Ryan Jerz :: Reno Blogger

Fun, conversations, and occasional journalism from Reno, Nevada


Misc: Political dynasties scare me

I once told a friend of mine, when we were arguing over whether Hillary Clinton would run for president (he swore she’d never do it, I said she already was — this was in 2004 or 2005) that I’d never vote for her. A main reason for that was that she had gotten to where she was on the back of her husband. The argument is overly simplified. Another part of my reason was that I had been shaped by only seeing one side of the argument for far too long. At that time, I was way more open than I ever had been, and my openness continues to grow today, but the remnants of that conservative pundit shaping was still very evident.

As I look at candidates today, I have some immediate reactions about a lot of them. As a registered Republican, I have tried to think about who I’d vote for if the primary was held tomorrow. That will be a horrific primary for me simply because I can’t find much about any of them that I like. And because of what I see and read today, the Democrats seem far more interesting as a lot, and a lot of that has to do with Hillary Clinton.

I can’t even remember now how I came across the article in The Economist the other day, but I immediately printed it out to read closely later. It’s short, but I wanted to make sure I paid a lot of attention to it. It’s a topic I’m fascinated with and have thought about at length before.

In 2000, I had reservations about voting for George Bush. I am not a fan of political dynasties and with Bush being elected, there was a shot of his family – father, brothers, and him – sitting in a room and chatting. Whoever the commentator on TV was said something like, “an American political dynasty.” I cringed. I had helped elect him, and I was not entirely happy with what I saw there, especially when people started mentioning Jeb running at some point. But let’s not forget that I was very much influenced by the very information I mentioned before.

As it stands now, Hillary is sitting in a strong position in relation to her primary opponents. Also, she makes a great impression on people who aren’t entirely predisposed to love her. Those facts, coupled with a general tiredness of Republicans (and a lack of really good candidates) could mean a new Clinton in the White House. Is that acceptable?

If I was willing to overlook my distaste for political dynasties for George Bush, I’d like to think I’ve learned my lesson. There was enough for me to vote for him again in 2004 (I like to justify that by saying John Kerry was totally unacceptable to me), but today there is no chance I’d do it. There is so much wrong with his administration, and I can’t help but think it’s got something to do with how connected he has been his entire life. I worry that the same could happen with Clinton. She has been a part of Washington life for 15 years now and even when they first got there they weren’t a squeaky clean couple of people. Wouldn’t being president increase the amount that can go horribly awry at the hands of a very connected person who owes a lot of favors?

With that as my thinking, is it fair for me to discount the possibility of voting for Clinton simply because I don’t want another dynasty to find its way into the White House? I do pay attention to what she says and what she has done, so it’s not like I’m discounting her completely. I worry most about this quote from the article:

The dynastification of American political life is weakening America’s claim to be a democratic beacon. These days political dynasties are usually associated with the young democracies of South Asia rather than mature republics. The dynastification of its political life also points to a deeper problem: the fact that America is producing a quasi-hereditary political elite, cocooned in a world of wealth and privilege and utterly divorced from most people’s lives.

I don’t want that at all. It’s probably really naïve to think that it can be a perfect system where only the best people to lead are elected. We know we’ve often got to settle for the “best available” and we’re lucky if we know who fits that bill. I’m currently leaning toward not voting for her because I think it needs to stop now. I can change, and believe me, it’s a big deal for me to come to the realization that she could be the best candidate for me out there, but I just don’t want to fall into the trap of continuing to elect the same names over and over.


tags: bush, candidates, dynasties, politics, president clinton
posted by Ryan Jerz on 05/16/2007

Comments

wolfy, May 16, 07:56 PM #:

What a strange dilemma. I can’t say I’ve ever heard of a bush-voting republican with any doubt about that matter.

I feel like they’re all pretty well connected to be where they are, and all we can do is judge the tolerability of those connections based on the directions they’ll take the candidate.

Further your assertion that the intolerability of kerry leads one to bush is incomplete. There were a lot more than two candidates on that ballot. I see the third party ideal as any RepubliCrat is part of a dynasty. Coke, Pepsi, Ford, Chevy, Van’s, Airwalk: They make their money on image, yet are functionally indistinguishable.

-M

Ryan Jerz, May 17, 02:52 AM #:

I too have thought a lot about third parties. It’s just so hopeless. Also, I wondered if I’d get away with ignoring the fact that all those guys are connected. It looks like the answer is no. But I still think that the dynasty-types are far more likely to have favors called in, simply because the family owes someone something. But maybe not. The ultimate question I want to address is whether we should summarily deny Clinton the presidency in order to ensure we don’t have another dynasty in our midst. Which is more important, the state of our democracy, or your candidate winning?

wolfy, May 17, 03:26 AM #:

The dynasty situation is furthered by there being only two real party choices and the inflexibility of the one-shot election format.

-M

The Anon Guy, May 21, 04:26 AM #:

The subject of political dynasties has popped up over the years, but I have found that they usually take on partisan tendencies more than any feeling of it generally being bad for democracy. Sort of like term limits. Most people want them, but want them to boot out someone else’s candidate.

I remember when I was in college during a midterm general election, a conference was taking place at the same time so the dorm I was staying at was filled with older Jewish couples from the East Coast. I found myself as the lone student in the TV room that night with about 10 senior citizens (my presence apparently impressed them).

When the results ran for some Northeast race the entire crowd was up in arms over one of the candidates. Apparently he was the son of a wealthy politician and that didn’t sit well. I heard plenty of comments of “riding off the family name” and not being qualified except “by birth”.

A few minutes later another result, featuring yet another Jr. or III, was put on the screen. But this time there was a different reaction. “A chip off the family block,” “His father was so good,” etc., etc. So I asked them why one political son riding off his Dad’s name was okay, but not the other? The answer? “Because it’s the right family block. He’s a Democrat!”

Commenting is closed for this article.