On the day following the recent presidential election, the name of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. surfaced as a leading candidate to head up the Environmental Protection Agency. Long-suffering environmentalists rejoiced. Having an environmental activist like Kennedy at EPA's helm meant that, after years of mixed allegiance, the Agency would have its white hat on, finally.

In a sense, it was fitting for Kennedy's name to have claimed the stage. Am I the only one who sees a second Camelot emerging? Here, again, we have the cool and youthful Senator, and the classy, beautiful wife, and the promise of change in the wind.

But wait. In the little more than a week that's passed since Kennedy's name was first floated, the early euphoria about his candidacy has been tempered by concern, even among some hard-core environmentalists, that he may not be the right man for the job.

Kennedy has some baggage that could scuttle his nomination or make him less effective if he does get confirmed. In the early 1980s, he was busted for heroin possession (this baggage was actually found in his baggage). While this may be ancient history, it's not the sort of thing that makes a person a shoo-in for a high government position.

He also holds controversial views. He has published articles contending that autism is caused by vaccines and that the Republicans stole the 2004 election. Many in the mainstream view these positions as borderline crackpot or beyond, which makes them a political liability. Whatever the merits of his beliefs, it's hard to make a case for installing as EPA Administrator a person who's viewed by many as a wack job.

Kennedy has even annoyed his environmentalist base by opposing Cape Wind, a wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts. His position: "As an environmentalist, I support wind power, including wind power on the high seas. I am also involved in siting wind farms in appropriate landscapes, of which there are many. But I do believe that some places should be off limits to any sort of industrial development. I wouldn't build a wind farm in Yosemite National Park. Nor would I build one on Nantucket Sound …"

Detractors have suggested that he opposes Cape Wind because it would mar the view from the Kennedy compound in Hyannis. Even if this isn't why he's objecting, and it's probably not, his position has exposed him to charges of being elitist.

Bottom line, at this point it's an open question if Kennedy will be EPA Administrator.

Whatever his fate, the dialogue about Kennedy raises important questions:

 

• Can a dyed-in-the-wool activist like Kennedy thrive in a highly political government position, or are the roles like oil and water?

• Would an Obama Administration, which is all about transcending partisanship, do its image irreparable harm by installing a highly partisan environmentalist like Kennedy? Or would it be delivering its message of change boldly and straightforwardly? How in your face (or, rather, in their face) should it be?

And then there are the questions about science.

It goes without saying that the EPA must be science-based and that the Administrator must be, in this sense, a "science guy." Kennedy's detractors believe his views on autism disqualify him. One critic put it this way: "Robert F. Kennedy is … dangerously anti-science and legitimizes a conspiracy-theory issue that has been strenuously fought against by the scientific community time and again.  Kennedy believes autism is caused by vaccines … The debate has become religious in that proponents of the theory … refuse to accept any evidence from scientific studies showing there to be no link."

Maybe so—but there's another side to the story. There are reputable researchers who do believe in the vaccine/autism connection, and beyond this parochial dispute there are larger issues concerning the relationship between scientific findings on the one hand, and subjective worldviews and power on the other.

While science itself is objective, the use of science (and pseudo-science) to defend vested interests is not. For instance, over the years "sound science" has become a political cudgel that big business and the political right haul out whenever they feel the need to discredit an inconvenient truth. The term has become a euphemism for science shaped to serve powerful industry forces who want to discourage change.

Which side is in denial about the autism/vaccine connection? Was the 2004 election really stolen? I can't begin to answer these questions, but I do know this—to dismiss a view as paranoid or crackpot doesn't make it so. As Barack Obama liked to point out in his stump speech, power doesn't concede, and one way it doesn’t concede is by driving narratives that make the powerless seem foolish, incompetent or crazy. A healthy agnosticism would seem to be the path of wisdom here.

Maybe we need an EPA Administrator whose goal isn't to get along with everyone—who isn't, in a word, political. Maybe we need an EPA Administrator who'd like nothing more than to take up a spear against the entrenched interests that have tried to sabotage environmental protection. Maybe we need someone like Robert Kennedy.

If you think this will be too rich for Obama's blood, you might want to think again.

There's a white-knight precedent for this, and it's especially persuasive if you believe, like Yogi Berra, in déjà vu all over again.

The first Camelot, and the first Robert Kennedy.