Bush, Hillary: A Dynastic Battle
Published in El Diario Exterior
(Spain) on 13 January 2015
by Alvaro Vargas Llosa (link to
original)
It is surprising that in the country that made social mobility and the self-made person its hallmarks and rebelled against King George III, denouncing the European dynastic order before the French Revolution, the Clinton and Bush dynasties continue to thrive. However, this is a deceptive contradiction because in American politics as well as American capitalism, there has always been nostalgia for European privilege.
The early announcement by Jeb, the ex-governor of Florida, that he will enter the presidential race is owed in part to Hillary. The prospect of facing the Clinton dynasty could protect Bush from appearing too aristocratic. Hillary fears the opposite: having the Bush dynasty as a rival takes some legitimacy away from the Clinton dynasty, whose primary goal is to represent the reaction against Obama and against the Republican party´s childish gibberish.
The Bushes and the Clintons have troubling political legacies, so it is not difficult to imagine that the dispute will continue beyond Hillary and Jeb. But for now, they are the ones in the spotlight. They share a sense of sacrifice; knowing they were better, they both had to accept a secondary role: Hillary to her husband, who was less prepared but had that sixth political sense which she lacked; Jeb to his brother, who was intellectually and politically inferior but was backed by the Texas machinery at the right time, confirming that opportunity prevails over merit.
In terms of credentials, Jeb outperforms Hillary in management. He was a good governor who dared to make politically explosive reforms in areas like education and school vouchers. Hillary’s performance as secretary of state and her earlier activities as senator and first lady were less substantial than Jeb´s, but they did make her into a female icon.
Who is each one´s worst enemy? In Hillary´s case, even more than the polarizing effect of the Clinton name, Obama is her enemy. Bush´s worst enemy is the current Republican chaos, more than the memory of his brother and father and more than the frowns that the dynastic style of life produces in a country run by the middle-class.
Obama´s unpopularity is not the worst part. Strictly from an electoral standpoint, the worst part is the fact that the president has decided to finish his term by defying the lame duck stereotype and making controversial decisions: the climate change agreement with China, the Immigration Act, the thawing of relations with Cuba and aerial intervention in Iraq. All of these actions serve to lessen Hillary´s totemic image by reducing the contrasting effect that benefited her.
In Jeb´s case, the problem is the divide within the Republican Party, which was demonstrated by the difficulties in the recent re-election of the speaker of the House of Representatives. It is not difficult to imagine that the tea party will abuse Jeb for his defense of immigration (and for his Mexican wife), even to the point of fratricide. This dynastic battle is fascinating from every point of view and impossible to predict.
The early announcement by Jeb, the ex-governor of Florida, that he will enter the presidential race is owed in part to Hillary. The prospect of facing the Clinton dynasty could protect Bush from appearing too aristocratic. Hillary fears the opposite: having the Bush dynasty as a rival takes some legitimacy away from the Clinton dynasty, whose primary goal is to represent the reaction against Obama and against the Republican party´s childish gibberish.
The Bushes and the Clintons have troubling political legacies, so it is not difficult to imagine that the dispute will continue beyond Hillary and Jeb. But for now, they are the ones in the spotlight. They share a sense of sacrifice; knowing they were better, they both had to accept a secondary role: Hillary to her husband, who was less prepared but had that sixth political sense which she lacked; Jeb to his brother, who was intellectually and politically inferior but was backed by the Texas machinery at the right time, confirming that opportunity prevails over merit.
In terms of credentials, Jeb outperforms Hillary in management. He was a good governor who dared to make politically explosive reforms in areas like education and school vouchers. Hillary’s performance as secretary of state and her earlier activities as senator and first lady were less substantial than Jeb´s, but they did make her into a female icon.
Who is each one´s worst enemy? In Hillary´s case, even more than the polarizing effect of the Clinton name, Obama is her enemy. Bush´s worst enemy is the current Republican chaos, more than the memory of his brother and father and more than the frowns that the dynastic style of life produces in a country run by the middle-class.
Obama´s unpopularity is not the worst part. Strictly from an electoral standpoint, the worst part is the fact that the president has decided to finish his term by defying the lame duck stereotype and making controversial decisions: the climate change agreement with China, the Immigration Act, the thawing of relations with Cuba and aerial intervention in Iraq. All of these actions serve to lessen Hillary´s totemic image by reducing the contrasting effect that benefited her.
In Jeb´s case, the problem is the divide within the Republican Party, which was demonstrated by the difficulties in the recent re-election of the speaker of the House of Representatives. It is not difficult to imagine that the tea party will abuse Jeb for his defense of immigration (and for his Mexican wife), even to the point of fratricide. This dynastic battle is fascinating from every point of view and impossible to predict.