Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Miscellaneous Blogs -> Begging the Question

Miscellaneous

: Begging the Question

The Dynasty Issue

By "Milbarge" and "Fitz-Hume"

Sebastian mentioned something in his recent "least bad Democrat" post I've been meaning to respond to. It's the issue of political "dynasties" and whether the thought of having another Clinton in the White House will turn voters off Hillary. (The image at left, of course, is a cast shot from the classic '80s soap opera Dynasty.)

In an email to me about the GOP race that I'll also post about shortly, Seb mentioned the usual Republican coronation of whoever is deemed to be "next in line." I think the GOP's "next guy in line" in an ordinary year might well have been Jeb Bush. (Imagine if Gore had won in 2000 -- would the 2004 GOP ticket have been McCain/Jeb? I should write counterfactual history novels!) I agree that fatigue might well play a part in the election, but I think it's probably "scandal fatigue" rather than a visceral hatred of Bill. I think people like Bill and like seeing him back in the public eye. I think if Hillary ever comes out with some sort of defined role for him, so people would know he wouldn't be doing too much, all the better. I really think, if anything, that people are as tired of Clinton-bashing (the extreme kind) as they are of the Clintons. Witness the response to Drudge's ugly photo of Hillary and the sympathy it engendered. (Note also the interesting undercurrent conspiracy theory that Hillary is courting Drudge: some people are suggesting her campaign is slipping him scoops.)

Plus, one thing about the dynasty that bothers people is that the former leaders are still around. I don't think we'll see the Bushes too much after 2008. I certainly don't see Jeb running for Senate with an eye towards the White House is 2012. George may go be commissioner of baseball, but I don't see him giving policy speeches or showing up on Bill O'Reilly's show every night. So the dynasty issue is a historical novelty, but it's not like we're getting civil war between two supposed heirs to the throne. I think calling it a dynasty gives it a greater air than it's worth.

Also, it's not as if the Clintons wanted GWB to get elected, any more than the Bushes wanted the Clintons to get elected. It's not like it's anybody's "fault" we're in this situation, so why blame or take it out on Hillary? And after all, it's not all that unprecedented. The Adamses, the Harrisons, the Roosevelts, the Kennedys...there are dynasties and legacies going all the way back in American politics. Wasn't Barbara Bush some distant relative of Franklin Pierce? The whole political class is so inbred it's impossible to avoid dynasties! Maybe my next counterfactual history novel will be about Chelsea Clinton marrying GWB's nephew George P. Bush!

Full post as published by Begging the Question on December 20, 2007 (boomark / email).