4 ms·

When you see the same family names in so many places (Bush, Kennedy, Clinton) the oligarchic tendencies are pretty obvious. It's fucking crazy that 2 Bushes hav

by dools 11y ago

When you see the same family names in so many places (Bush, Kennedy, Clinton) the oligarchic tendencies are pretty obvious. It's fucking crazy that 2 Bushes have been president, and Jeb Bush is a governor, and might one day be president. This would never happen in a healthy democracy.

forrestthewoods 11y ago
Why not? Was is the definition of a healthy democracy? How do you judge a democracy as healthy or unhealthy? It's quite common for children to follow in their parents footsteps. Parents of any field can train their children in that field providing significant advantage over other children. Would it not stand to reason that children of politicians are best positioned to be politicians themselves?
- GigabyteCoin 11y ago
  >It's quite common for children to follow in their parents footsteps. Sure, but there are arguably 300 million people in America who "would like to be president" I imagine. It's every child's dream, isn't it? To grow up to be president one day? There are millions of people who want to play professional basketball, too. And many more "professional basketball player" positions available as there are POTUS. But even still, after the ~3,000 professional basketball players that the NBA has seen pass through it's doors, only 78 of them have become "second generation" professional basketball players. [0] The odds of both sons of a former POTUS becoming (or even having a strong chance of becoming, in Jeb's case) president are just out of this world when compared to other disciplines. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_second-generation_National_Basketball_Association_players https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_second-generation_Nati... edit: I changed 10,000 pro basketball players to ~3,000 as per forrestthewoods's info below.
  - forrestthewoods 11y ago
    There's only been 3000 NBA players in 50 years. http://www.red94.net/3071-nba-players-past-50-years-guess-many-better-start-james-harden/13856/ http://www.red94.net/3071-nba-players-past-50-years-guess-ma... I wonder what the rate for lawyers is. I have cousins that are fourth generation lawyer. How many lawyers had a parent or grandparent as a lawyer? I bet it's a lot. Are people complaining that the new Canadian PM is a child of a former PM? Maybe politicians are better if they were around politicians as children. Not just more likely to win. But actually better leaders. I don't know. I'm not saying they are. But I'm not saying they aren't either.
r00fus 11y ago
One of the big arguments made against Hillary Clinton in 08 (by Obama) was the argument against dynasty. Of course half the democratic operatives worked for one or the other on the campaign... and aides and fundraisers are a key part of the oligarchic elite.
- zappo2938 11y ago
  Did you read the part in the wiki article about student unions? >>Every year between one quarter and one half of the membership turns over, and Gregory argues this creates a situation where elected student leaders become dependent on student union staff for institutional memory and guidance. Although Obama was president, Bill Clinton's former Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, who is very close to him personally was Secretary of Defense and Director of the CIA while Bill Clinton's wife was Secretary of State. All top positions in the Department of Defense, CIA, and Department of State are connected to this very small group. It's amazing that Obama is president and Bill Clinton's closest allies are in top positions. Long after the Clintons are gone their influence will remain in the 'institutional memory'.
  - caseysoftware 11y ago
    And that is the exact problem with term limits. Legislators transitioning in and out regularly would just move the power from their hands into their staffers' hands.. aka people who are hired and fired without any public recognition or even knowing who they are.
desdiv 11y ago
I love this factoid: when was the last time a Republican won the presidency without either a Bush or a Nixon on the ticket? 1928 [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/who-was-the-last-gop-president-to-win-without-a-bush-or-nixon-on-the-ticket/2012/11/05/8e6999b8-2787-11e2-b2a0-ae18d6159439_blog.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/who-wa...
- refurb 11y ago
  What about Eisenhower?
  - adventured 11y ago
    Nixon was the Vice President under Eisenhower 1953-1961.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
nostrademons 11y ago
I was just thinking that from 1988 to 2008 (20 years), a Bush or Clinton was president the entire time. From 1980 to 2013, a Bush or Clinton was either President, Vice President, or Secretary of State the entire time. If Hillary or Jeb Bush wins in 2016 and serves two terms, then from 1980 to 2024, the only years that a Bush or Clinton will not have been in one of the three executive offices of the United States is 2013-2016. Let that sink in: for 40 out 44 years, members of the same two families will have occupied the top 3 offices in government, and for 28 years, they will have been President. Man. I thought we got rid of hereditary monarchies in 1776, but that's a helluva lot longer than most kings served.
