a no nepotism policy for academia & Hollywood. That would really upset the system.
Academics don’t worry much about things like affirmative action lessening their offspring’s chances of getting into prestige institutions (that they value so highly) in part because there is an inside track of special preference in the old boys network of faculty & administration.
Plum jobs & opportunities often go to the ideologically pure & hereditarily advantaged sons of the intellectual elite, along with the mentoring and encouragement to get there.
Hollywood is even more obvious… any perusal of top actors and so on will reveal names to numerous to count when it comes to the sons and daughters of tinsel town.
Posted by Fitz | November 24, 2007 2:20 PM