The New Dynasties

America has always had its political dynasties. John Adams was father to John Quincy Adams. The Tafts of Ohio have wielded power in the Buckeye State and on the national stage for more than a century. The Rockefellers of New York, Arkansas, and West Virginia have combined financial and political clout for almost as long. Joe Kennedy’s offspring continue to work their magic from coast to coast. Other examples of dynasties only slightly less celebrated abound around the nation.

Two political dynasties in the news today, the Bushes and the Clintons, seem to me to be significantly different in nature than those mentioned above. While the Bush family’s power grew over the same time frame as many of these others and might well be placed in their category, I think it has morphed into something quite different from these classic dynasties. As well, the Clintons are significantly different from the old time power families, but I think they’re very much like the Bushes of recent times.

The decline of political parties and their traditional bosses has been well documented. Clearly, the role of candidates for high office, especially the presidency, has shifted over the span of the classic dynasties mentioned. No longer are the candidates selected by the party bosses; they are ambitious politicians in their own right and are seen by supporters as representing their views and having the right stuff. Money flows directly to the candidates, and the best politicians are those who can raise the most dollars.

Power follows the money further depleting the impact of the parties. All of the successful dynasties have adjusted to this reality to one degree or another and continue to wield their batons. But the Bushes and the Clintons are qualitatively different from the others. They have turned fund raising into a high art and have the mothers of all rolodexes at their finger tips.

Observing President George W. Bush over the past several weeks - and for the five years of his tenure – we see a man who gives the appearance of being entitled to his office and its trappings, not a career politician who rose through the ranks with the usual skill sets. His hero is Ronald Reagan, yet neither his policies nor his personal skills seem to emulate the great man. The Gipper was a genius of the personal touch, a man never bored by the windbags he was forced to endure. He could fly to the scene of grief or agony and engulf those whose hearts were broken and almost physically lift the pall about them.

Bush sends guests at White House state dinners home so that he may go to bed at ten o’clock. He has no talent for overcoming his boredom as those whose ideas differ from his own prattle on. Even as the President of China, the great rising power in the world, visited Washington, Dubya could barely keep his eyes open as his counterpart spoke. Hundreds of tiny instances of this behavior have been reported over the term of the administration.

As the focus of the political class moves to the 2008 election, one candidate has the inside lane cleared for clean start. With $20 million or more in her war chest, Hillary Clinton is not only the front runner for the Democratic nomination; in fact, it’s almost hers to lose. While as the wife of Bill Clinton she is clearly a derivative candidate, Senator Clinton has worked tirelessly and adroitly to show her political wares. Despite being the constant target of the right wing, she has worked hard in the Senate – and across the nation – to cross party lines and move to the political center. She shows much moxie and great talent, but she remains derivative and without being the wife of Bill Clinton would not be the senior Senator from New York.

As the Bush dynasty licks its wounds from the disaster that this presidency has become, it appears that it will be some time before another with that surname will move to the head of the line in the Republican Party. Should we as voters learn something from this calamitous regime?

How are we to fairly judge Senator Clinton? She is where she is because of her name and relationship to the former president, but she has been tireless in her efforts to show that she is worthy of occupying her post. Still like many senators she has never shown her potential for executive leadership. Her one great chance with health care came to a less than glorious conclusion, but I, for one, think the nation was not ready to deal with the problem and that no one could have done much better.

If Senator Clinton is the default candidate due to the impact of her money raising ability and to the great Clinton rolodex, will we be buying another imperfect and untested candidate? I like Mrs. Clinton and, if she is nominated, I will vote, contribute and post blogs on her behalf. I believe the Democratic candidate will – and should - win, but I’m slightly put off by how the front runner came to claim that position.

But we’re lucky in one respect, the senator didn’t get into Wellesley and Yale Law School because she was a legacy or due to her connections. I’m ready for the first woman president, and she’s already strutting her stuff for us.

Blog on!

Wild Bill