- adventured 11y ago
  Secretary of State isn't one of the top three offices in the Federal Government. Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate are both higher, and plainly more important. It can also easily be argued that the Chief Justice and Fed Chair (granted the Fed occupies an unusual quasi-government role, it's fully within the control of the US Government) positions are far more important, influential, and powerful as far as the Federal Government is concerned, compared to the Secretary of State.
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    > Secretary of State isn't one of the top three offices in the Federal Government. > Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate are both higher, and plainly more important. There's an easy measure by which Secretary of State is third; they succeed after the vice president. Why are the two you listed "plainly" more important than Secretary of State?
    - unclenoriega 11y ago
      Although it's been switched around a few times, since 1947 the order has been Vice President, Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, then Secretary of State and the rest of the cabinet.
    - 11y ago
rayiner 11y ago
What makes you think that this wouldn't happen in a healthy democracy? You see dynasties in many other areas (business and sports, for example), so why is it surprising to see it in politics?
- jdc 11y ago
  Well in business, you can give your kid the company, and if any employees protest you just tell them "this is not a democracy" so that's not the best comparison.
  - zo1 11y ago
    Also, the company belongs to the owner, so he naturally can do anything he wants with it in terms of leadership,etc. I'd say that's the most important distinction rather than "this is not a democracy".
- usrusr 11y ago
  The point of this "iron rule" is that those dynasties are not surprising at all. What makes a system less bad than others is damage mitigation. The power of Bush or a Clinton isn't quite the same as that of a Bourbon or a Romanov and, even more important, the modern day versions collapse in refreshingly unspectacular ways if they do.
- dools 11y ago
  Does this happen much in sport? I see it a lot in music, acting and business, because nepotism is so easily perpetrated there, just as in politics. Sports I can't think of any familial dynasties. Might just be because I don't really like sports but when have there been 2 players who were the pinnacle of their sport? In fact, even in music we see manufactured dynasties but rarely organic dynasties (eg. Julian Lennon was nowhere near as popular as John Lennon but he nonetheless got a hit record). It all just suggests that these are orchestrated, oligarchical results, rather than the result of healthy democracy.
enlightenedfool 11y ago
Same with another democracy - India. The "Gandhi"s have been ruling for over half a century.
- deathtrader666 11y ago
  Just to make things clear, this Gandhi family is not related at all to Mahatma Gandhi. At India's Independence, Jawaharlal Nehru was the Prime Minister. His daughter, Indira, married Ferozeshah Ghandy [1], who was born into a Parsi family. Indira Gandhi's son Rajiv Gandhi married an Italian woman, who is now known as Sonia Gandhi [2] Sonia Gandhi's son Rahul Gandhi is now a Member of Parliament. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feroze_Gandhi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feroze_Gandhi [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Gandhi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Gandhi
bayesianhorse 11y ago
Not necessarily. In U.S. politics the most important persons are always figure heads. Their prominence hides democratic and not so democratic mechanisms behind decision making or electing these figure heads. The more troubling thing about the U.S. is, that the public demands qualities from their leaders which bear no meaningful predictive power on their leadership skills. At best, these politicians are a "costly signal" for the competency and reliability of the party behind that leader, whose members or employees are duing the actual work of governance.
- davedx 11y ago
  > In U.S. politics the most important persons are always figure heads. Their prominence hides democratic and not so democratic mechanisms behind decision making or electing these figure heads. Interesting, watching US politics from the outside it seems like Obama (OK, the executive branch) has a hell of a lot of power. Personally I agree with a lot of his recent "legacy forging" executive orders, but they sure don't feel very democratic. If Jeb Bush became president, I would expect a very Bush-like reign. War with Iran, for example.
  - unclenoriega 11y ago
    I'm not so sure about the Jeb Bush presidency. He seems like much more of a policy wonk than his brother. I'm not I know enough to compare him with his father.

by dools 11y ago

forrestthewoods 11y ago

Why not? Was is the definition of a healthy democracy? How do you judge a democracy as healthy or unhealthy? It's quite common for children to follow in their parents footsteps. Parents of any field can train their children in that field providing significant advantage over other children. Would it not stand to reason that children of politicians are best positioned to be politicians themselves?

