- This topic has 4 voices and 8 replies.
-
Posts
-
Do you think we have a modern-day desire to be ruled by democratic “royalty” in America? While the Founding Fathers steered clear of royal designations of Britain, it seems that in our age political dynasties are alive and well. We have the obvious cases to point at, such as the Bush dynasty (George H.W., George W., Jeb, and perhaps a rising star in the next generation); the Clinton dynasty (Bill and Hillary); and the Kennedy dynasty (too many to name). Why is this the case? Is it a case of comfort with familiarity? Desire for celebrity among our politicos? Something else? Think of it - it's quite possible that between 1988 and 2016 all of our presidents will have had last names of either "Bush" or "Clinton", by two "ruling" families. That's almost 30 years. Scary?
I think you nailed it when you said familiarity. I swear people vote on name recognition only, not realizing or understanding what the candidate stands for on issues. “Whoever has the most campaign signs on my street gets my vote” I think that's the new American way. 🙁
So then is this merely leftover of European (and perhaps global) fascination with a monarchy or system or royalty? The idea might be that there's a constant “something” in the ruling elite which may change from time to time but retains some continuous thread.
In reality we have the Adams family, John and his son John Quincy, Teddy and franklin Roosevelt Who I beleive were distant cousins and George and George W. bush. So I would say no. The Clintons are far from it, she is not going to get elected. I guess I am thinking presidents here because anything less really doesnt efect the whole nation like that office. Here in oregon we could care less about Jeb Bush, his policies just dont matter here. Same for madam Hillary, unless she sits in the oval office, outside of New York who cares? So I disagree I dont think we are seeing it. I'm sure there are some folks who go for name recogntion (see Teddy Kennedy) but most just try to find out who the lesser evils are and go there.
... most just try to find out who the lesser evils are and go there.
Sadly true; many very qualified and talented people aren't going to play the game to get the support of the monied interest groups or pander to all the varied non-monied interest groups for their body count. The lesser of the two evils is often the choice but still evil.A friend and mentor reminds us to always look at who supports the candidate but also (and perhaps more important) who the candidate has for staff and advisers. Some of the behind the scenes folks for both sides are pretty frightening to me.The only Dynasties I see look more like the TV show from a few years back... prime-time soap-opera! Just as campy to watch but the pols are as good looking as the cast of the TV show was (nor in some cases as bright).Just my $0.02 worth 🙄Wally
Ok then – here's a question. Do any of you know of political dynasties at the level of your local government? Or perhaps “dynasty” is the wrong word here. How about even family politicians? We sometimes hear about such and such congressman is the son of a former senator, or something of the sort. Is any of this at your city or state government level where you live?
We used to have the Chaffee's. But that ended rather abruptly last election. Other than that, there was really no one else in Rhode Island… unless the mob “family” counts. 😀
The Browns come to mind… AG then Gov; Pat (not sure what before AG).Son Jerry; Gov... Mayor of Oakland, now AG (not sure before Gov).All I can think of right off; nothing on the local level that I can remember.Wally
That reminds me of something I had heard a while back. Someone said that there's something like “sorrow” in politics, like when Jerry Brown became governor of California after his father (?) lost some other election. In the same way it was said that George H.W. lost in 1992 to Bill Clinton and so then people kind of felt sorry and voted his son into office. I thought it was kind of intersting but can't remember exactly where I heard it.
.... like "sorrow" in politics, like when Jerry Brown became governor of California after his father (?) lost... same way it was said that George H.W. lost in 1992 to Bill Clinton and so then people kind of felt sorry and voted his son into office. I thought it was kind of intersting but can't remember exactly where I heard it.
Seems like it could be the case... both dads were pretty main stream and respected, even if not agreed with, by the other party. The kids ride in on the thought of returning to the ol' man's philosophy after someone very counter... Reagan in the case of the Browns and Clinton for the Bush clan... we all found they weren't their dad's kind of politician, eh?Wally
