• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

American Royalty

Does the domination of the presidency by certain families bother you?

  • Total voters
    30
Peter Grimm

Peter Grimm

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
10,348
Reaction score
2,426
Location
The anals of history
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
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.
 
The fact that the candidates' names may once again be Bush and Clinton does not really bother me. If the public at large selects another Bush or Clinton then that's up to them. It's the positions of candidates that people vote for that bothers me way more than the last names of the candidates.
 
The Clintons are still only relevant because scandals (particularly the sex kind) or the rumors thereof have wiped out most of a good number of rising stars. Chuck Robb, John Edwards, Evan Bayh, various Kennedy's, Ron Brown was a rising star until he got sucked into Clinton stuff and then plastered against a mountaintop all come to mind.
 
Influence, connections, money... all forms of power. There is an elite that has an overabundance of one or more of these commodities. They are absolutely royalty, in all definitions of the words but for name only. One doesn't just need to be part of a political dynasty to be considered royalty. Buffet, Gates, Gore, Koch, Turner, Geffen, Ford.... all American royalty.
 
It isn't the names that bother me. It's what is happening to our country and our society, and the apparent lack of good sense among the general population. The fact that we keep putting in the equivalent of political rock stars, and that we are so easily suckered, while we just keep heading toward insolvency, bothers me.
 
It's not royalty, it's oligarchy.
 
Guy Incognito said:
It's not royalty, it's oligarchy.
Click to expand...

What is the difference? Nobility is simply hereditary oligarchy, and there is nothing illegal nor even immoral about the hereditary bequeathing of power and wealth in our system. When you look at political dynasties, it's clear to see that Bush or a Clinton or a Paul or a Kennedy or a Romney has a much easier time striking right to the elite of the elite, the tip top of the tippy top. Politics has always been a family business, ever since we came down out of the trees. Before that, even, if I had to guess.
 
Apparently, all of these people are distantly related, too. Obama is like a distant cousin to Bush, and Clinton is related somehow to some other person, all from the 1600s, or something.


In other words, a bunch of good ol boys from the good ol days are running things.
 
Peter Grimm said:
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.
Click to expand...

It bothers me. It's a fault with the system.

That's why I really appreciate a guy like Obama- who really is about as self-made as anyone.
 
lizzie said:
...The fact that we keep putting in the equivalent of political rock stars, and that we are so easily suckered, while we just keep heading toward insolvency, bothers me.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you what, I agree with this part 100%. It's concerning, because it makes one question the sustainability of our style of government election.

Even some of the founding fathers questioned the wisdom of allowing the masses to directly elect a president.
 
Threegoofs said:
It bothers me. It's a fault with the system.

That's why I really appreciate a guy like Obama- who really is about as self-made as anyone.
Click to expand...

In this context and compared to his predecessors and likely successor, I suppose you're right. The caveat, though, is by normal standards, Obama is hardly "self-made." He was handpicked by the democratic elite from the time he ran for senator.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Congratulations, you're THAT GUY.

Anyway, for the record, I didn't say the Bush's or Clinton's were royalty. I said they were "royalty in all but title," which is accurate.
Click to expand...

"Royalty in all but title" is a silly thing to say. Title is what makes it royalty. We have a word for "royalty in all but title."
 
Honestly Jeb Bush doesn't bother me... He has different policies. I don't believe he is an establishment republican, he has some radical ideas that conflict with much of the party that crosses to the other side. I'm fully aware of all the ins and connections web that has made Jeb become a possible nominee... but so far, the choice would be one that the American People can honestly decide with his open campaign strategy.

Clinton is a different story... in my opinion. She is an establishment democrat who's been beginning for this position for quite a long time, and she's been in Washington for quite a long time... she stinks of out of touch rich DC democrat culture. There are too many motives... too many schemers...a Hilary presidency would be a democratic party presidency.

not that I like Jeb... lol
 
Guy Incognito said:
"Royalty in all but title" is a silly thing to say. Title is what makes it royalty. We have a word for "royalty in all but title."
Click to expand...

Alright, this convo is sidetracking the main discussion so I'm gonna bow out. I'll just say that, while you might think "royalty in all but title" is a silly way to word the present situation in which we have essentially two dynastic families controlling the White House, it does fit the bill, and it's a hell of a lot punchier than saying "oligarchy."

Esoteric words tend to disconnect your audience from your message: use simple-but-effective language whenever possible. My 2 cents. You're entitled to your opinion. Now let's get back on topic.
 
