On Dynasties

[bigtree]

41. 'dynasties'

...some, like the Bushes are damaging; others, like the Kennedy family dynasty in politics appear to benefit society. I think Edward Kennedy would have done great good in the presidency.

Today, the issue that's been discussed here at DU, more than the Bush family, is the Clinton family and the White House. I think we can assess each family connection on their own merits or detriment and not come to similar conclusions about their impact on our political institutions.

What we can draw from their political experiences is the damaging and corrupted 'dynasty' of political money negatively influencing the political system of elections, and governance, as well.

The 'Addams' I was referring to were the second president, John, and his son, the sixth, John Quincy, who, like Hillary Clinton, served as Sec. of State. An engineer of the 'Monroe Doctrine' he was also, somewhat, an abolitionist.

I don't conclude that 'dynasties' are inherently detrimental or damaging. I think we certainly can draw our own conclusions about the effect of the Bushes on the presidency, although I do believe the senior Bush had his own style and problems. Even though his own connections were corrupt and damaging, his son created far more havoc in our political system of governance by his complete acquiescence to corporate and anti-constitutional forces.

Hillary's relationship with her former president husband and its potential impact on government is harder to qualify or predict, despite all of the speculation and assertions by her detractors. Characterizing that future role by pointing to a 'dynasty,' as some have, doesn't define that future any clearer.