GigabyteCoin 11y ago
>It's quite common for children to follow in their parents footsteps. Sure, but there are arguably 300 million people in America who "would like to be president" I imagine. It's every child's dream, isn't it? To grow up to be president one day? There are millions of people who want to play professional basketball, too. And many more "professional basketball player" positions available as there are POTUS. But even still, after the ~3,000 professional basketball players that the NBA has seen pass through it's doors, only 78 of them have become "second generation" professional basketball players. [0] The odds of both sons of a former POTUS becoming (or even having a strong chance of becoming, in Jeb's case) president are just out of this world when compared to other disciplines. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_second-generation_National_Basketball_Association_players https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_second-generation_Nati... edit: I changed 10,000 pro basketball players to ~3,000 as per forrestthewoods's info below.
- forrestthewoods 11y ago
  There's only been 3000 NBA players in 50 years. http://www.red94.net/3071-nba-players-past-50-years-guess-many-better-start-james-harden/13856/ http://www.red94.net/3071-nba-players-past-50-years-guess-ma... I wonder what the rate for lawyers is. I have cousins that are fourth generation lawyer. How many lawyers had a parent or grandparent as a lawyer? I bet it's a lot. Are people complaining that the new Canadian PM is a child of a former PM? Maybe politicians are better if they were around politicians as children. Not just more likely to win. But actually better leaders. I don't know. I'm not saying they are. But I'm not saying they aren't either.

r00fus 11y ago

One of the big arguments made against Hillary Clinton in 08 (by Obama) was the argument against dynasty. Of course half the democratic operatives worked for one or the other on the campaign... and aides and fundraisers are a key part of the oligarchic elite.

zappo2938 11y ago
Did you read the part in the wiki article about student unions? >>Every year between one quarter and one half of the membership turns over, and Gregory argues this creates a situation where elected student leaders become dependent on student union staff for institutional memory and guidance. Although Obama was president, Bill Clinton's former Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, who is very close to him personally was Secretary of Defense and Director of the CIA while Bill Clinton's wife was Secretary of State. All top positions in the Department of Defense, CIA, and Department of State are connected to this very small group. It's amazing that Obama is president and Bill Clinton's closest allies are in top positions. Long after the Clintons are gone their influence will remain in the 'institutional memory'.
- caseysoftware 11y ago
  And that is the exact problem with term limits. Legislators transitioning in and out regularly would just move the power from their hands into their staffers' hands.. aka people who are hired and fired without any public recognition or even knowing who they are.

desdiv 11y ago

I love this factoid: when was the last time a Republican won the presidency without either a Bush or a Nixon on the ticket? 1928 [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/who-was-the-last-gop-president-to-win-without-a-bush-or-nixon-on-the-ticket/2012/11/05/8e6999b8-2787-11e2-b2a0-ae18d6159439_blog.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/who-wa...

refurb 11y ago
What about Eisenhower?
- adventured 11y ago
  Nixon was the Vice President under Eisenhower 1953-1961.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

nostrademons 11y ago

I was just thinking that from 1988 to 2008 (20 years), a Bush or Clinton was president the entire time. From 1980 to 2013, a Bush or Clinton was either President, Vice President, or Secretary of State the entire time. If Hillary or Jeb Bush wins in 2016 and serves two terms, then from 1980 to 2024, the only years that a Bush or Clinton will not have been in one of the three executive offices of the United States is 2013-2016. Let that sink in: for 40 out 44 years, members of the same two families will have occupied the top 3 offices in government, and for 28 years, they will have been President. Man. I thought we got rid of hereditary monarchies in 1776, but that's a helluva lot longer than most kings served.

