A Family Affair: Why political families are a bad idea
By Thomas Lindaman (06/17/08)
Every election year brings with it a series of beginnings and endings. Some of these endings are fairly quick, like the likelihood that Dennis Kucinich would be the next President of the United States. Others endings drag on longer than Al Gore doing a book on tape of War and Peace in Pig Latin. (They would have gotten Joe Lieberman, but the language wasn’t kosher.)
One ending I hope comes very soon is the era of political families. Part of this sentiment stems from a statement Bill Clinton made while campaigning for his wife Hillary where he floated the idea of Chelsea Clinton running for President in 2028. If you really think about it, not only is it entirely possible that Chelsea could run for President, but it’s also entirely possible that she would win simply because of her last name. And that’s why I’m changing my last name to “Oprah.”
Looking at the current political landscape, there are only two families that one could argue are political dynasties, the Kennedys and the Bushs. As different politically as they are, they share more than a few similarities, not the least of which being that members of both families can invoke emotional responses from people of an opposing viewpoint. I know I’ve made any number of jokes about Ted Kennedy’s sobriety (or the lack thereof), and others have made jokes about how George W. Bush isn’t the sharpest bowling ball on the Christmas tree. Yet, there’s something comforting about having them both out there because even if we haven’t met them, we feel a connection to them and their families. And speaking as a comedy writer of sorts, they both give me tons of material!
In spite of the familiarity factor, I still think letting a couple of families have so much influence over American politics is a bad idea. Here’s why.
1) The second act is rarely as good as the first. Going back to the Kennedy and Bush families for a moment, we see this principle quite clearly. Aside from John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy, there really isn’t anyone to take up the banner of excellence. After RFK, your next Kennedy of any portent is Ted. That’s a pretty big drop-off if you ask me, especially considering how JFK and RFK are still held in high regard. Although the drop-off from George H. W. Bush to George W. Bush isn’t as great, it’s still a drop-off. I guess the lesson we could learn is if you’re going to create a political dynasty, it’s best to be mediocre so the second generation of politicians won’t have to work as hard to be seen as great. It’s worked wonders for David Arquette, after all. This leads us to another problem.
2) There aren’t any good families out there anymore to have dynasties. Think about it. Is there another famous family with enough savvy to establish a legitimate political dynasty? You could have made a case for the Clintons had Hillary been more successful in her run for the Presidency this year. Of course, the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal pretty much nuked Bill’s chance of establishing a foothold on a favorable political history for himself and any family member who followed him into public office. Seriously, dude, you were the most powerful man in the world and could have any woman you wanted, but you settled for a mallrat from Beverly Hills? Turn in your guy card, Mr. Clinton.
3) The Founding Fathers were against it. As much as some in our society love to malign the Founding Fathers, I think they had this one right. They feared that having so much power vested with a single family was akin to a monarchy, and they’re right. And given the nozzleheads who stagger through the halls of power right now, it’s definitely a good thing that we don’t have a monarchy. Can you imagine Mad King Murtha or Queen Pelosi I? Folks, there’s a reason why John Adams and John Quincy Adams were the only father-son tandem to win the Presidency prior to the election of George W. Bush in 2000: it’s that bad of an idea!
4) “Unfinished business.” One of the great knocks against President Bush’s war in Iraq has been that he felt he had to finish the job his dad started. Regardless of how you feel about the man, I wouldn’t doubt there’s more than a little of that involved in his thinking, just as there would be with any family member with that much power. With many families, we hate to see the family name sullied by criticism from others. Throw in politics, which is a profession where egos run rampant like Godzilla in a fishing village, and you have yourself a recipe for abuse of power. Not to mention, with some folks (like me), it would be really tempting to get some level of payback for past slights. So, just be glad I don’t want to be President, Bobby Funklemeister, or you would so be getting audited.
For the sake of sanity and the possibility of getting new blood in the White House, let’s stop voting for the family members of past Presidents. It’s not that they may not be qualified for President. After all, we let Ron Paul run and he’s Ross Perot 2.0. It’s just that we need to rotate our leaders like we rotate tires. That prevents wear to our country and helps its handling. Plus, who wouldn’t want to see steel-belted politicians?
And that’s the Bottom Line.
Thomas Lindaman
(Printer friendly version) Email: Thomas Lindaman
