JIM CREES: Say no to dynasty
OK. I would suggest I’ll probably get everybody a wee bit upset this week — Republican and Democrats alike.
It is what it is.
So ... I was watching a news commentary program just the other night and much of the discussion involved the idea of whether Jeb Bush would make a run for the presidency, or not.
There was a lot of very thoughtful discussion and much insightful conversation. One word, however, kept popping up and mildly annoying me.
The various commentators and “experts” used the word “dynasty” each time they referred to Hillary Clinton as well.
I thought it ... odd.
And so, let me be the first to say, I sincerely hope that Jeb Bush DOES NOT run, and for the same reason that I hope Hillary Clinton DOES NOT run for presidency.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. I implore you.
We should not be bantering about a word such as “dynasty” when we discuss the leadership of this nation — our elective democracy.
Dynasty is a term best suited for places such as Syria and North Korea, and not well fitted to this great nation.
Our representational system of government was certainly in part created on the idea that voters chose people of ability, not people with the right name. The whole idea of a hereditary line of leadership was exactly what we, as a nation, separated ourselves from — the royal family thing.
Just because you happen to be a Clinton, Bush, or Kennedy, does not immediately qualify you for leadership, and even though Jeb and Hillary are and have been in various leadership roles does not mean we do not have others either equally or even more eminently qualified.
If we take two equally qualified candidates for any given office, why would the family name of one make them more qualified than the other?
I’m not suggesting that neither Hillary nor Jeb is qualified to be president. Perchance both are. But we, as a nation, should be mature enough in our voting to avoid anything smacking of a dynastic regime.
We have seen what “dynasty” has done for other countries, and in fact the recent previous Bush “dynasty” was no great shakes in this country.
The United States system is based on a republican ideal. Voters (despite all the money involved) still choose the nation’s leadership.
Simply assuming that a person, even a qualified person, is that much more qualified than the next person to hold the highest office in the land because of their last name is very, Very, VERY unhealthy.
And by that same token choosing one of them — Hillary or Jeb — to be president simply because of the family name ... specifically for the sake of “dynasty” ... is simply crazy.
Making such a choice or a decision is certainly not what our Founders and Framers thought would happen, or thought should happen.
Dynasty? Dangerous stuff.
We should be nurturing good, honest and capable leaders, but also should be doing everything we can to avoid even the perception of an dynastic oligarchy.
Once we, as a nation, decide that a person is eminently capable of leading the country because their name is Bush, Clinton, Kennedy, or anything, we have started out on a road that can only be fraught with a national relegation of responsibility, and is ripe and ready for the abuse of power.
Our national guidebook, the Constitution, was not designed to be well used in dynastic situations.
Family dynasties are weak in theory and ultimately are weaker in practical application. Witness the slip in ability from one Bush president to the next.
Bush the Second was ramrodded into office with the support of his dad’s buddies.
George Junior had an administration largely centered on the same people who controlled Bush Senior’s time in office.
This was and is not good policy.
Just because you are born into a family that has a person who was president doesn’t mean you are a natural to be the same.
And Heaven knows just because you were the spouse of a president doesn’t mean you gain an advantage by some odd marital osmosis.
I would suggest that the idea of “dynasty” in these United States of America should be so repugnant as to preclude any strange desire to have a second Clinton or third Bush comfortably ensconced in the White House.
There are others of similar ability.
There are others — men, women, and of diverse origins — who can do the job just as well without bringing old baggage on a new journey.