adventured 11y ago
Secretary of State isn't one of the top three offices in the Federal Government. Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate are both higher, and plainly more important. It can also easily be argued that the Chief Justice and Fed Chair (granted the Fed occupies an unusual quasi-government role, it's fully within the control of the US Government) positions are far more important, influential, and powerful as far as the Federal Government is concerned, compared to the Secretary of State.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  > Secretary of State isn't one of the top three offices in the Federal Government. > Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate are both higher, and plainly more important. There's an easy measure by which Secretary of State is third; they succeed after the vice president. Why are the two you listed "plainly" more important than Secretary of State?
  - unclenoriega 11y ago
    Although it's been switched around a few times, since 1947 the order has been Vice President, Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, then Secretary of State and the rest of the cabinet.
  - 11y ago

rayiner 11y ago

What makes you think that this wouldn't happen in a healthy democracy? You see dynasties in many other areas (business and sports, for example), so why is it surprising to see it in politics?

jdc 11y ago
Well in business, you can give your kid the company, and if any employees protest you just tell them "this is not a democracy" so that's not the best comparison.
- zo1 11y ago
  Also, the company belongs to the owner, so he naturally can do anything he wants with it in terms of leadership,etc. I'd say that's the most important distinction rather than "this is not a democracy".
usrusr 11y ago
The point of this "iron rule" is that those dynasties are not surprising at all. What makes a system less bad than others is damage mitigation. The power of Bush or a Clinton isn't quite the same as that of a Bourbon or a Romanov and, even more important, the modern day versions collapse in refreshingly unspectacular ways if they do.
dools 11y ago
Does this happen much in sport? I see it a lot in music, acting and business, because nepotism is so easily perpetrated there, just as in politics. Sports I can't think of any familial dynasties. Might just be because I don't really like sports but when have there been 2 players who were the pinnacle of their sport? In fact, even in music we see manufactured dynasties but rarely organic dynasties (eg. Julian Lennon was nowhere near as popular as John Lennon but he nonetheless got a hit record). It all just suggests that these are orchestrated, oligarchical results, rather than the result of healthy democracy.

enlightenedfool 11y ago

Same with another democracy - India. The "Gandhi"s have been ruling for over half a century.

deathtrader666 11y ago
Just to make things clear, this Gandhi family is not related at all to Mahatma Gandhi. At India's Independence, Jawaharlal Nehru was the Prime Minister. His daughter, Indira, married Ferozeshah Ghandy [1], who was born into a Parsi family. Indira Gandhi's son Rajiv Gandhi married an Italian woman, who is now known as Sonia Gandhi [2] Sonia Gandhi's son Rahul Gandhi is now a Member of Parliament. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feroze_Gandhi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feroze_Gandhi [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Gandhi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Gandhi

bayesianhorse 11y ago

Not necessarily. In U.S. politics the most important persons are always figure heads. Their prominence hides democratic and not so democratic mechanisms behind decision making or electing these figure heads. The more troubling thing about the U.S. is, that the public demands qualities from their leaders which bear no meaningful predictive power on their leadership skills. At best, these politicians are a "costly signal" for the competency and reliability of the party behind that leader, whose members or employees are duing the actual work of governance.

davedx 11y ago
> In U.S. politics the most important persons are always figure heads. Their prominence hides democratic and not so democratic mechanisms behind decision making or electing these figure heads. Interesting, watching US politics from the outside it seems like Obama (OK, the executive branch) has a hell of a lot of power. Personally I agree with a lot of his recent "legacy forging" executive orders, but they sure don't feel very democratic. If Jeb Bush became president, I would expect a very Bush-like reign. War with Iran, for example.
- unclenoriega 11y ago
  I'm not so sure about the Jeb Bush presidency. He seems like much more of a policy wonk than his brother. I'm not I know enough to compare him with his father.