The Least, First

Monte Asbury's blog

Two families, 28 years of Presidency?

with 7 comments

Over at God’s Politics, an astute observer points out that if Hillary Clinton were elected President and served two terms “it would mean that two families would share the presidency of the United States for 28 years.”

Two families, each with a vast network of connections to the rich and powerful of the world.

I wonder if ordinary, non-influential people benefit, in the long run, when so much power remains in the hands of so few. Does it not diminish the democratic distribution of authority?

For instance, imagine a George W. Bush Presidency without George H.W. Bush connections. Remove Rumsfeld. Remove Cheney. Would he have been able to take us to war without the concentration of power that oligarchy brings?

Read the comments, below, for other excellent examples – especially from naj regarding Iran.

Related Post: Power Corrupts – Here’s its antidote
, , , , , , , , Monte Asbury


Written by Monte

May 15, 2007 at 6:00 am

7 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Naj – very smart – I’ve been thinking about your comment ever since you wrote it. It uncovers some things we just don’t talk about in the US. For instance, “hierarchical networks of power” are inherently anti-democratic.

    You’ve got me thinking about Mr. Bush and his network. Would he have ever taken us to war without the network of family connections? I think of Cheney and Rumsfeld, and a host of others, who were back in power with connections made and an ax to grind.

    Think of it: it may be that the increase of power brought about by family connections to previous power so emboldens a President that war becomes a much more likely possibility. Perhaps a President starting from scratch has a much harder time pulling the pieces together to make it happen – not to mention having the conformity of ideas around him/her that make it seem so apparently reasonable.


    May 17, 2007 at 2:41 pm

  2. I think your observation brings an interesting point to focus. Often, the subliminal reasoning due to which members of the same rich and powerful family find their names check on the ballot is the subtle trust in their “experience” and also their “connectivity.”

    Something that is quite openly taught in universities nowadays is the essentialness of networking.

    In (so called undemocratic) countries like mine (Iran), the hierarchical networks of power are a fact of life. To such extent that certain mullahs openly call the ordinary people “ignorant sheep”, and thus incapable of making the right decisions. By such logic, they render the western logic of democracy useless! (In a way, election of Bush, twice in a row, validates their point!)

    So perhaps there is a reason why crown families have come to existence since the early dawn of the history! Maybe, by genetic design we do seek the big bad vicious alpha-males (or the masculine acting females like Hillary or Thatcher) to lead our confused tribes!


    May 15, 2007 at 3:22 pm

  3. Can’t crown them. It would spoil the ruse. Pretending equality is in the Constitution.
    Thanks, everyone!


    May 15, 2007 at 10:03 am

  4. LOL


    May 15, 2007 at 9:48 am

  5. Why not crown the two families? At least there will be royalties, Princes and Princess falling in love from adverse families… Shakespeare will be pleased :)


    May 15, 2007 at 9:23 am

  6. Yikes! A fact we would do well do highlight. Oligarchy indeed.


    May 15, 2007 at 8:44 am

  7. interesting thought…after all, look at the Kennedy dynasty.


    May 15, 2007 at 7:06 am

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: