Bush versus Clinton 2016: would a battle of the dynasties really be un-American?

[umbertino]

A US presidential battle between Jeb Bush and Hillarious Clinton has parallels with Hollywood sequels and remakes

 

 

 

By Matt Lewis

5:21PM BST 19 Apr 2014

 

 

 

 

Could the 2016 presidential election turn into a contest between a Bush and a Clinton? Political debate in America last week revolved around whether or not Jeb Bush, Florida's former governor who is son or brother to two former US presidents – both named George – would jump into the 2016 battle for the Republican presidential nomination.

 

For a nation that fought a war for independence from the hereditary power of the British Crown, in the person of another fellow named George, the concept of nominating a third Bush to run for the White House against a second Clinton (the former First Lady, Hillarious Clinton, who is the assumed Democratic nominee) might sound absurd.

 

And not just to an outsider. "If we can't find more than two or three families to run for high office," Jeb Bush's mother Barbara said in January. "That's silly."

 

Silliness aside, Mrs Bush's words haven't stopped the speculation from swirling. Just last week, the New York Times reported that Andy Card, who was chief of staff to former President George W Bush, said "Republicans should draft Jeb", adding: "If Jeb Bush doesn't run for president, shame on us."

 

The rush to crown another Bush as the Republican nominee speaks to a few things. First, it is an apparent sign of desperation, which is to be expected when any political party considers the looming possibility of losing a third consecutive presidential election – a real prospect for Republicans just now.

 

 

But second, does it speak to a latent dynastic tendency in America? I don't mean that the US wants a king, as such, but that the concept of elected ruling elites isn't nearly as much an affront to Americans as they would have you believe.

 

Americans may pose as a nation of populists and rugged individualists, but what else explains our penchant for promoting certain families, from the Adamses who provided our second and sixth presidents through to the Kennedys, the Clintons and the Bushes?

 

We're so keen on dynasties that we even have a backup plan for 2016. In the event than Jeb Bush doesn't seek or win the nomination, Rand Paul, the Republican senator, will be in pursuit of it as well – himself the son of the congressman and former presidential candidate, Ron Paul. (Unlike the Bushes, the Pauls are thought of as political outsiders, despite the fact that the younger Paul is now a denizen of the US senate, the most exclusive club in America – making him an insiders' outsider, I suppose).

 

Further underscoring that this is an American tendency rather than mere coincidence is the fact that we now also have a growing number of presumed heirs to the throne. George P Bush, Jeb's son, has taken his first steps into politics. Liz Cheney, daughter of the former vice president **** Cheney, had a tilt at becoming the Republicans' senate candidate in Wyoming.

 

It may now be just a matter of time before one of them – or perhaps Tagg Romney, scion of failed White House candidate Mitt – runs up against Chelsea Clinton for president?

 

Some maintain that this is less an example of dynastic tendencies, let alone nepotism, than a case of families sharing an interest and passing traditions down from one generation to the next – like a sort of family business.

 

This makes running the most powerful country in the world sound as quaint as being a grocer's son. Of course, we acknowledge the importance of both nature and nurture: we talk a lot about genius. But running a family grocery is altogether different from running a nation.

 

Ultimately, our penchant for dynasties exposes a contradiction within the American psyche. While Americans don't much care for hereditary rule, we do care a great deal about making money – and it is in the context of capitalism and commercialism that it makes business sense for the Republicans to nominate Jeb Bush.

 

Ever wonder why Hollywood churns out so many second-rate but profitable, sequels and remakes? It's because, no matter how bad the film may prove to be, studios are almost guaranteed to make money from a familiar title with a proven track record.

 

It helps if you don't think of the Bushes and the Clintons as political nobility but as established names: it's all about the brand.

 

Matt K Lewis is a senior contributor at The Daily Caller website in Washington, DC.

 

 

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10776038/Bush-versus-Clinton-2016-would-a-battle-of-the-dynasties-really-be-un-American.html

 

[Rayzur]

Oh let me guess.... they're starting to put this stuff out now so that early on we're supposed to see them as so separate and distinct with differences so great that they actually represent distinct dynasties?!?!! Wonder what the good ole boys are planning to shove through while they have us all preoccupied with this windmill joust?? We're so far down the rabbit hole its hard to see the light of day... But when we do, lets hope most eyes are on the continued progression of laws passed that any tweak who gets into office can continue marching us down some hell path...How I wish these two represented some kind of choice as if it were an actual choice.... And my money is on prolific debates arguing that it is, ... in the days to come... . !

[10 YEARS LATER]

It's what "They" want, that's all, nothing more or less . . . it has nothing to do with the country. Oh, we'll get the the spin, and the hoorah speechs alright. Whip up the frenzy that goes with a Presidential Election.We're along for the ride. Money & Manipulation.

 

Whoever squats in the White House next, it's because thats who "They" want.

[Rayzur]

Well said.... amen....

[DinarMillionaire]

It's what "They" want, that's all, nothing more or less . . . it has nothing to do with the country. Oh, we'll get the the spin, and the hoorah speechs alright. Whip up the frenzy that goes with a Presidential Election.We're along for the ride. Money & Manipulation.

 

Whoever squats in the White House next, it's because thats who "They" want.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! Anyone who votes for the MEDIA FRONT RUNNER, should not vote. They will hand us ONLY who "They" want the stupid to vote for. Stop being handed who to vote for by the "propaganda media." Vote for the person the "propaganda media" villainizes and we will get the right person for the job. Vote for the media darling and we are screwed.

[Maggie123]

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! Anyone who votes for the MEDIA FRONT RUNNER, should not vote. They will hand us ONLY who "They" want the stupid to vote for. Stop being handed who to vote for by the "propaganda media." Vote for the person the "propaganda media" villainizes and we will get the right person for the job. Vote for the media darling and we are screwed.

 

Mark this day on your calendar... We Agree!!!

 

Sure hope the Independents find someone strong enough to take hold and give them a fight... awe never mind...

[dinar_millions]

I defiantly will not be voting for a bush..We have had enough bush's in politic's going back to Prescott and Vaner Bush..the DeBushia family was in Germany too..

[Muleslayer]

Battle of the dynasties?

More like Bevis V Butthead!

[DaveH]

I can only hope that both of them stay home and dont run.

[leanonme]

It's one Cabal versus another cabal member. The same doom for the American people.

[DinarDavo]

Same result either way.

[bigwave]