Christopher Beam, a writer I was previously unfamiliar with, has an article on the Massachusetts Senate race in Slate. A few sentences caught my eye. He notes “the image [Republican Scott] Brown has created for himself: the independent, hard-working, middle-class, truck-driving guy who also happens to be dashing and well-spoken.” He goes on, “Whatever the accuracy of Brown’s self-portrait—his mother was once on welfare, yet he owns five properties.”
The implication is that Brown is a hypocrite because he’s got a lot of money now. Beam goes on to mention “Rep. Patrick Kennedy, who might have been a strong candidate to succeed his father in the Senate but for the inconvenient fact that he already represents Rhode Island in the House.”
Christopher Beam, listen up. Scott Brown made his money. Patrick Kennedy inherited his money. Scott Brown is a shining example of the American way: he started off at some point near the bottom of the ladder and worked his way up. He wants others to have the same chance. What’s wrong with that?
Patrick Kennedy, in contrast, owes his political career to his lineage. You can argue that he’s been working hard for the people of Rhode Island, that he could have a leisurely existence with no one caring whether he goes into rehab again but instead deals with the hassles of commuting from Providence to Washington and showing up on time for roll calls and committee meetings. I’m happy to grant Kennedy all that; my impression is that he works hard to serve his constituents. But if Christopher Beam is going to argue that we should think less of Scott Brown because he’s made some money, than we do of Patrick Kennedy, who inherited what I am sure is quite a lot more — well, I find myself sputtering here.
This is not a byline I feel I need to check out again.
