View Poll Results: Does the domination of the presidency by certain families bother you?

Voters
139. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    69 49.64%
  • No

    70 50.36%
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: American Royalty

  1. #31
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: American Royalty

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    I think you're splitting hairs a bit, but that's fine. I do agree that the Bush's fit the classical definition of a dynasty a bit closer than the Clinton's. That being acknowledged, then, that still leaves the question of whether it's good for America to have the power of the executive, in the past 25 years, limited in large part to two families?

    Is Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Clinton any better, from the perspective of maintaining a meritocratic society, than Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Bush?

    We're each entitled to our own opinion, mine being that neither scenario is particularly healthy nor good for the furtherance of an American society built on the shared core belief that merit, above entitlement, determines one's position in life.
    Yes, the former is better than the latter in terms of worrying about dynastic succession in the United States. The Clintons have done very little to concentrate power into something that can be inherited. The Bushes have been doing it for a century. There's no comparison. The Clintons both earned their positions through merit. The current generation of Bushes inherited theirs.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  2. #32
    Why so serious?

    Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,291

    Re: American Royalty

    Lot of partisan hackery in this thread, but that aside it doesn't bother me either way. If that's who the people vote for then that's who we have to contend with.
    Last edited by Moon; 02-04-15 at 01:34 PM.
    "I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."

    --Albert Einstein, 1929

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: American Royalty

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Yes, the former is better than the latter in terms of worrying about dynastic succession in the United States. The Clintons have done very little to concentrate power into something that can be inherited. The Bushes have been doing it for a century. There's no comparison. The Clintons both earned their positions through merit. The current generation of Bushes inherited theirs.
    I don't think you understood the question. What I was asking was whether you believe having another Clinton or Bush in office will further the perception that being from the right family, as opposed to simply merit, is the deciding factor in determining the presidency.

    Also, if yes, is this harmful?

  4. #34
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: American Royalty

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    The dems appear all but certain to place Hillary Clinton on the presidential ticket. It's looking more likely every day that the Republicans will follow suit and place Jeb Bush on theirs.

    If that does happen as expected, then for the past quarter century our presidential order has been: Bush - Clinton - Bush - Obama - Bush OR Clinton.


    My question is.... does that bother you? It bothers me. Not as a Republican or Democrat, but just as an American. No matter who wins: Bush or Clinton.

    One of the defining things about America has always been the ideal that this is a meritocracy.... you attain high positions based on hard work, smarts, and determination. The whole "rags to riches" ideal, where any man or woman can rise from nothing to become something, I feel is under attack.

    If we choose, as a country, to go down the road of dynastic leadership, of familial rule, of royalty in all but title.... then don't we lose something that once made us who we are?

    Maybe it's only natural. After all, dynasties and royalty have been the norm in governments around the world for thousands of years. Maybe we are just gravitating back to our natural, base instincts as humans. But I hate to think that.

    Voice your opinion, please.
    I say, No Legacies! There are enough people in America to choose presidents from different family lines. We don't need some closed group of aristocrats only.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  5. #35
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: American Royalty

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    I don't think you understood the question. What I was asking was whether you believe having another Clinton or Bush in office will further the perception that being from the right family, as opposed to simply merit, is the deciding factor in determining the presidency.

    Also, if yes, is this harmful?
    Jeb Bush would do that. Hillary Clinton would not. Neither Clinton's claim to fame is being from a specific family. The Bushes are entirely about being from the right family. And it is very harmful to pass political power from parent to child. I would have a problem with Chelsea Clinton for this reason, but not Hillary. Hillary earned her position the same as Bill. The Bushes have been inheriting power for a century. I have a big problem with inherited power. I don't have a problem with two people earning their political clout that happen to be married.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  6. #36
    Guru
    Smeagol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 11:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,147

    Re: American Royalty

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    The dems appear all but certain to place Hillary Clinton on the presidential ticket. It's looking more likely every day that the Republicans will follow suit and place Jeb Bush on theirs.

    If that does happen as expected, then for the past quarter century our presidential order has been: Bush - Clinton - Bush - Obama - Bush OR Clinton.


    My question is.... does that bother you? It bothers me. Not as a Republican or Democrat, but just as an American. No matter who wins: Bush or Clinton.

    One of the defining things about America has always been the ideal that this is a meritocracy.... you attain high positions based on hard work, smarts, and determination. The whole "rags to riches" ideal, where any man or woman can rise from nothing to become something, I feel is under attack.

    If we choose, as a country, to go down the road of dynastic leadership, of familial rule, of royalty in all but title.... then don't we lose something that once made us who we are?

    Maybe it's only natural. After all, dynasties and royalty have been the norm in governments around the world for thousands of years. Maybe we are just gravitating back to our natural, base instincts as humans. But I hate to think that.

    Voice your opinion, please.
    I am way more bothered by the hundreds of millions it takes to "buy" the White House.

    As long as that who the public votes for, I'm fine with it.

    I do think more media attention needs to be offered to the third and fourth parties like having the Libertarian candidate debate the Green Party candidate and put it on the news channels.
    Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •