December 7, 2007

A Question of Dynasty?

Posted in Politics tagged , , , , at 2:57 pm by Katelyn

Have you thought about the fact that if Hillary Clinton is elected as our next President, we will have had either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for over two decades? This topic was brought to Hillary’s attention at the recent NPR debate. The question, however, was phrased around the word dynasty. As part of her answer, she said, “It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush.”  (I love this quote!)

It is rather interesting, though, in a country whose government is based on change, new perspectives, and fresh ideas, that we would keep coming back to representatives of the same two families to run our country. Perhaps Hillary is right in that it takes someone with a mindset like the Clintons’ to fix all the problems that someone with the intelligence of a Bush creates, but it is still fascinating to me. Of course nothing has been decided yet, and the idea of a dynasty could end with the 2008 election of someone other than Hillary, but with the way things are looking, this is a very viable topic.

Do these two families really represent the majority of Americans? Is experience, in Hillary’s case, more important to the public than a real change? Does this negatively affect the democratic process that was designed for our country so long ago?

~ A Ponderous DC

Advertisements

4 Comments »

  1. whynot4me said,

    Bush has done a good job of dividing people, one question for Hillary – is she really the person you think could bring people together? Not that Bush was the first to do it, Bill did a good job himself. With Hillary do we go right back to those divisions and arguments?

  2. Pullman said,

    I don’t think it is necessarily fair to say that Hillary won’t bring change just because her husband was the president. She has definitely had different opinions from him on subjects like torture (he supports in some cases and she does not at all). Another point is that George Bush Jr. has not followed the all same principals of his father (I don’t like either of their policies but they do have differing opinions as well). So do I think it’s bad to have the same two families in the White House? Not necessarily. I think that Hillary is the most appropriate candidate to take over and clean up after Bush no matter what her last name may be.

  3. DC said,

    @ whynot4me
    That’s a great question: “Is she really the person you think could bring people together?” If I answer that question directly, I would have to say that she may not be capable of bringing people together. She comes with a history that I believe much of the public is unwilling to forget, no matter how qualified. I’m also having trouble picturing the future, if she were elected, to decide whether the divisions and arguments that were present when Bill was in office would recur simply because she’s a Clinton, or if she would be able to bring people above that. More and more, though, I think that those who are against her are against her less because she is a woman or more because she is a Clinton.

    @ Pullman
    I know Hillary will bring change, no doubt about that, but will it be enough that she can claim it as her own and not as just a Clinton. Do you think people fear the fact that her greatest adviser and confidant is Bill? It is different with the Clintons because they are a husband and wife duo. When one is elected into the White House, the other comes along, where as when George W. Bush was elected, his father didn’t necessarily come with the package. In the end, this family issue doesn’t change the fact that we are a democracy and that if two families end up controlling the White House, it’s because the voters chose it that way. It just is such an odd phenomenon.

  4. LA said,

    I’m glad you caught the NPR debate, too! I thought the medium of radio had an interesting influence on the tone of the debate. I observed that the overall feeling was much more subdued and mellow, while at the same time, the debate felt much more substantive than the previous televised debates. There were no raised voices or snide comments, no deliberate personal attacks or speaking over each other. In short, the way political discourse should be. I thought that the format of the debate allowed each candidate to clarify and explain their position, so that the listening public could see their differences in policy and stance. Anyone else notice this difference?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: