General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBarbara Bush 4 families
Hate to agree with anyone associated with the Bush Family, but her general principal is correct and essential to a democracy.
For some here it will be problematic because they will read it as no more bushes. It should also apply to Hilary. We should not have a country that passes elective offices around their family. This, as BB implied, will cause eligible qualified people (for her Jed, for Democrats Hilary) to not be able to satisfy their personal ambition or not be able to serve their country in the Top roles. Putting an even more favorable spin on it, the Country could lose the services of a qualifed individual. However, in general this would be a good thing, we are a country of 200Million plus and there are other qualified people without these names or nepotistic aspects.
We should have no more bushs, clintons, obamas, carters etc.
tarheelsunc
(2,117 posts)RFK would have been a great President, and Hillary would probably be a pretty good one. I say who cares about the name, look at the individual, what they have done, and what they plan to do. Jeb isn't his brother but he's still a man who should only set foot in the White House if the President (whoever it may be at the time) is inviting him for a forum on education or something.
Rilgin
(787 posts)Yes, I think that the principal should apply to good people as well as bad including RFK.
RFK did things because he was appointed by his brother to be attorney general. In addition, regardless of hi personal qualities he was aided by his name through fundraising and name recognition as Bush was. The power of incumbancy, political names and celebrity in getting people elected is something I hope we all recognize and recognize that that one aspect is totally unrelated to their history, qualifications or capabilities.
G W Bush would never have been pushed by any politicians if not for his name. You probably agree with that. If RFK or Hilary (or anyone with a prior political connectio) runs against someone equally qualified and who would make an equally good or better president, he or she will have a huge advantage not based on his or her qualities.
Putting no moral or ethical constraints or judgements when good people end up getting elected or appointed because of family connections or their name provides a basis for bad people having the same advantages and we end up with presidents like GW Bush.
There is no one person who is so brilliant that we have to have them. If people are purely judged on their merits for all positions we get good people in power. If we allow nepotism to factor into promotion and positions, we get a mixed bag. Some will be good qualified people and some will be bad. Frankly I would rather just have just good qualified people in rather than chance that nepotism leads to a good king.
I have less problem with appointments to administrative positions than elections.
Awknid
(381 posts)Is perfectly fine. Three is too many!
Rilgin
(787 posts)The reason 2 is ok but 3 is bad eludes me unlesss you just want to agree with Barbara that Bush shouldnt run but ...... you want Hilary to run.