?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Bush/Clinton Dynasty - Open Knowledge — LiveJournal

Sep. 27th, 2007

01:18 pm - Bush/Clinton Dynasty

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

There’s a good chance that Hilary’s going to win the Democratic nomination, and the Presidency. If she does, she will also likely win a second term. If that happens, the Presidency will have been controlled for 28 years by only two families:

1988 - Bush
1992 - Clinton
1996 - Clinton
2000 - Bush
2004 - Bush
2008 - Clinton
2012 - Clinton

In 2016, Jeb Bush will be 63, still young enough to run for two Presidential terms. Therefore, there’s a non-negligible chance that the pattern will continue as follows:

1988 - Bush
1992 - Clinton
1996 - Clinton
2000 - Bush
2004 - Bush
2008 - Clinton
2012 - Clinton
2016 - Bush
2020 - Bush

The pattern could even theoretically be carried further. By 2024, Chelsea Clinton will be 44 years old, old enough to run herself. And the Bush family certainly has enough kids in the wing to continue the dynasty.

When two families have a good chance of controlling the presidency for over a quarter of a century, it suggests to me that there’s a systemic problem with our selection process. After all, out of the 300+ million people in the U.S., is it really plausible that the people best suited to lead would come from one of these two families?

Original: craschworks - comments

Comments:

(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:astroprisoner
Date:September 27th, 2007 10:10 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Ponder this. 40 years ago, the individual considered to have the best shot at the White House was New York's junior senator, a Democrat who happened to be an immediate family member of the guy who had been president immediatly prior to the man who was incumbent at that point.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:astroprisoner
Date:September 28th, 2007 01:52 am (UTC)
(Link)
Your analogy is as great as your syntax isn't.

Yeah, I was in a rush. I was able to word it a little more smoothly over on my own LJ about a half-hour later.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:evelynne
Date:September 27th, 2007 08:46 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Tangentially, this reminds me of how I've heard it said that the people best suited to lead are people who don't want the job. I think there was some book somebody told me about where the President was appointed, and he could only leave the position when he'd done a good job, like "time off for good behavior". That sounds like a great idea, until I start trying to figure out who would do the appointing.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:greendalek
Date:September 27th, 2007 08:58 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'd go as far as to suggest that the Bush presidency actually stretches all the way back to 1981.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:jasonecaesar
Date:September 27th, 2007 10:36 pm (UTC)

Agreed.

(Link)
I was going to mention about when he was VP, head of the Secret Service, et cetera.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:jasonecaesar
Date:September 27th, 2007 10:37 pm (UTC)

Oops.

(Link)
CIA. My bad. Wasn't paying attention to what I was typing.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From:hhallahh
Date:September 27th, 2007 09:03 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Has it ever been asserted that out of the 300+ million people in the U.S., the best has even picked as leader once?

I think dynasties are kind of silly, but if they're the result of the working democratic process, I can't complain that much. You'd either have to assert that there's some kind of conspiracy to keep these families in power or that the voters are just really shallow/stupid. The former is ridiculous and the latter... well, that's democracy for you.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:other
Date:September 27th, 2007 09:09 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I also deny on public forums that Skull and Bones are in control of us all.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:September 27th, 2007 09:23 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The former is ridiculous and the latter... well, that's democracy for you.

Agreed. Which is the point of my post. A lot of people think that democracy is a magical process which automatically leads to the best outcome. I'm trying to disillusion them.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From:lucystag
Date:September 27th, 2007 11:20 pm (UTC)
(Link)
And that, sir, is a noble endeavor.

People get so...something when I try to point out all the epic flaws in democracy.

At the very least, Bush and others need a new thesaurus. Democracy is not another word for freedom or panacea.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:new_iconoclast
Date:September 28th, 2007 02:51 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The problem is that Jefferson hit the nail on the head in the Declaration of Independence: government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. We have no one to blame for the shitpile we're in but ourselves. Granted, most of your f-list is in the cringing, groaning, freedom-craving minority, but the fact is, "we-the-people" voted the bastards into office and too many of us are willing to let them stuff things down our throats "for our own good."
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:infrogmation
Date:September 28th, 2007 01:40 am (UTC)

Best and brightest

(Link)
Reminds me of something I half remember by H. L. Mencken. He said something to the effect that a country with so many intelligent and capible people electing Warren G. Harding as president was like a hungry man seated at a huge banquet feeding himself by grabbing flies.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)