I don't like dynasties, but would never vote against someone for that reason
It is inconceivable to me that any human being would cast a vote based on their dislike of dynasties.
It is one of those bullshit reasons people cook up to rationalize/proselytize what they think for other reasons.
For instance, was there anyone in 1932 who was all set to pull the lever for FDR but decided to instead vote for Hoover because FDR was related to Teddy Roosevelt?
And if there was such a person, wouldn't history judge them an absolute IDIOT, since to any rational mind the differences between FDR and Hoover swamped the cited concern with dynasties?
There is a wide range of such insincere reasons, usually offered as talking points to persuade other people. We know this because they are not what persuades the speaker.
Seriously, is there anyone here who loves Hillary and thinks Hillary would be the best president, offer the best chance of winning, and all around be the best choice who also considers her disqualified by being part of a dynasty? (Currently a dynasty of one.)
Anyone?
No. There is not. Nobody is going to vote against what would otherwise be their choice because of the dynasty thing.
And I say this as one who strongly dislikes dynasties. I am not a child, however, so that dislike could not plausibly be the deciding factor in a vote.
But I did not vote against GW Bush twice because I dislike dynasties. That was because I thought it irresponsible to have a national sitcom of making a chimpanzee president to see what mischief he might get into.
And I would have voted for RFK, and FDR, and plenty of other folks, despite my distaste.
So how does one mainfest a dislike of dynasties?
By not voting for a candidate BECAUSE of family connection. I didn't like any of the Kennedy line only because they were Kennedys. And I certainly would never have voted for someone only because they had a brand-name.
To vote for someone because they were a Kennedy would be a degenerate Monarchist impulse.
And the only nessecary counter to that degenerate monarchism would be for people to not to elevate mediocrity, not to vote for the village idiot simply because he happened to be named Kennedy.
But it would be weird to vote against someone I otherwise, neutrally, thought to be the best candidate because he happened to be a Kennedy.
Now, I will grant that there are probably people stupid enough to elevate the dynasty thing to a single-issue vote. (To vote against who they consider the very best candidate solely because of the dynasty issue)
But they are low information political agnostics, not DUers.
= new reply since forum marked as read
