Dynasties

Filed under: 2008 elections — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on January 31, 2008 @ 7:00 pm CET

Nicholas Kristof wrote quite a thought-provoking column for the Spiegel called “The Dynastic Question.” It all, as should be obvious, revolves around the question whether it is or isn’t a problem that if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, four people out of two families will have held the highest office in 28 years. A problem… or not? Kristof doesn’t answer the question as such, but he believes that there should be an honest debate about this issue.

He explains why Americans don’t like dynasties: “Yet we have faced this trade-off frequently over the last 215 years and regularly inclined on the side of fresh blood. In 1796, George Washington’s skill and popular mandate seemed invaluable at a perilous time in our nation’s infancy. Yet we overwhelmingly believe that it was good for American democracy that he stepped down after two terms.”

Kristof goes on to explain:

We remember John Quincy Adams as intelligent and diligent, but his presidency is diminished by the hint of dynastic succession and is seen as emblematic of a parochial time when America was ruled by an incestuous elite. Some day, I suspect we may detect the same narrowness in the rise of the Bush Dynasty and, if there is one, in the Clinton Dynasty.

We added the 22nd Amendment, limiting presidents to two terms, on the rationale that levers of power should turn over to keep our democracy healthy. Many Democrats today would consider Bill Clinton intrinsically the best person to serve as president for the next eight years. And yet, even if there weren’t a 22nd Amendment, we would shy away from that; we prefer the risk of an unproven president to the risk of stasis and aristocracy.

I think that he has a fair point and it’s certainly a question I would have to answer if I were American. Luckily I’m not.

No, seriously: it’s a good question and one everyone should keep in mind. Are you willing to do this? Are you willing to vote for a dynasty? What matters more, no dynasty or the best person for the job?

He also points out that, by the way, that it’s ironic that Barack Obama’s supporters talk about the Clinton ‘dynasty’ every now and then, yet forget to mention that their guy relies heavily on the support of yet another, and much more powerful, dynasty: the Kennedy clan.

As it is, I have to say I don’t have a real problem with this. The question of dynasties is only, in my opinion, relevant when someone isn’t elected but elects him- or herself. Then again, we have a monarch, so perhaps that’s why I don’t really see a problem with it. I subscribe to Kristof’s “counterargument”: you should always vote for the best person for the job, regardless of connection, family members, etc.

But… Americans may have a problem with it, and I think that all of them have to answer this question for themselves.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email.

1 kranky kritter

January 31, 2008 @ 7:57 pm CET

How about the "two is a trend" problem? Like when you find out someone at work is sick, and then 15 minutes later you find out another co-worker is sick, and suddenly "everyone is sick!" Has our adoration of patterns led us to so discount the concept of a dynasty that we ought to be concerned by a mere 2 Bush presidencies and the prospect of a 2nd Clinton Presidency? Pretty laughable at this point.Maybe if another couple decades go by and we are staring down the barrel of a bid by Chelsea or one of the reformed alcoholic Bush twins, I’ll start worrying. In the meantime, I feel comfortable betting that this alleged pattern is going to stop at 2.

2 Dylan

January 31, 2008 @ 8:08 pm CET

A lot of people would have voted for RFK if he hadn’t have been killed. Were the Roosevelt family bad for the country? Not a chance.

If Hillary (or anyone) wins because of their last name or their spouse then that is a problem. But if they are elected and do the same sort of job that the Roosevelts did then there’s no problem. I would never vote for a person like Hillary - and couldn’t anyway as a foreigner - but I wouldn’t let a thing like who she was related to play any role in that choice.

3 Elyas

January 31, 2008 @ 8:23 pm CET

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as they say. That’s why many Americans have a distaste for dynasties and many of us are tired of these two families. The Clintons have been in power for a very long time and are very different than they were in the 90s.

4 Hillary Clinton » Dynasties

January 31, 2008 @ 8:27 pm CET

[…] Against Hillary Clinton Where the facts are - Hillary Clinton News wrote an interesting post today on DynastiesHere’s a quick excerpt…should be obvious, revolves around the question whether it is or isn’t a problem that if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, four people… […]