Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Too Many Clintons in the Bush
In a rather overwrought column on the alleged trend of American politics towards dynasties and even monarchism, Lexington does point out something scary:
In 2009 the betting is that America will see the son of a former president replaced by the wife of another former president. If Hillary Clinton is then re-elected in 2012, the world's greatest democracy will have been ruled by either a Bush or a Clinton for 28 years straight. And why should things end there? Michael Barone, author and pundit, points out that George P. Bush, the current president's nephew, will be eligible to run for the presidency in 2012, Chelsea Clinton will be eligible in 2016 and Jeb Bush will remain a viable candidate until 2024.
Surely it is time to let somebody else take a turn. (I note that there has never been a president named Bainbridge and that my dynasty consists solely of golden retrievers.)
In any case, as Lexington notes in passing, the real problem is not dynasties but rather the divide between the elites and the rest of us:
America is producing a quasi-hereditary political elite, cocooned in a world of wealth and privilege and utterly divorced from most people's lives.Perhaps it really is time to rethink how we select political leaders, so as to get back to the old model of citizen-legislators. Term limits, anyone?
Posted on May 11, 2007 in Politics |
This may persuade me. Links at site:
http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2007/05/too_many_clinto.html
As a democracy the term limit is rightly the responsibility of VOTERS. If the majority of voters want to elect someone over and over so be it.
More to the point, how would term limits stop Hillary or another Bush or Clinton from running? Shall we pass a law that says if your related to a President you cant ever run yourself? The Presidency is already term limited as is.
Good post. I would have said something similar. I think Gunny2 is plagiarizing my thoughts.
I'm not open minded...it just seems that way because I'm never wrong and everything I say is the truth so everybody agrees with me.That's what happens when you have such an open mind that your thoughts leak out all over the place...anyone can pick them up and use them!
I'm not open minded...it just seems that way because I'm never wrong and everything I say is the truth so everybody agrees with me.
Are you disagreeing with me that everyone agrees with me? UNHEARD OF!!!!You didn't take your meds this morning did you!I'm not open minded...it just seems that way because I'm never wrong and everything I say is the truth so everybody agrees with me.
He is agreeing that you think everyone agrees with you. Is that good enough? )
Where is Pinky?
It is the huge amount of money necessary to win that underlines why there should be term limits. Otherwise, the very wealthy can purchase office over and over again. At least with term limits the candidate has to be changed. I think the Presidency should be limited to one six year term. As it is, much of the first term of a President is consumed with running for the second. Thus the first trem President is less inclined to do what is best for the country, and more inclinded to do what will deliver a second term.Interesting points but I am not sure we should restrict any person that qualifies (as outlined in the US Constitution) from running for office. However, it is apparent that unless you have a LOT of money, running for office is an exercise in futility. The 'war chests' get bigger and bigger which automatically eliminates otherwise qualified candidates from running. Unfortunately, that also means the candidates that can run have little or no idea how the common man thinks. I suspect that is why politicians are so sensitive to polls.
But don't you think that the two are correlated? If the President doesn't do what is best for the country, they most likely wouldn't get a second term.I think the Presidency should be limited to one six year term. As it is, much of the first term of a President is consumed with running for the second. Thus the first trem President is less inclined to do what is best for the country, and more inclinded to do what will deliver a second term.
It is the huge amount of money necessary to win that underlines why there should be term limits. Otherwise, the very wealthy can purchase office over and over again. At least with term limits the candidate has to be changed. I think the Presidency should be limited to one six year term. As it is, much of the first term of a President is consumed with running for the second. Thus the first trem President is less inclined to do what is best for the country, and more inclinded to do what will deliver a second term.
It would be great if they were always correlated, but they are not. No one can claim, for example, that the Bush expansion of the National Debt by $3 trillion during his term has been healthy economic behavior designed for the good of the country (btw, China is holding a lot of the notes). Bush has spent $500 billion in Iraq, but we have not paid a dime. That's because Bush (with the irresponsible help of Congress) ripped off the money from our children, and their children. I supported the war in Iraq, and though it has been amazingly mismanaged, I still think we must fight to win. But I also think that America should have paid for the war in real-time, and not let Bush grab the money from our kids. Now if Bush had forced America to actually pay for the war as it developed in 2003-4, what do you think his chance for re-election would have been? And Bush was supposed to have been a Conservative! I think that Bush's first term fiscal behavior is an example of not doing what is best for the country, rather it is an example of doing what is more likely to lead to re-election.But don't you think that the two are correlated? If the President doesn't do what is best for the country, they most likely wouldn't get a second term.