Peter Grimm said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hillary is related to Bill Clinton by marriage only. The only dynasty is the Bush one. Let us pray we don't let another one of them get the Whitehouse. They are bad blood.
 
iguanaman said:
Hillary is related to Bill Clinton by marriage only. The only dynasty is the Bush one. Let us pray we don't let another one of them get the Whitehouse. They are bad blood.
Click to expand...

I think that's a stretch. Marrying in to royalty has historically been a path to the throne, so to speak. It doesn't make it any better.

My main concern is this: Regardless of who wins (Bush or Clinton), does the belief in meritocracy diminish to a point where, say, a child growing up in this era says to himself/herself, "I could never be president, because I wasn't born a Bush, or I wasn't born a Clinton?"

Do we lose that sense that everyone, no matter what situation they were born in to, has a shot at whatever they put their mind to, including the highest office in the land?

Because that would be a loss for this country, indeed.

I will say this about Barak Obama. While I'm not a fan of his politics, I do appreciate the fact that because he was able to rise to the office of president, now an entire race of young Americans can look to the White House and say to themselves, "That isn't beyond me. If I put my mind to it, maybe one day I could achieve something great too."

I believe we need that.
 
KevinKohler said:
Apparently, all of these people are distantly related, too. Obama is like a distant cousin to Bush, and Clinton is related somehow to some other person, all from the 1600s, or something.


In other words, a bunch of good ol boys from the good ol days are running things.
Click to expand...

Uh... if you are white/black and your family goes back more than 3 generations in this country, chances are that you have some relation to a president too. However, that relationship may be a cousin a few times removed. Hardly anything you could use to get further ahead. Obama is supposedly cousins with Bush... however in order to establish that connection you need to go back 11 generations and find some farmer in a colony. Fast forward 11 generations and you have Obama being raised by a lower middle class mother and Bush being the child of a well off family. Sure, they're subjectively related but how they reached the oval office is extremely different. So hardly "good ol boys".
 
iguanaman said:
Hillary is related to Bill Clinton by marriage only. The only dynasty is the Bush one. Let us pray we don't let another one of them get the Whitehouse. They are bad blood.
Click to expand...
Hilary's father was also involved in Chicago politics; one brother ran for a Senate seat in Florida; the other brother married Barbara Boxer's daughter.

"Rodham" is its own minor royal house in American politics.
 
Peter Grimm said:
In this context and compared to his predecessors and likely successor, I suppose you're right. The caveat, though, is by normal standards, Obama is hardly "self-made." He was handpicked by the democratic elite from the time he ran for senator.
Click to expand...

Well, it's what you do before you make Senator that makes you 'self-made'. Once you get to Senator, you already made yourself.
 
I think it's inaccurate to describe the Bushes and Clintons as a direct parallel. The Bush family really is dynastic. Samuel Prescott Bush was a political appointee. His son became a senator. His son became president. And his two sons both became governors of different states and one became president. And now a second will attempt to do so again. That's a dynasty. That's a family passing political power along the generations. That is a century of Bushes holding immense power in this nation. Time will tell if they will continue to pass this power on.

Bill Clinton is the son of a salesman and a nurse and Hillary's parents were similarly a salesman and a housewife. They are members of the same profession and came up within the ranks of that profession together. At every turn, they were both involved in politics and neither has really ridden the other's coattails. In a world without the sex prejudice that ours has, every office held by Bill could just as easily been held by Hillary and vice versa, including the presidency. They are, indisputably, a team. They did not inherit any political power nor pass any on to their daughter. That's not a dynasty.
 
Peter Grimm said:
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.
Click to expand...


It is worrying how difficult it seems to be for the voters to learn a new name.
 
Paschendale said:
I think it's inaccurate to describe the Bushes and Clintons as a direct parallel. The Bush family really is dynastic. Samuel Prescott Bush was a political appointee. His son became a senator. His son became president. And his two sons both became governors of different states and one became president. And now a second will attempt to do so again. That's a dynasty. That's a family passing political power along the generations. That is a century of Bushes holding immense power in this nation. Time will tell if they will continue to pass this power on.

Bill Clinton is the son of a salesman and a nurse and Hillary's parents were similarly a salesman and a housewife. They are members of the same profession and came up within the ranks of that profession together. At every turn, they were both involved in politics and neither has really ridden the other's coattails. In a world without the sex prejudice that ours has, every office held by Bill could just as easily been held by Hillary and vice versa, including the presidency. They are, indisputably, a team. They did not inherit any political power nor pass any on to their daughter. That's not a dynasty.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom