Clinton and Bush, Symbols of American-Style Nepotism
Published in Les Échos
(France) on 20 January 2015
by Lucie Robequain (link to original)
Jeb Bush, who is both brother and son of a former president, could face Hillary Clinton — wife of Bill — next year. The American dynasties pretty much don't have anything new; they are becoming more cumbersome than ever.
We can hardly imagine Bernadette Chirac facing Jean-Christophe Mitterrand in the next presidential election in France: in the United States, yes. According to the polls, it is completely possible that Jeb Bush, both brother and son of a former president, is the candidate selected by the Republicans to face Hillary Clinton, the wife of Bill. Neither of them has yet to confirm their candidacy, but Jeb Bush started to raise money to fund a possible campaign. As for Hillary Clinton, she's been touring the country for months to establish her presidential stature.
The situation appears to be novel, but it hardly shocked the American people who, in two centuries, have seen many other previous dynasties thriving. John Adams, who was the second president of the United States, fathered the sixth. Benjamin Harrison reached the Oval Office almost half a century after his grandfather. We also counted two Roosevelts in the White House, distant cousins, who went by the names Franklin and Theodore. Dynasties are also found in Congress: More than 700 families sent at least two of their members to the Capitol. Obviously, we think of the Kennedy clan, which in addition to a president and an attorney general, gave the country six congressmen.
America has certainly never had a monarchy, but it’s still fascinated by these great families. Jeb Bush would probably never have been governor of Florida if his father had not been a president. And Hillary Clinton would certainly not have been senator if she had not previously been first lady. We obviously won't find any Democrat or Republican to criticize this situation since it benefits both camps, but this elective aristocracy conflicts with the image that we often associate with America: a deeply democratic country, where everyone can succeed.
The American dynasties pretty much don't have anything new; they have become more cumbersome than ever. Clintons and Bushes have already ruled over America for 20 consecutive years — 1989-2009. If either Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush wins the 2016 presidential election, their families will have occupied the White House for 24 years in a 30-year period — a nepotism that is starting to cause some cringing. In 2007, only one in 10 Americans worried about the emergence of political dynasties, according to a public opinion poll published at the time by The Wall Street Journal and the channel NBC. Now, that number is more than seven out of 10 according to an updated version of the same poll.
Jeb Bush's mother is concerned about it herself, since it could cause some light tension at the family dinner table. “I think this is a great American country. And if we can’t find more than two or three families to run for high office, that’s silly,” she said a few months ago. The Clinton family is much more likely to double talk. “Dynasties are not good for America”, maintains Bill Clinton with a certain nerve. “If you fight fair and square and you win, it’s not dynastic.”*
But the amount of resources one needs to win an election in the United States certainly makes these fights less “fair and square” than the former president wants us to think. Without any prior fame, a politician practically has no chance of winning an election in the United States. Election campaigns are a financial battle before they become political, which reduces the number of people who can participate. It's the opposite of what we expect from a democracy. Barack Obama spent $745 million to get elected in 2008 ... nearly 30 times the amount spent by Nicolas Sarkozy the year before to win the Elysée! Things only worsened since: The ticket to hope to win the next presidential election amounts to at least $1 billion according to experts, an amount already reached by Mitt Romney and Barack Obama during the 2012 election campaign. The Supreme Court is largely responsible, since it struck down the limit on financial contributions to the election campaigns twice. Since 2010, corporations have been able to make unlimited contributions to super PACs that back a candidate of their choice. Last spring, the court also struck down the limit on donations to private individuals.
Democrats benefit as much from it as Republicans. At the rate things are going, Hillary Clinton's campaign could even become the most expensive one ever in the United States. Her name and network give her a financial power that is nearly impossible to match by the other Democratic contenders. Barack Obama achieved this feat in 2008, but it is unlikely that another candidate will get through this time around: The last surveys show that Hillary Clinton clearly led the race against her possible challengers — Jim Webb, Elizabeth Warren, etc.
To those who criticize the lack of freshness and newness in politics, she replies with a convincing argument: After 40 men, she would be the first woman to reach the Oval Office. To live this revolution — after that of the first black man in the White House — the American people will maybe forgive her for being first lady before becoming Ms. President.
