Presidential Dynasties

[Stravo]

Someone made a comment on the McLaughlin Group a few weeks back that stuck with me and continues to bother me.

If you think about it, the same two families have been providing the presidents over the last 30 or so years. Let me explain.

George Herbert Walker Bush sworn into office in 1989 - 1993.

Bill Clinton sworn into office 1993 - 2001.

George W. Bush sworn into office 2001 - 2008.

Now the front runner is Hillary Clinton.

Conceivably we have a Clinton in office at least from 2008 - 2012. Thus the Bush and Clinton families have had a lock on the presidency from 1989 - 2012. That's about a generation. And it could go back further if you count Bush 41's vice presidential term from 1981 -89.

It's like the Roman Republic with two great families dominating the government and it troubles me. I know it may sound weird but this hits an odd spot that smacks of dynastic succession or some sort of weird American monarchy. I don't like it. What does this say about us and our system that two families can control a presidency over an entire generation?

[Phantasee]

It says you're fucked, and your system has been coopted by powerful people who are interested in seeing certain people in office. Potentially one huge conspiracy, or more likely, it's the result of both parties competing against the other's dynasty.

[tim31]

If the founding fathers had forseen it, they probably would have made a (contrived, crazy) amendment to steer clear of it. But then, they wouldn't have concieved of a former first lady vying for the top job.

[Phantasee]

If the founding fathers had forseen it, they probably would have made a (contrived, crazy) amendment to steer clear of it. But then, they wouldn't have concieved of a former first lady vying for the top job.

Dang wimminz, getting so uppity...

Even then, they probably didn't think of a son following his father, especially so soon. Not even a decade between them, just one two-term President.

[Darth Wong]

It says you're fucked, and your system has been coopted by powerful people who are interested in seeing certain people in office. Potentially one huge conspiracy, or more likely, it's the result of both parties competing against the other's dynasty.

It's not a conspiracy so much as an entrenched aristocracy, which is actually much worse. At least a conspiracy could theoretically be uncovered and broken. An entrenched aristocracy pulls its shit right out in the open, nobody questions its right to do so for some reason, and there's no practical way to overturn it, apart from a revolution.

PS. I like using the phrase "entrenched aristocracy", but it occurs to me now that it's a redundant term. All aristocracies are naturally entrenched.

[Flagg]

That's one of the main reasons I'm voting for Edwards in the primary.

[Big Orange]

A revolution to remove the upper class implies extreme violence, I really don't want to end up seeing thousands of well dressed people systematically getting lined up and executed (as seen in the French Revolution with the mass decapitations of innocent female aristocrats, Russia turning into more of a charnel house following the October Revolution, and Pol Pot's literally apocalyptic "Year Zero"). Why should we need a violent revolution that could indirectly kill millions, just to remove a few hundred corrupt businessmen and politicians, and totally destroy the current flawed system that only needs to be vigorously fine tuned to fix most of it's problems?

The current problem with the US Government is that these political dynasties are working more for the multinational corporations, than for the general public or country, and that the current administration in particular is steeped in highly aggressive and anti-social corporatism. Many of these political dynasties are so entrenched is due to them being able to accumulate fantastic wealth for themselves and for the other corporate dynasties that they work alongside or even be directly part of (with some of the biggest politicians being former chairmans/CEOs or/and major shareholders).

[K. A. Pital]

Couldn't there be a "soft revolution" in America?

[Stravo]

It's never been an issue spoken about in the general public or even touched on in the media. It's almost like no one wants to being it up. I remember when the current Bush first threw his hat in the ring back in 2000 and there was this sense in the Republican party like he was the anointed one and the backlash against McCain for even daring to oppose his nomination was sickening.

It's an aristocracy accepted by choice because no one forced the people to vote for them (though you have to wonder if the noimination process and two party system forces candidates on the general population) so it's distressing that the voting public is OK or just ignorant about this.

Remember the casual references to the Kennedy clan as American aristocracy and almost having a right to be elected to office? It bugs me.

