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.
