I’ve been think a lot about dynasties … and I don’t think it is good for America …
Particular the Clintons and the Bushes. If Hillary Clinton wins in 2008 (I would say that is a good possibility) and goes two terms … and then she is followed by Jeb Bush for two terms (another possibility) …
Then:
In every presidential election from 1980 – 2020 (or 32 yrs), either a Clinton or a Bush will have been on the winning the presidential ticket. That makes us look like a development nation with a struggling democracy.
Already a Bush or a Dole has been on the Republican presidential ticket since 1976 (28 yrs).
And are we ready for a Chelsea Clinton vs George P Bush in 2032? (they’ll both be about 50 then).
Do we really want presidential politics dominated by just a few families? This isn’t to say that a member of a family dynasty can’t be a good President. It is only to be very wary of concentrated power.
Our founding fathers were very concerned about dynasties. It isn’t coincidence that out of our first five Presidents, only Adams had a son. And Adams was very telling. He was the only one of the first five Presidents to last only one term and, to prove the power of dynasties, his son, John Quincy Adams, became the sixth President.
The post makes a few assumptions. First, Mrs. Clinton will run in 2008. She has not announced that. On the contrary, she is seeking re-election to another 6-year term in the Senate. Second, America is seen as rather backward already. Personally, I see no difference who is the face on top, it’s still the same rotten core. France has had FIVE republics in the time you’ve had ONE. Germany’s had FOUR. Italy’s had THREE. I think it was Jefferson who said “the tree of liberty must be refreshed… from time to time” Perhaps, with the end of the Bush regime, people will wake up and realise something went horribly wrong on the way to Jerusalem (referring to Mr Bush’s characterisation of the war on terror as a “crusade” after September 11.