I see there are a lot of people around the web taking shots at Hillary Clinton, or more specifically at her probable presidential candidacy in 2008.
Though I wrote five years ago that I find the whole idea of a Hillary presidential bid wildly improbable, I say the following as an admirer and supporter of Sen. Clinton. (She’s my senator now, after all.)
But here’s a reason for not supporting her candidacy that I don’t hear often enough: political dynasticism.
Inherited presidencies are not unprecedented in American history (viz. the Adamses). But father and son presidencies like the Bushes — so close in time and political consanguinity — are unprecedented. (John Q. Adams was elected twenty-four years after his father and he had arguably become a member of the opposing party.) Add to that the expectation that yet another Bush son — Jeb — will run for the presidency at some point over the next decade.
I don’t just think that’s a bad thing because it’s a political family whose politics I find egregious. I think it’s just a bad thing for the republic, period. Nor is it only the Bushes or only the presidency.
I think I’ve seen some relatively systematic data showing a growth in the number of members of congress who are political legacies. Again, not unprecedented by any means, but a tendency that is growing and one I don’t think is healthy in the aggregate.
George H. W. Bush left office to be followed by two terms of Bill Clinton. He in turn was followed by two terms of Bush’s son. If those two terms of the son are followed by the election of Clinton’s wife, I don’t see where that’s a good thing for this country. It ceases to be a fluke and grows into a pattern. It’s dynasticism.