*Editor's note: Accurately translated, this quote could not be verified.
We can hardly imagine Bernadette Chirac facing Jean-Christophe Mitterrand in the next presidential election in France: in the United States, yes. According to the polls, it is completely possible that Jeb Bush, both brother and son of a former president, is the candidate selected by the Republicans to face Hillary Clinton, the wife of Bill. Neither of them has yet to confirm their candidacy, but Jeb Bush started to raise money to fund a possible campaign. As for Hillary Clinton, she's been touring the country for months to establish her presidential stature.
The situation appears to be novel, but it hardly shocked the American people who, in two centuries, have seen many other previous dynasties thriving. John Adams, who was the second president of the United States, fathered the sixth. Benjamin Harrison reached the Oval Office almost half a century after his grandfather. We also counted two Roosevelts in the White House, distant cousins, who went by the names Franklin and Theodore. Dynasties are also found in Congress: More than 700 families sent at least two of their members to the Capitol. Obviously, we think of the Kennedy clan, which in addition to a president and an attorney general, gave the country six congressmen.
America has certainly never had a monarchy, but it’s still fascinated by these great families. Jeb Bush would probably never have been governor of Florida if his father had not been a president. And Hillary Clinton would certainly not have been senator if she had not previously been first lady. We obviously won't find any Democrat or Republican to criticize this situation since it benefits both camps, but this elective aristocracy conflicts with the image that we often associate with America: a deeply democratic country, where everyone can succeed.
The American dynasties pretty much don't have anything new; they have become more cumbersome than ever. Clintons and Bushes have already ruled over America for 20 consecutive years — 1989-2009. If either Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush wins the 2016 presidential election, their families will have occupied the White House for 24 years in a 30-year period — a nepotism that is starting to cause some cringing. In 2007, only one in 10 Americans worried about the emergence of political dynasties, according to a public opinion poll published at the time by The Wall Street Journal and the channel NBC. Now, that number is more than seven out of 10 according to an updated version of the same poll.
Jeb Bush's mother is concerned about it herself, since it could cause some light tension at the family dinner table. “I think this is a great American country. And if we can’t find more than two or three families to run for high office, that’s silly,” she said a few months ago. The Clinton family is much more likely to double talk. “Dynasties are not good for America”, maintains Bill Clinton with a certain nerve. “If you fight fair and square and you win, it’s not dynastic.”*
But the amount of resources one needs to win an election in the United States certainly makes these fights less “fair and square” than the former president wants us to think. Without any prior fame, a politician practically has no chance of winning an election in the United States. Election campaigns are a financial battle before they become political, which reduces the number of people who can participate. It's the opposite of what we expect from a democracy. Barack Obama spent $745 million to get elected in 2008 ... nearly 30 times the amount spent by Nicolas Sarkozy the year before to win the Elysée! Things only worsened since: The ticket to hope to win the next presidential election amounts to at least $1 billion according to experts, an amount already reached by Mitt Romney and Barack Obama during the 2012 election campaign. The Supreme Court is largely responsible, since it struck down the limit on financial contributions to the election campaigns twice. Since 2010, corporations have been able to make unlimited contributions to super PACs that back a candidate of their choice. Last spring, the court also struck down the limit on donations to private individuals.
Democrats benefit as much from it as Republicans. At the rate things are going, Hillary Clinton's campaign could even become the most expensive one ever in the United States. Her name and network give her a financial power that is nearly impossible to match by the other Democratic contenders. Barack Obama achieved this feat in 2008, but it is unlikely that another candidate will get through this time around: The last surveys show that Hillary Clinton clearly led the race against her possible challengers — Jim Webb, Elizabeth Warren, etc.
To those who criticize the lack of freshness and newness in politics, she replies with a convincing argument: After 40 men, she would be the first woman to reach the Oval Office. To live this revolution — after that of the first black man in the White House — the American people will maybe forgive her for being first lady before becoming Ms. President.
*Editor's note: Accurately translated, this quote could not be verified.
Previous article![]( "Obama Isn’t Charlie")