I happen to think that Hilary Clinton is the best candidate on offer for the Democrats. But I am probably not going to vote for her in the primary. Why? Because I have taken The Pledge.
What is The Pledge? Simple. I think dynastic politics is bad for our democracy, and so I will not vote for the spouse, widow(er), sibling, or child of a president, senator, or congressman in an election for the same office that his or her relative held, even if I think he or she is the best candidate for the job.
(I have put The Pledge in capitals to suggest that I am speaking for a great grassroots movement, but I haven’t read about anyone else taking this view. If anyone knows otherwise, I’d like to hear it!)
“But isn’t this unfair to good candidates?” Yes. I don’t care. I think the structural issue here is more important that any person’s or family’s political ambitions. And besides, I think this is less unfair than the Natural Born Citizen Clause, which we’ve had since the beginning.
Who is with me?
TedF
Would you please explain to me what the “structural issue” is? While we’re agreed that the natural-born rule is a bit outdated, I’m not sure how that fits into what seems like a rather arbitrary decision based on the fact that Dubya’s father was president. Sometimes the greatest member of the family isn’t the first to obtain office, and I don’t see why someone with something to contribute should be punished based on their relatives or who they marry.
<
p>
In short, any rule that would have derailed the careers of John Quincy Adams, Bobby Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, and Al Gore, Jr. needs more explanation that you have given.
<
p>
This doesn’t even mention the lesser-known members of families such as the Humphreys and that have done good work for our nation.
I first started to think about this issue when I saw how many widows of congressmen were elected to their husband’s office. It turns out that this is a pretty long-standing phenomenon. In more recent times, it has even gotten some scholarly attention. How can it be, I asked, that voters, with regularity, decide that a congressman’s wife happens to be the best person to succeed him when he dies?
<
p>
My sense (with the caveat that I am not a social scientist and haven’t bothered with pesky things like studies or data) is that we live in a time when people are beginning to feel loyal to political families. Massachusetts (home of the Kennedeys) may even have been an early leader in this area. Our political families each have their retainers or counselors who seem in some sense to be primarily at the service of the family. I also think that political families are in some sense loyal to themselves rather than to the country. This reeks to me of a kind of semi-feudal, patron/client system that we should take strong measures to squelch. In the words of our Declaration of Rights:
<
p>
<
p>
Now you might agree with all of this but still say that you would vote for the best candidate, even if he or she happens to be a close relative of a predecessor in office. I think reasonable people could disagree on this point, but it seems to me that the health of our democracy, and the prevention of a quasi-hereditary system of government, requires a firm response. If I didn’t think the politics were prohibitive, I suppose I would propose a constitutional amendment. But The Pledge is a start.
<
p>
TedF
I do agree that some people do vote based on last name. A colleague of mine is Republican through and through, listens to Rush Limbaugh every day. Told me he’ll always vote for Ted Kennedy because he’s a Kennedy-phile. That said, the Breckenride dynasty was steamrolling through Kentucky politics while the Kennedys’ progenitors were still in Ireland. Dynasties have a firmer grip on the South than they do New England.
<
p>
That said, there are limits on that power. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend ran for governor in reliably Democratic Maryland, but lost. She overestimated the power of her name and ran a horrid campaign.
<
p>
Very often, people will vote for a widow because it’s the cleanest and quickest way to offer sympathy. That’s how Jean Carnahan got elected to the Senate. And if you’ll remember, she lost two years later. Or it may be because the husband has been banned from politics, which is how Hattie Caraway became the first woman Senator.
<
p>
While I agree on your portion of the “Declaration of Rights”, you are talking about punishing people based on a single advantage. If you follow this up with a pledge not to vote for self-funders or the independently wealthy, I see your point. Otherwise, you’re just picking on people based on their family connections.