[Flagg]

I despise the dynasties because they can only exist if the lobbyists allow them to. So to even be a dynasty they absolutely must be corporate whores.

[Gil Hamilton]

Don't forget that Jeb Bush is out there as former governor of Florida, and can conceivably run for president too.

Though I don't think it is a conspiracy. There are a bunch of families that just at the end of WWII were wealthy and powerful enough to practically set their kids up for political power later on. The Bushs, the Kennedys, et cetera. In twenty years, their retard rich kids will likely go into politics too.

However, I think it's more that Hillary Clinton is opportunistic than dynastic. Bush was certainly dynastic, but I'm not sure about Clinton.

[Flagg]

Don't forget that Jeb Bush is out there as former governor of Florida, and can conceivably run for president too.

I'm more worried about his son, George P Bush. He's half hispanic, and I think he could be put forward as a Republican nominee in the not too distant future. Jeb has way too much baggage, I think. What with his junkie daughter and theif wife.

[Balrog]

Indeed, the Clintons haven't exactly groomed Chelsea to take up power one day. Except for Jeb, neither of the families seem to have a clear frontrunner for Presidency after the current batch is done. It seems less like a dynastic approach then simply grabbing for power, politics as usual.

[Elmca]

If the founding fathers had forseen it, they probably would have made a (contrived, crazy) amendment to steer clear of it. But then, they wouldn't have concieved of a former first lady vying for the top job.

They didn't have to forsee it. It happened to one of them.

John Adams, 2nd President of the United States and John Quincy Adams, his son and 6th POTUS, both served during the time when the founding fathers (some of them anyway) were still around. Granted, they were elected over 20 years apart (1797 versus 1824) so the comparison isn't exact, but it's pretty close.

If the founding fathers had anything to say about a "dynasty" forming, I think they would have. JQA served as Monroe's Secretary of State and didn't hide his presidential ambitions.

[Flagg]

I don't think it's a dynastic thing with Hillary. I think she realizes that she has a real shot and there are alot of people who have wanted her to run for a long time.

It's not the same situation with the Bush cartel grooming their children to run.

[Darth Wong]

If the founding fathers had forseen it, they probably would have made a (contrived, crazy) amendment to steer clear of it. But then, they wouldn't have concieved of a former first lady vying for the top job.

They didn't have to forsee it. It happened to one of them.

John Adams, 2nd President of the United States and John Quincy Adams, his son and 6th POTUS, both served during the time when the founding fathers (some of them anyway) were still around. Granted, they were elected over 20 years apart (1797 versus 1824) so the comparison isn't exact, but it's pretty close.

If the founding fathers had anything to say about a "dynasty" forming, I think they would have. JQA served as Monroe's Secretary of State and didn't hide his presidential ambitions.

Far too many Americans tend to assume that the Holy Founding Fathers (Peace Be Upon Them) were shining paragons of ethical perfection, and that they would support whatever is most fair and ethical in any given situation. They owned slaves, for fuck's sake. American treatment of their "Founding Fathers" is basically idolatry; they just won't admit it because that's a violation of one of their stupid Biblical Ten Commandments.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Far too many Americans tend to assume that the Holy Founding Fathers (Peace Be Upon Them) were shining paragons of ethical perfection, and that they would support whatever is most fair and ethical in any given situation. They owned slaves, for fuck's sake. American treatment of their "Founding Fathers" is basically idolatry; they just won't admit it because that's a violation of one of their stupid Biblical Ten Commandments.

They probably cite them to give themselves an air of authority as well.

[Flagg]

Far too many Americans tend to assume that the Holy Founding Fathers (Peace Be Upon Them) were shining paragons of ethical perfection, and that they would support whatever is most fair and ethical in any given situation. They owned slaves, for fuck's sake. American treatment of their "Founding Fathers" is basically idolatry; they just won't admit it because that's a violation of one of their stupid Biblical Ten Commandments.

That's a problem that goes far beyond the founding fathers, and even Americans. Far too many people make demigods out of people when it's their contributions that should be remembered.

[Guardsman Bass]

I suppose this problem can get in line with the Romney Religious Test as erosions of the constitution go. At least, if by some chance Hillary Clinton gets elected and re-elected, we can take some comfort in the fact that the on-and-off Clinton-Bush dynasty will end in 2017, since Jeb Bush has problems and Chelsea hasn't played a major political role.

[Havok]

Stravo

Think about what would have happened if JFK and RFK hadn't been killed. There conceivably could have been a Kennedy in the White House up until the late 80s.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Someone made a comment on the McLaughlin Group a few weeks back that stuck with me and continues to bother me.

If you think about it, the same two families have been providing the presidents over the last 30 or so years. Let me explain.

George Herbert Walker Bush sworn into office in 1989 - 1993.

Bill Clinton sworn into office 1993 - 2001.

George W. Bush sworn into office 2001 - 2008.

Now the front runner is Hillary Clinton.

Conceivably we have a Clinton in office at least from 2008 - 2012. Thus the Bush and Clinton families have had a lock on the presidency from 1989 - 2012. That's about a generation. And it could go back further if you count Bush 41's vice presidential term from 1981 -89.

It's like the Roman Republic with two great families dominating the government and it troubles me. I know it may sound weird but this hits an odd spot that smacks of dynastic succession or some sort of weird American monarchy. I don't like it. What does this say about us and our system that two families can control a presidency over an entire generation?

I completely agree with you. Last night we saw her posturing on TV with some feel-good spiel on "change". I told my friends, right, like a presidential election sequence going on Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton represents change. That's a QUARTER CENTURY of rule coming from a father-son and husband-wife. America is not a democracy. Its an managed-elected oligarchy - a form of government known as polyarchy.

[Illuminatus Primus]

It says you're fucked, and your system has been coopted by powerful people who are interested in seeing certain people in office. Potentially one huge conspiracy, or more likely, it's the result of both parties competing against the other's dynasty.

It's not a conspiracy so much as an entrenched aristocracy, which is actually much worse. At least a conspiracy could theoretically be uncovered and broken. An entrenched aristocracy pulls its shit right out in the open, nobody questions its right to do so for some reason, and there's no practical way to overturn it, apart from a revolution.

PS. I like using the phrase "entrenched aristocracy", but it occurs to me now that it's a redundant term. All aristocracies are naturally entrenched.

I think its a suitable term when there's no credible opposition. The 1800s saw a lot of old landed-feudal aristocracies but I would not call them "entrenched" as they were all going tits up as the new industrialist capitalist class displaced them.

[Darth Massacrus]

Don't forget that Jeb Bush is out there as former governor of Florida, and can conceivably run for president too.

I'm more worried about his son, George P Bush. He's half hispanic, and I think he could be put forward as a Republican nominee in the not too distant future. Jeb has way too much baggage, I think. What with his junkie daughter and theif wife.

I think that a President George P. Bush would be likely at some point.

[Darth Wong]

What's really interesting is how many people rush to embrace these dynasties. Remember how people would refer to the Kennedy compound as "Camelot", in a reference to the mythical King Arthur?

Our own Diomedes once commented that a lot of people seem to want to be dominated by a strongman or dictator, much as some people have a strange yearning to live under a monarch. It creates an absolute structure and predictability that some people seem to find comforting.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Our own Diomedes once commented that a lot of people seem to want to be dominated by a strongman or dictator, much as some people have a strange yearning to live under a monarch. It creates an absolute structure and predictability that some people seem to find comforting.

They also seem to be the people who torture their kids with axe handles, bullwhips, and rock salt in the basement for five days straight if they find the thimble fourth row down third from the left just half a centimeter from the perfect center of its cubby in the thimble box or if the kids dare to question the logic of bashing gays over a crawfish dinner while wearing cotton/poly underwear.