Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton: Dynasty or Democracy?



Bushclinton In my recent post about predictions for 2008, I was (not) surprised to find most of the debate being around the comment of the collapse of the Emerging project. Actually, I think it’ll be more about the language changing, but hey.

What garnered no comment was the prediction about ’08 being the year when people begin to critique democracy as an effective way of getting things done. I guess people were happy with that one, right?

Well, here’s your chance in the US to do the democracy thing. And I hope you really use the right well. Last night I watched Moore’s ‘Sicko‘, and actually found it a much better and more heart-felt film than I thought I would. The ending plea to America to be a country that cares for one another, to be a place where people-power really works and where people can rise up and really change the god-awful healthcare and education systems that do so little for the poor was genuinely moving.

But then it struck me as the news of Clinton winning in NH filtered through: what if she gets through and wins? Your honour-board of Presidents would thus read:

1989-1993 Bush

1993-1997 Clinton

1997-2001 Clinton

2001-2004 Bush

2004-2008 Bush

2008-2010 Clinton

Are these really the best people you’ve got? This isn’t a meritocracy. This isn’t even really democracy. It’s bloody dynasty – the leaders of the free world for the past 30 years coming from just two families. Surely that can’t be right. Hilary can talk ‘change in Washington’ all she likes. But I can’t see how voting her in could be anything less. Clean sweep, I say.



10 responses to “Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton: Dynasty or Democracy?”

  1. If Clinton does get in and serves one term the clintons will still have done less than thatcher and only just more than Blair.
    Perhaps, it’s the two term limit that creates dynasties, you don’t have time to get really, really pissed off with the leader and so in a few years time you’re happy to give them another try, albeit through their son or partner.

  2. And don’t you think it’s a bit more like a brand than a dynasty (“better the devil you know by association”)? Example – you go to McDonalds or Starbucks because you know what you’re going to get… Just a thought? But let’s definitely get worried if Cherie gets selected and elected!!

  3. I live in Iowa and caucused my little heart out for Obama. I wish you could have been there to see the “emerging” spirit that was in the room. Im not too concerned that she won, she only won by 3% and we have a lot more states to go – watch on Feb 05, something like 21 states are voting that day. I agree though, this relay race between the Bushes and Clintons must stop. My perspective is that only two families have been in charge since I was 7 years old, and as a 26 year old now I don’t want that continued.

  4. amen, kester, amen
    i must cop to being a politics junkie, as well as someone who voted for clinton in ’92 & ’96
    the sense of privilege & entitlement that this blood dynasty embodies is endemic of the US Baby Boomer generation as a whole – i see this in churches, businesses, even in family systems, where people in their 50-60s are used to being THE GAME, confident in their ability to “fix” things, able to “spin” facts into candy
    i say this as a person in their mid-40s – the generation I am on the edge of will NOT cede power or even play fair with those outside their bubble

  5. Amen, Kester. The dynasty has to end.
    I just hope the Democrats in the U.S. wake up and realize what a colossal mistake it would be to nominate another Clinton.
    I am backing Barack Obama, and I think he will continue to do well if he keeps talking straight and being who is — clearly Hillary is trying everything now to make people like her and convince them to vote for her. I think the luster will where off that pretty quickly.
    She is the faux change candidate, as far as I’m concerned — all talk and no substance (ironically what she accused Obama of being in the last stage of the campaign in New Hampshire). She will only maintain the status quo in Washington. I have hope with Obama. With Clinton, I have no hope for any real change (other than it’d be a white woman making all the same decisions, instead of a white man).
    Thanks for sharing your perspective from across the pond. Like I said, I hope people (esp. Democrats) will wake up and end the dynasty.

  6. You are oh so right Kester. There’s no real change in a dynasty.

  7. It’s encouraging to hear your agreement.
    But depressing to read today of Blair’s new post as ‘Senior Advisor’ at JP Morgan which will net him a cool $1m a year. He plans to take on ‘a handful of other such roles.’ And this guy was meant to be a socialist, meant to be about wealth distribution. Now he’ll be doing blatant insider lobbying to make sure the fat cats at JPM get fatter.

  8. Oh how I hope people read this and hear!

  9. what about blair as eu prez ?

  10. Don’t forget Bush was VP under Ronnie boy in the ’80s.
    What none of the commentators have picked up on yet is that there’s a battle underfoot between two women — Oprah versus Hillary. Somehow the feminists seem hell bent on selecting Hillary that they’ve overlooked this rather intriguing point. (Yes, it’s a rather odd state of political affairs when a national TV host appers to be playing a pivotal role in the Presidential process but that’s another post.)
    Check out Shane Claiborne’s Jesus for President when it comes out in March ’08 – Kester, I can get you a review copy if you have problems getting it from the UK.