The Dynastic Question

[rodeodance]

I am hoping for a fruitful discussion--one hopefully without the
slam/sleer-bait responses



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/opinion/31kristof.html?th&emc=th


January 31, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
The Dynastic Question
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF


Naturally, views on this are influenced by politics. Clintonians who dismissed George W. Bush as a dynastic puppet see nothing wrong with another Clinton in the Oval Office. On the other hand, Obama fans who shiver at the prospect of a Clinton dynasty bask in endorsements from an even greater dynasty, that of the Kennedys.

…………

We added the 22nd Amendment, limiting presidents to two terms, on the rationale that levers of power should turn over to keep our democracy healthy. Many Democrats today would consider Bill Clinton intrinsically the best person to serve as president for the next eight years. And yet, even if there weren’t a 22nd Amendment, we would shy away from that; we prefer the risk of an unproven president to the risk of stasis and aristocracy.
…………….

For those of us who admire Mrs. Clinton and believe she would make a terrific president, there are hard trade-offs involved. She has an utter mastery of domestic and foreign policy, and among the Democrats she knows military and security issues in particular better than anyone else. And if the concern is to bring in fresh currents into the political system, what better way than electing a woman president?

Certainly, it’s easy to see why voters nostalgic for peace and prosperity might yearn for a Clinton Restoration. Maybe we want another political dynasty, but we shouldn’t back into one without discussion — again.

………..

Mrs. Clinton has proven herself an excellent senator, and presumably would make a superior president. Yet ... 28 years ... two families! That needn’t be decisive, but it’s too important to be ignored.

[MonkeyFunk]

1. every day we get this

first, you're padding the numbers. It's wrong to count George H. W. Bush's vice-presidency. He didn't run the country by any mean.

Second, I don't see how it's reasonable to tie the two families together. If Al Gore had won in 2000 and now Clinton was running, would you still think it was a dynasty?

Third, it's not even a dynasty. Dynasties are hereditary. They're husband and wife - not even related by blood.

Fourth, it's just a dumb argument, void of anything important. It's just a way to attack Clinton on something substanceless.

[rodeodance]

7. first -KRISTOF padded he numbers by his inclusion of GHWB and VP--and

yes,--we do this tossed out everyday as an aguement against Sen. Clinton.
it has been amazing how much the RW pundits toss it out and is now picked up by so many.

[MonkeyFunk]

14. sorry

I thought the last paragraph was your commentary.

[dkf]

2. Oh boy. Now Obama is part of the Kennedy dynasty?

He's been adopted!

[FrenchieCat]

6. Well, you know since JFK wasn't even able to serve out an entire term....

What the writer says makes sense about Barack Obama. :sarcasm:

[rodeodance]

8. After that scene yesterday, how can one not see it that way??

[LittleClarkie]

10. Aww, that's nice.

Somehow I don't think of the Kennedy's as a dynasty. They're political to be sure. But it's not like we've had Kennedy after Kennedy in the White House.

[Jawja]

18. The Kennedys are NOT

a dynasty when it comes to the Presidency. There was ONE: JFK and he didn't serve a whole term.

The Bushes cannot be compared to the Kennedys on this level (in other words, no one started shooting and killing Bushes like they did the Kennedys).

[lvx35]

3. I think its a question of morale effect vs. tangible policies.

The dynasty thing doesn't have a lot of meaning beyond its psychological effect, because the same interests can stay entrenched with many different figureheads. But what about the psychological effect? What does it say that we have these seemingly aristocratic families?

I personally see it as okay, at this moment in history I think that within less than a decades time, we will be forced to make some serious and dramatic changes to how we live due to economic / environmental / resource realities. It would be nice in some sense to have a figurehead who represents a clean break from this past right at the moment that this awareness is taking hold, to launch us forward into massive changes with the kind of vision and fervor we'll need. If such a person gets in too soon, they risk getting blamed for the coming "fall", and that could propel us backwards into seeking a return to a comfortable past at exactly the time we need desparately to be moving forward. These are incredibly dangerous times...

[rodeodance]

4. neither of our candidates will have a clean break with past. The past is

embodied in the present/future.

