“No tengo futuro.”
So says Jeb Bush, and I think he’s probably right. While dynasty politics has its place, I suspect that Americans might have had just about enough of presidents being replaced by close relatives.
Dynasty fatigue, perhaps?
I know that many people will say that this is only Bush dynasty fatigue, but I think it’s fair to ask whether it might involve more than that.
The president’s brother is not offering much by way of explanation:
Bush did not elaborate on his terse “no future” comment. But he has said repeatedly over the past year that he would not run for president in 2008 and has never seemed comfortable with talk about Bush III or the Bush presidential dynasty.
But what about the wife of the last president? Is she comfortable with talk of Clinton II? Or will Americans be comfortable with the idea that ruling dynasties should “take turns”?
Donna Brazile sees the dynasty angle as a challenge to be overcome:
“The biggest challenge facing Hillary is: Can she convince the American people that they are not trying to build a dynasty, but rather they are trying to help improve the lives of people?” says Donna Brazile, the Democratic strategist who chaired Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign.
But some people on the other side think dynasty fatigue would ensure Hillary Clinton’s defeat:
If Hillary is elected in 2008, and if she serves a full two terms, by 2016 we will have endured an unbroken 36 year period with either a Bush or a Clinton in the Administration. Twenty-eight of these years will have seen one of these two families in the Oval Office itself. This seems to violate the very sacred principle of America’s open electoral system, opting instead for a de facto dynastic power struggle between the Bushes and the Clintons. And it prompts the astute political observer to reflect on the possibility of each side readying its reserves for 2016. Chelsea Clinton, born in 1980 when this dynastic tit-for-tat began, will have reached her 36th year, and Jeb, at 63, will still be young enough to run.
Republicans, in the main, seem to understand this inherent limitation on an instinctive level. Jeb’s name rarely comes up as a viable nominee for 2008. We usually don’t speak about Jeb’s liabilities in terms of dynasty, but it’s always there as a subtextual undercurrent. Perhaps this Republican discretion stems from the fact that the GOP has been the chief beneficiary of dynasty thus far, and it will remain so for the next two years. But neither side will fare well when honest commentators begin to loudly discuss this disturbing pattern
Honest commentators might have to grapple with the “fairness” argument. After all, the Bushes had three terms so far; is it really fair that the Clintons only had two?
I don’t know how honest or fair I am, but I’ll try to make a stab at this.
Is the country now obligated to switch dynasties, so that the Clintons have another turn?
The problem I see with this, um, “dynastic balance” argument is when does it stop? There will have been three Bush terms, but if Hillary is reelected to second term that would be four terms for the Clinton Dynasty. Wouldn’t that mean the country would “owe” the Bush Dynasty another presidency?
By that time generations of Americans will have known nothing but Clintons and Bushes.
I’m already tired of playing the futuro game.
!No más!
Comments
6 responses to “Taking turns with the futuro”
Jeb Bush will never be president. Dynasty fatigue is part of the explanation. The other, of course, is that the preceding components of said “Bush dynasty” were (1) the failed presidency of George H.W. Bush and (2) the rapidly-failing presidency of George W. Bush. Jeb likely would’ve made a better president than either. The wrong Bushes became president. The same thing happened with Robert Kennedy. Clearly, the wrong Kennedy brother (John) became president.
As for Hillary, her candidacy has a lot of surmountable problems other than dynastic politics. It’s been a long time (Nixon in ’68) that this country elected a thoroughly unlikable candidate as president. We tend not to vote for wet blankets. Add to that the Clinton scandals (e.g., pardons for sale in the waning hours of the W.J. Clinton presidency) that will become owned by Hillary, and that’s a lot to overcome. That’s the real dynasty problem — the baggage — not that Americans aren’t willing to vote for family ties (sadly, they now are).
For whatever reason Jeb Bush is probably right not to run in’08 but by 2012?
As for dynasties we’ve had the Virginia Dynasty (Jefferson to Monroe), which the Adams bookended so why not a Clinton Dynasty? I wonder if fatigue would be an issue for the electorate. I would think that Hillary would be judged on her own record but one never knows until the battle is on.
Personally, I have no desire for her candidacy based on ideology.
“I know that many people will say that this is only Bush dynasty fatigue…”
Maybe not “only,” but there’s no doubt about “especially.” Bill Clinton did not trash the country’s finances or military. George W. Bush did. Conservatives now make a virtue of necessity by pretending they have high-minded objections to the dynastic principle. They didn’t in 2000, back when they thought the Bush name was a winner.
Nice job rebutting the “dynastic balance” argument — an argument that has never been made by anybody anywhere. People who support Hillary Clinton for president do so because they believe she has the brains, policies, and ability this country needs. The people who supported George W. Bush did so because … well, they never did come up with a reason. Something about having a beer with him. It turns out to have been a rather frivolous approach to filling the office.
Bill Clinton did not trash the country’s finances or military.
Now, finances, Clinton gets a pass on, if only because he managed to get a boom economy (at times), and an opposition Congress, to prevent it.
But the idea that the Clinton years didn’t harm the military, while somehow Bush has destroyed it, well… I can’t help but find that hilarious, given all the comments about the “peace dividend” and Clinton years from the military people.
But since you’re an obvious troll (or such a blinded partisan as makes no difference), none of this will matter.
Kyle, thanks for crediting me as being first, but can you be 100% sure that the argument has “never been made by anybody anywhere”?
It’s always been something for the United States to be proud of, that it has never had a royal family. Let’s make sure it stays that way. It’s what the Founders would have wanted.