Thinking about the very real possibility of a Hillary Clinton primary win and Presidency, it occurs to me that I am really bothered by the prospect of a Bush/Clinton Presidency for 24 – 28 consecutive years. That can’t be a healthy thing for the Republic.
I’m glad to hear someone else express this potential situation – I have yet to hear a good response to this.
At one time I thought that the only thing that might salvage the current Bush administration was that family political dynasties could call on family political retainers to competently fill out cabinet and advisory positions. In other words, if the family business is politics, maybe just maybe a safety net exists within the family that would protect the body politic when weak members of the family gain office. I can’t say that the retainers around Bush II exactly made a case for the point. Well, as I told my children, at least we aren’t Argentina. I think a very good case can be made that Bush II hasn’t been as been as bad for the U.S. as Isabelita Peron was for Argentina.
Family political dynasties are hardly new by the way, we’ve long had the Taft, Kennedy, Daley, Humphrey and Adams families in American politics, to name a few. The durability of some of these families in political life has given me to wonder if we couldn’t concoct an Estate Tax on political influence. Seriously, we have a tax that it is intended to prevent the unchecked growth of economic wealth, but we overlook the ability to pass power and contacts from generation to generation. It may be a trivial example, but Grosvenor family members (including by marriage) have been in some position of authority (e.g. chairman) at the National Geographic Society since 1888. There are ways of handing down wealth and position is a society other than by wealth and I think it would interesting to follow chains of family members through church bodies, universities, foundations, etc.
MUCH more bothered by the Bush part than by the Clinton part.
When you consider Bush I’s term as VP, it’s even worse. There hasn’t been a presidential election without a Bush or Clinton on the ticket since 1976. In theory, it’s not all bad. Whether it’s politics or a family business, sometimes the knowledge and commitment passed on can be a benefit. In practice, fairly often those family ties result in the unqualified being elevated to positions they have no business occupying. Hillary Clinton is a different case. She’s not comparable to GWB or Patrick Kennedy in that she wasn’t born in to anything and was in fact instrumental in her husband’s political rise. I think the Argentina comparisons (and Paul, I know you weren’t making that comparison, but I’ve heard it elsewhere) are unfair to her because based on her own intellect and education, she undoubtedly would have been very successful in some capacity even if she never met Bill Clinton. I doubt, however, that she would have attained any high elected office absent her marriage. She has improved her political skills and her public demeanor, but absent the Clinton name she probably never would have had the chance to fine-tune those skills. Ultimately, I would like to see some new blood. The Tafts, Adamses, and Roosevelts never had this sort of stranglehold on presidential nominations.
Are there any political dynasties that seemed to have gotten better with age? I suppose I’d be receptive to the argument that Franklin was better than Teddy and Teddy was probably better than his dad. (And, despite the same name and a relation — I guess I don’t know how intertwined FDR & TR’s political connections may have been.) The Kennedys, Bushes, and Tafts have aged poorly.
I think I might take John Quincy Adams to John Adams. I kind of choke on the Alien and Sedition Acts. In Indiana’s own contribution to the mix, the Harrison’s, I’d guess William Henry would have proved stronger than his Benjamin, but then he died after only 30 days in office, so we can’t really decide.
SLIGHTLY more bothered by the Clinton part than by the Bush part.