• 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
What bothers me about the prospect of a Bush/Clinton match is that I can't believe in a country of over 300 million people we have to keep bringing in members of the same 2 families. When can we expect Chelsea Clinton to face George P. Bush?

At least these 2 families are better than the Kennedys.

It's time for some fresh new faces.
 
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...

The Rodhams are a political family. Hilary's dad was involved in Chicago politics. One of her brothers ran for a Florida Senate seat. Another brother is married to Barbara Boxer's daughter.

The Rodhams may not be born in the purple, but they are every bit part of the nobility, thanks to Hugh's success in business and wealth. A minor house, if you will.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which is one of the reasons she began calling herself "Hillary Rodham Clinton" after her husband left the WH. In addition to trying to obtain her own political power (without her husband) she ensured the connection to the Rodhams. Her father was a successful man, and what's interesting is he tried to convert his son in law to the Republican Party without much success obviously. But I think Hugh Rodham's influence over his daughter and her husband are part of the reason why I believe they are both pretty moderate Democrats - Bill certainly governed as a moderate, and I think she would do the same given the chance.
 
Peter Grimm said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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:
Paschendale said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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...

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.
 
Peter Grimm said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

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