Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Well, Doctor, What Have We Got...


The Doctor in question was Benjamin Franklin. The "got" in question referred to the question "a Republic or a Monarchy." Franklin's answer... "A Republic - if you can keep it!"

Thank God we don't have national targeted issue referendums here in the United States. If we did, some person or group might well put the gist of the original question (originally posed by Dr. James McHenry, a Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787) on a modern ballot - and given recent expressions of American public opinion, at the very least the creation of a titled peerage might result!

Family dynasties, while not uncommon throughout American political history, are certainly the exception to the rule. As regards the American presidency, John Quincy Adams followed in his father John Adams' footsteps... Benjamin Harrison followed in his grandfather William Harrison's footsteps... the modern Bush dynasty began with the late Senator Prescott Bush, rose to the presidency with Prescott's son George Herbert Walker Bush, and a decade later returned to the Oval Office in the person of George W. Bush, son of George H.W. Bush, grandson of Prescott Bush.

I say enough - at least for now!

We're a Republic, people! Unfortunately... we're a star struck Republic. The election of 1960 begot the Kennedy dynasty. Absent the media age creation of "Camelot" and the tragedy of JFK's assassination would the dynasty have kept and retained power and influence for the past five decades? Perhaps... perhaps not. After all, when JFK was president his brother Robert was Attorney General of the United States and his brother Teddy was (due to JFK's political influence and family name recognition) elected to the United States Senate in a state of Massachusetts special election in 1962.

If politics is a team sport, both the Bush and the Kennedy "franchises" can be looked upon as "dream teams." Love 'em or loathe 'em, both "teams" have won more than their share of "rings" and "pennants."

How'bout Al Gore? The former Vice President (who won the popular presidential vote in 2000 while losing the presidency in the Electoral College) was a former Senator - and a former Senator's son.

At the state and municipal levels of government we have Romneys and the Daleys.

I could go on, but readers no doubt get the point. Whether we pejoratively refer to "nepotism" or lightheartedly talk of "the family business," the offspring and relatives of politicians clearly have a springboard to political power of their own should they chose to go that route.

Is this a good thing? Is this a bad thing? I ask you put that question aside and question instead... are we heading towards going too far along this route - heading towards oligarchy? Are the American People bound and determined to take this Republic our Forefathers left us as their bequest and transform it into something more resembling the monarchical system we declared independence from in 1776 than the Constitutional Republic Founded in 1789?

Caroline Kennedy. God bless her! She was a cute kid and I'm sure she's a wonderful human being. She's obviously no dummy and to be perfectly frank, honest to the detriment of my ideological interests, she's certainly "qualified" to be a U.S. Senator. Still... I'd be far more comfortable about the idea of her being appointed to Senator Clinton's soon to be vacant seat if Ms. Kennedy had "earned" her opportunity via hard work and paying her dues instead of via her last name.

Again... this isn't a partisan critique of Ms. Kennedy. Certainly I don't expect Governor Paterson to appoint a conservative Republican to serve out Senator Clinton's term, but if Caroline Kennedy gets the appointment over... say... Congresswoman Nita Lowey... what does that say about egalitarianism and basic fairness as it applies to modern day American society and politics?

And speaking of Senator Clinton...

Sticking with honesty being the best policy, let me admit - or at least posit on faith - that Hillary Rodham Clinton is neither the least intelligent nor most corrupt Senator serving on the 100 member body. By all accounts she's hard working and takes her duties quite seriously. All this being willingly stipulated...

Hillary Rodham Clinton was for all intents and purposes "given" a seat in the United States Senate by her husband, William Jefferson Clinton, who was at the time President of the United States and titular head of the Democratic Party.

No... granted... she wasn't appointed. By "given" I mean in the sense of the voters of New York State were given a Senatorial candidate everyone knew might win against Rudy Giuliani but WOULD win against any lesser Republican political light. In the case of a "name" Democrat running for a U.S. Senate seat from New York against a largely unknown Republican... it's the Party nomination itself that's the path to victory, not the actual Party vs. Party, candidate vs. candidate election campaign.

The fix was in from the beginning. Charlie Rangel... the aforementioned Nita Lowey... other New York "name" Democrats including most prominently Andrew Cuomo, Carl McCall, Carolyn Maloney... there would be no Empire State gladatorial combat battle of the New York City and State Democratic Political Titans all salivating to be the next junior Senator from Gotham; no, the only real question from the start was if the sitting Democratic President's WIFE wanted the nomination. Once she decided she did... everything else was window dressing. (Anyone remember Mark McMahon...??? Ha! Didn't think so!)

And now...

This!

God help us! Not that I have anything against the kid, but the White House isn't Buckingham Palace - at least it's not supposed to be! We don't have princes and princesses in America - I for one would like to keep it that way.

Listen. Absent proof to the contrary, Barbara (the Elder), Laura, Jenna, and Barbara (the Younger) might all make more competent public officials than their son/husband/father George W. Bush, America's 43rd President. That said, I don't want any of them "given" a political career.

Anyway... this is how I feel.

3 comments:

Anthony said...

Political dynasties -- yup I hate them.

The Kennedy's are the ones who are teh most annoying about it. WIth the Bushs, you have Jeb also to be sure, but still, with the Kenendy's you have the all sorts of cousins now running around (No Caroline, please no Caroline).

You forget the Fishes, which had four generations of GOP congressmen from the Hudson Valley -- the fifth was a far left winger who losing his chance.

Romney is not really a dynasty. George Romney was a 1 1/2 term governor who was then a cabinet secretary. Mitt Romney was a one term governor.

The Daleys are more scary as a dynasty I think, though so far at least their national influence is limited.

You forgot to add the Udalls.

And of course, you always have the Churchills. The first Churchill to enter parliament was during the Restoration, then you had the Duke of Malbourgh. They disappeared for a while, but then you had a later Duke who was politically influential, his son Lord Randolph, Randolph's son WSC, WSC's son Randoplh (whose political career fell apart because he was unable to hold his liquor, unlike his father).

Two of WSC's grandson's entered parliament, WSC II (Randolph's son) was something of a nonentity, and Nicholas Soames, who until the last election was the shadow defense minister.

Now THAT is a political dynasty!

EdMcGon said...

The great irony is that, if not for Reagan picking Bush as his veep, we wouldn't even have a Bush dynasty!

As much as I loved Reagan, this IS his fault. :P

Rodak said...

No mention of the Tafts of Ohio?