[lvx35]

23. But Obama symbolically represents that break, and that's what we are talking about here.

The overall - psychological - effect.

I mean, here's what we've got on the table: A crazy adminstration has got us deeper into debt than ever before, with the economy going into downturn now. Global warming is beginning to effect crops and food prices. We are running out of oil and we need to quit it anyway. This stuff is converging now and all that's being done is a debt based economic stimulus package that will give a short term boost so things don't crash on Bush's watch.

So we get a dem in 2008, and we've got a good likelyhood of that crash taking place...Maybe I'm wrong, all the better. But maybe I'm right. Who do you want in there, knowing that everything has been set up to crash on our watch, and we are going to get blamed for it? I say its a good time to have "two" democratic parties, the "old" one and the "new" one. If Hillary is in, and she is unable to turn it around and actually gets blamed, then it can be stacked up as just being the fault of the old dynastic democratic party, the new one has the answers. If its Obama, then the blame falls squarely on change and newness and all the things he reprsents, and that's really bad, because they are precisely the sort of things we are going to need in a leader once people have realized the urgent necessity of a change that occurs not just in Washington but in our own lives.

[BootinUp]

5. Its an election, America will choose based on a number

of factors. This is not about birth rights. Some will prefer a candidate with experience gained by her close partnership with Bill Clinton's Administration in the 90's.

[FrenchieCat]

9. It's nepotism, and it isn't good.

The Revolutionary War was fought to get rid of that yoke, and dynasty/nepotism is not considered an American Value. Limits on Presidential terms as a amendment was trying to tell us something. As many women as there are in these United States, it is ironic that it would be a President's Wife that we would run to fill the slot. Seemingly it can be too easily interpreted as bringing a President back through the back door. That does not honor the ideal of the amendment nor the values that we have forged as common sense in a democracy.

[BootinUp]

11. If Bill had the power by himself to put her in

then it could be called that. But to make that argument is to play in a fantasy world. This is an election and many many people will have ther say, including you.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. It's not nepotism

[FrenchieCat]

20. nepotism

Main Entry: nep·o·tism
Pronunciation: \ˈne-pə-ˌti-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: French népotisme, from Italian nepotismo, from nepote nephew, from Latin nepot-, nepos grandson, nephew — more at nephew
Date: 1670
: favoritism (as in appointment to a job) based on kinship
— nep·o·tis·tic \ˌne-pə-ˈtis-tik\ adjective

[MonkeyFunk]

22. correct

Hillary running for President isn't nepotism.

[quickesst]

12. Fruitful discussion....

There is no fruit on the dynasty tree. Imaginations running wild would be my guess. Thanks.
quickesst

[radfringe]

13. sheesh

last year you couldn't swing a dead cat on the DU without hitting some post or comment about how "I miss Bubba" and now he's a leper?

there were even posts about repealing the presidential term limits so Bubba could run again.

[shaniqua6392]

17. I have noticed that too.

Anyone who is for Obama is currently smearing Bill and Hillary. Personally, I remember those days fondly. Maybe we need another Clinton in office to help bring down the debt and help Americans prosper as we did in the past. Remember when you were able to save a little money in the bank?? I do. Remember actually getting back some money on your tax return? I do. Remember when you could afford groceries and gas? I do. At least we know what we would be getting rather than the uncertainty of a junior Senator. It is like people are so hurt by Bush and how things have been that they are looking for a savior. It could be a huge mistake.

[robbedvoter]

15. Kristoff, the one who wrote admiringly of W: "Reagan's son" - how ironical!

Does anyone remember that W

UNDID EVERYTHING CLINTON DID?

ECONOMY, DIPLOMACY, NATIONAL SECURITY, CIVIL RIGHTS - everything was tore down - to get us where we are today.
Also, with the Kennedys jumping in the fray to retain THEIR influence in the party, the shoe can be on the other foot as well.

[gorekerrydreamticket]

19. I would prefer Gore over Clinton for the next 8 years...

but that's just me...

[Maribelle]

21. Bush Clinton Gore Kerry Clinton -

Ironically, Republicans are the ones we can thank for the Bush-Clinton-Bush sequence, and they are the ones sobbing the most