Bush versus Clinton? Again?

One of the reasons I supported Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton is because I have a real dislike of dynasties. We have over 300 million people in the US. Can’t we stop electing husbands and wives and sons and daughters of the same politicians?

This is nothing against Hillary. I think she’d be a fine President.

But now Jeb Bush may decide to run in 2016, and we could be presented with the third Bush getting a nomination and a race that looks awfully familiar: Clinton versus Bush.

In America, we don’t have royalty, but we apparently have something similar: A Ruling Class. We’ve had our Roosevelts and our Kennedys and our Bushes and our Clintons, going all the way back to John Adams and John Quincy Adams. Not that these people have necessarily been unqualified, but in a country this large, it would be nice to see who else is out there.

3 thoughts on “Bush versus Clinton? Again?

  1. I remember how much it fussed me when The Shrub was running — because, like you, I want to know who else is out there besides Wealthy White Men. Well, President Obama is a departure, and it is one reason I supported him. (Only time my parents and I have disagreed about a candidate…they were Clinton supporters.) I agree that Hilary Clinton would make a fine president, and I think she is more electable now than she was. She is whealthy and white, but she is not a man…and O have to admit there has to be a better way to get a Seven Sisters student in the White House than as First Lady. (Nancy Regan graduated from Smith, and Barbara Bush dropped out of Smith to marry George Sr.) Obviously, I’d prefer a Smithie to a Wellesleyite, but you can’t have everything.

    Like

  2. Of course, the real challenge is HOW are we going to see these other people? It seems impossible to believe that – at least since the middle 1800s – there has not always been a person to better be President than whomever is currently President. As you said, Mike; not a slam on those men who were President. Just that there simply must be better qualified people.

    The single advantage they have is The Machine. Political parties, media, and the natural (?) tendency for the public to have a mob mentality, eager to follow whomever wants to lead, be it political parties, media, etc. are part of this Machine. Not necessarily in a planned fashion – parts actually work against each other, while other parts are disconnected – but part of the same formula.

    To further compound the issue, the Presidency is going to be a product of the government from which it is produced. Governors, members of Congress, Cabinet members, and high ranking military officers, are the most likely people to become the next President. If the core of those groups is rotten, self-serving, egocentric, and out of touch, how can we expect anything different from a Presidential candidate?

    What would happen, I wonder, if term limits were imposed on members of Congress? If campaign reform actually and effectively limited campaign spending to semi-sane limits? If campaign promises were legally binding? And if every 20 years, there was a “reset” button hit, and the run for President became a regional playoff, where candidates could only run in their Region. Those candidates who won in each Region would then take it to the national level for a full campaign. Probably utter nonsense, but it certainly would shake up who eventually works in the Oval Office, I’m betting.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s