<
p>
Talking about the “health of our democracy” when this country started under the dynasties of the Lees and Adamses seems a bit odd. This country has always had dynasties, but aside from the Bush/Clinton dynamic I don’t see how they’ve worsened — Pat Walsh can tell you that. Of course, you have every ability to vote based on something other than who is the best candidate, but I really can’t understand why.
I think the gazillionaire issue is in one sense an easier issue than the dynasty issue, because it’s maybe a more prevalent problem (Romney, Perot, Bloomberg, Kerry) than the dynasty problem. In the abstract, I support expenditure limits that would prevent a Romney or a Kerry from spending millions of their own money on their campaigns, although my understanding (and I’m not an expert in this area at all–someone please feel free to chime in) is that it’s clear that such limits are unconstitutional.
<
p>
All that said, I find the gazillionaire issue less worrisome in some respects. Take Romney, for example. According to an NPR report I heard today, he has a sizable balance in the bank as of today, but when you subtract out the loans he’s made to his own campaign, he’s not looking too strong at all. In general, I think that a candidate who can’t attract a lot of money from people other than himself or his family is unlikely to succeed in a general election. Also, there is a good amount of public awareness of the problem of money in elections, but the dynastic dynamic (!) in our politics is perhaps less in the public consciousness than it should be.
<
p>
TedF
So says Wikipedia.
<
p>
Perhaps you were thinking of somebody else?
<
p>
Well, if that’s true, then you better have a dang good reason for advocating against “the best candidate for the job” no matter what. And I don’t see that good reason set forth here.
<
p>
As sabutai states above, what is the “structural issue” you’re talking about, and why exactly is “dynastic politics” worse than, say, any old multi-millionaire or billionaire using his/her wealth to try and become President?
<
p>
And taking “a pledge”, damn whatever happens down the pike, seems pretty inflexible and unthinking. I’ve never been a big fan of pledges, myself.
I doubt that Chelsea is going to run in 2016 and continue the Clinton Dynasty. Even if she did, our presidency is unlikely to turn dynastic. Does anyone think that W won because the electorate nurtured tender feelings about his father?
<
p>
What does seem in play here is the power of celebrity over anything else. We all know Hillary Clinton because she “starred” in the Clinton Presidency. Richardson, who is at least equally qualified for the Presidency, has never had a prime time series, and he doesn’t show well in the studio. Result? Less buzz.
<
p>
What we’re witnessing is a symptom of our degraded national discourse and not a return of the Bourbons, the Stuarts, or the Hohenzollern.
Disclaimer: I am not planning to vote for either Clinton or Richardson.
I wonder what the comments would be if the former simpleton governor of Florida was about to be nominated and looked like a shoo–in in the next presidential election.
My comments would be similar to those above. W is going to leave as a deeply unpopular president whose presidency has failed calamitously. The only reason there’s any national attention for Jebb is indeed his family connections. Again that’s an effect of celebrity rather than an indicator that he was a better governor than, say, the current Republican governor of Texas.
I think you make a good point. I don’t think that many people voted for GWB because of their fondness for GHWB, but I do think that GWB felt entitled to an officer for which he was otherwise unqualified because of who he was. Maybe this is true of, say, Mitt Romney, too. It’s one thing for Prince Charles to have an overdeveloped sense of entitlement, if only because the monarch in Britain has so little political power. But the same sense of entitlement on this side of the Atlantic is dangerous, and GWB makes the point better than anyone in recent memory.
<
p>
I also think the case of Arnold Schwartzenegger is significant. He was a celebrity in his own right on account of his, ah, oeuvre. But he married into a political family before he sought office. It almost doesn’t matter that he married into a Democratic family, does it? He gained access to a certain kind of political capital that membership in the nobility–er, I mean, the political class–can provide.
<
p>
TedF
An overdeveloped ego may be a prerequisite to running for national office. That plus celebrity does give the families of office holders a leg up.
