Does this 'dynasty' politics suit DU?

[bigtree]

____________________________

The Associated Press ?@AP 2m
BREAKING: Jason Carter, grandson of former President Jimmy Carter, says he plans to run for Ga. governor. http://t.co/LkinLLBv6p


I know it's been a subject here for others, like the Clintons and the Kennedys, but I'm not a critic of family politics. It's not something that I see a need to automatically reject, and, I like the sound of this legacy political bid from Ga..

[kydo]

1. I like it

[HappyMe]

6. Exactly.

It becomes a case of who they are, rather than what they have to say. I think it also shuts out new voices, since the dynasty is often the same rhetoric with a little variation.

[demigoddess]

31. I agree on the Bushes

But Hillary has held more posts than most presidents. Had more experience with other heads of state. And worked in the field longer than most, even if it has been behind the scenes in many cases.

[HappyMe]

33. I don't care really

from which side of the aisle the dynasty comes from. It's a good way for parties to become stagnant and new voices drowned out by the status quo.

[bigtree]

7. I can think of a few cases where states desperately needed the star power

. . . that a named individual brought to a critical race. It's usually a sort of hail Mary, but there's some merit in recruiting a known individual to draw attention to a candidacy; especially in states, like Georgia, where good policy hasn't been enough to make many Democratic candidates competitive in statewide races.

[cali]

3. I don't know enough about Jason Carter but then I wouldn't say this falls

into the "political dynasty" category. It's not like members of the Carter family (afaik) have gone into politics like members of the bush or Kennedy family have.

In any case, I prefer to judge a candidate individually although political dynasties do make me uncomfortable.

[bigtree]

5. I don't know

. . . I think the issue raised here was just about nepotism, but I take your point that Jason Carter is probably the first overt political offspring from that family.

[grantcart]

26. Its not nepotism if you have to run for office.

He has as much right to run as anyone else.

It could be an issue when you have family members succeeding someone in the same position, but its not a one way street. When he is running for office he will inherit all of his grandfather's enemies as well as his friends.

There is also the factor of winning in red areas. If it takes using the brand of earlier generations for qualified Democrats to win office in red areas then I am all for it. We paid in blood to get those victories if we can exploit them now then it should be applauded.

[trumad]

4. Judge the Man....

Or woman.

[LuvNewcastle]

8. The biggest problem I have with the political dynasties is

when they move to a new state just so they can hold an office without stepping on another family member's toes. It looks to me like they're not as concerned about the people they're representing as they are with spreading around their family's influence. At least the Carters are still in Georgia, where they have deep roots. Besides, two family members separated by a couple of generations doesn't really make it a dynasty.

[FSogol]

10. One Carter every 30 years is hardly a dynasty. n/t

[Whisp]

39. yours is the right answer. n/t

[Nye Bevan]

11. Yes. Many Americans miss having a Royal Family,

hence the eager attention that royal wedding/baby/christening/etc. threads receive. Political dynasties are the next best thing.

[Raulrosendo]

34. You exaggerate

Poll: 63% of Americans say media gave too much coverage to the royal baby thing. 23% say the amount was right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/27/kate-middleton-baby-poll_n_3660563.html

This debunks your research-free hypothesis.

[B Calm]

12. Is he the one who outed Romney with that video?

[bigtree]

28. that was another grandson, James

[LanternWaste]

13. I'd guess that if we deny someone a vote merely due to genetics and lineage...

I'd guess that if we deny someone a vote merely due to genetics and lineage it's as lacking in thought as casting a vote based merely on genetics and lineage.

[bobduca]

15. "merely due to genetics" gosh merely? just because candidates are related? gosh and golly

This is disingenuous at best... I bet you would be on the other end of this issue if Jeb were running.

[LanternWaste]

16. I'd cast a vote against Jeb because of his policies, not due to blood, family or genetics.

I'd cast a vote against Jeb because of his policies, not due to blood, family or genetics.

Casting a vote for or against a candidate based on policy rather than family is hardly disingenuous at all... it's simply being consistent, and not rationalizing that consistency.

[bobduca]

17. I'm not saying your vote against jeb is disingenuous... what i am claiming is

is your false equivalence between judging familial ties as harmful to democracy, and then concluding the opposite as having equal weights.... this is a sloppy rationalization at best.

[LanternWaste]

20. The critical mind judge candidates on that candidate's merits, regardless of who they are related to

Nope. The critical mind judge candidates on that candidate's merits, regardless of who they are related to.

That is not a rationalization-- a rationalization would be justifying why we should or shouldn't vote for a candidate because of whom they are related to.



On Edit: "your false equivalence between judging familial ties as harmful to democracy..." I made no such claim or implication. Although I'd be rather interested in seeing you point out precisely where I implied familial ties are indeed, harmful to democracy.

[bobduca]

21. The critical mind doesnt sweep away evidence that dynasties are undemocratic

nope.

[LanternWaste]

23. a candidate's lineage is more important than a candidate's policy positions...?

Then I may only presume many people erroneously believe a candidate's lineage is more important than a candidate's policy positions?

I find that, by its very dentition to be lacking in critical thought, i.e., prioritizing an irrelevancy (genetics) over the substance (policy), a conclusion without supporting evidence... merely an editorial pretending to be a premise.





However, if you wish your vote to be based (whether wholly or in part) on genetics and lineage, by all means-- please vote as such, and meanwhile, I will reject it as such....

[bobduca]

24. Peerage and Lineage was very important in england.

I reject dynasties. That's more important to me than rooting on our team and making up rationalizations for why democratic dynasties are ok when our team does it... also more important than pretending that a president's wife will be the best candidate because of her dynastic choices.

[HereSince1628]

14. How shall we recognize dynastic control of US politics? What are the Koch Bro's

if they are not heirs to a dynasty of radical politics?

And it seems quite a few of the puppeteers rule America under the cover of gilded curtains of inherited wealth and buying power.

The danger of this sort of dynasty is, of course, that we tend to ignore it and pretend that corrupted politicians are national leaders rather than indentured servants to the powerful.

The world history Plutocracy disguised to appear as Republics suggests that such dynasties are easy to establish under Free Market Capitalism.

Traditions of political service in a family aren't the issue, unelected, self-interest of maintaining and growing dynastic wealth through control of governance is.

[bobduca]

18. If you can't beat em join em?

[HereSince1628]

29. I don't think I said that at all. I'm handing that back to you.

[bobduca]

19. It suits DU just fine...

Democracy, not so much.

[bvar22]

36. Nailed It.

[snooper2]

22. No, it's crap...Another fucking Bush is running for Land Commissioner here in Texas

You know where that job leads to

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. at some point i hope one of the diblasio kids runs for office

so yeah, if the candidate is competent i dont think an entire family should be ruled out because their parents ran for office

also the kennedy's prove that liberals are ok with dynasty politics

[L0oniX]

27. JR was a repuke!

[Laelth]

30. I like it a lot, at least in this case.

Jason Carter may not be able to win in Georgia next year, but he's setting himself up to win five years from now when the seat is vacant.

-Laelth

[Raulrosendo]

32. Would I have to pay a penalty if I vote for someone else?

Or am I allowed to not vote for a "dynasty" candidate?

[bigtree]

35. there's a penalty if that vote helps elect a republican

[Beacool]

37. The Clintons are not a dynasty, unless Chelsea runs for office.

[Octafish]

38. Yes. When they're good Democrats.

When they're just dressed in Democratic attire, no.