But I’m not going to “take the pledge.” I’ll vote for the best candidate, pure and simple. Right now, that’s not Hillary Clinton. Do I like the fact that there are dynasties? No. However, it’s no more odd that children would want to follow in the footsteps of their political parents than is the fact that many children follow in their parents footsteps – be they a teacher, police man, doctor or construction worker. Furthermore, it doesn’t strike me odd – at any point – that children of politicians would be raised in such a way that they could, quite possibly, become good politicians themselves. Just ask Al Gore, any number of the Kennedy family and countless other politicians.
no matter how egregious their conduct would lend one to conclude that certainly dynastys are possible.
There are good dynasties and bad dynasties but dynasties in of themselves are not intrinsically evil nor do they intrinsically lead to bad government. Certainly the local Sullivan dynasty springs to mine, three generations of Sullivans have served on the Cambridge City Council and they have all been great public servants elected on their own merit and not because of their name. Similarly we have had a mini O’Neill dynasty with the Speakers son becoming Lt. Gov, or the Kenned dynasty which in my view is a mixed bag at best but to a lot of Democrats, especially ones from around here, it was a great thing for the country.
<
p>
That said I would agree Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton would be bad for the country but mostly because I feel neither family has done a great job running the country and its time for someone new. The dynasty argument is a good one in theory since dynasties go against the very nature of our system but certainly we can all agree that dynasties while that can lead to bad government do not automatically do so.
<
p>
Also by stating that she is unqualified due to her last name and dynasty connection you are automatically disqualifying her so she is not in your view the strongest candidate since clearly this weakness is so overwhelming you wont vote for her.
One thing that’s forgotten easily are the failed dynasties — people who run based on their last name, and are spurned by voters. Patricia Walsh and Mitch Landrieu are examples of that. And not every dynasty extends as far as its members would like; Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is an example of the limits of dynastic power. Harold Ford, Jr. found out that being in a dynasty isn’t always a good thing.
<
p>
It’s much easier to think that voters vote based on celebrity and family connections because it’s hard to remember all the failed candidacies.
Is it possible that the party’s decision to nominate weak dynastic candidates is an example of how dynastic politics can hurt the party in a general election? Of course, the nomination of George W. is a counterexample.
<
p>
TedF
Does this “pledge” hold for the general election as well? Would you refuse to vote for Hillary over Romney? (Or whomever the eventual nominee might be?)
<
p>
I don’t yet know who I’ll vote for in the Democratic primary, but you can be damn sure I’m supporting that person in the general. I agree that there’s something a bit distasteful about dynasties, but on my list of concerns about electoral politics in America it’s pretty low on the list.
I agree, and this is the reason my original post specified that I was talking about the primaries. I suppose if there were a primary with only one qualified Democratic candidate, I might make an exception, too.
<
p>
TedF
Well, the poll results are not very promising for The Pledge. The “no” votes are ahead 4 to 1. I’m curious about the political orientation of the voters. I, for one, am a party-line Democratic voter in general elections. Are there any other Democrats who think what I’m proposing is at all sensible? What about you Republicans out there? And how are people’s reactions to this issue affected by instrumental concerns (namely, Hilary’s candidacy in this election cycle? As one commenter asked, would this issue feel different to you if Jeb Bush were in the running?
<
p>
TedF
i’m a registered dem who would vote for independents/other parties should a superior non-dem candidate turn up (almost never happens). i voted ‘no’ on your poll. i don’t like gazillionaires and familytocracies either. however, that’s much of what we have to work with at this point in time. if i think the candidate excels and is trustworthy (ROTFL!) then i may vote for them despite their family history.
<
p>
a word on clinton – i do not see the rodham-clinton campaign as a dynasty. being spouses, hillary & bill are both of the same generation and both have worked hard to get to their positions. no rich daddy gave either the leg up, as far as i’m aware. so why not call them the ultimate display of meritocracy at work? bush, yes, there’s a dynasty which spans three generations. kennedy? well, joe sr. never held elected office, did he? he was wealthy, but fate or clever hitmen have insured that none of his children or grand children became the succeeding generations required to be called a political dynasty.