Imperial Presidency – Nepotism
I was reading through the comments on Curts last post and when I read the last one, by Coop, there was an idea brought up about limiting the terms of elected officials even more – to two, three years or so.
I really don’t think that’s the idea we should be focusing on. The problem with having the same people in office for generations, which is why we have term limits, is multifaceted. One, a major reason, is that we as Americans realize that corruption can slip underneath our radar and we want to be able to evict an elected official if he/she is uncovered to be Satan or a minion of Hades. Another big reason is that we want to keep new faces and new ideas rolling through our offices of representatives – we’re a progressive country and should be progressively getting new and inspiring leadership.
Something I don’t think we’re talking about in this country enough is that, if Hilary were to be elected, we’d have an American Presidency that looks a little like this:
- George Bush
- Bill Clinton
- George W. Bush
- Hilary Clinton
From 1989, the year George Sr. took office, potentially until 2012 when Hilary’s first term would be up we, as an American people, would have said there is no better representative for this country than a member of either the Bush or Clinton family.
Bull$hit. This is America. The home of the best and brightest. Why are we continually electing Presidents, Senators and other representatives of our nation from a small pool of individuals from a small network of families.
I realize that Nepotism is a major driving force in the economy here, but this is a little ridiculous. That the American Presidency should be dominated, stolen, hoarded and plundered by two families for over 20 years is folly.
We don’t need shorter term limits.
We need to, all of us, have the common decency and foresight to
.
.
VOTE OUT INCUMBENTS!
(its a little late, but this is a guy who’s got it…
check out this video and you’ll see what I mean)
8 Comments »
Leave a comment
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- BBC News
- Kuenssberg quizzes parties on social care funding, council tax and 'missing' HS2 money
- Israel announces daily military pause on Gaza road to let in aid
- Major summit set to back Ukraine's territorial integrity
- Susannah's grandad ran Bengal when famine killed millions
- Gordon Ramsay shaken after 'really bad' cycling accident
- Are animals conscious? How new research is changing minds
- 'It's time for Southgate and England to deliver'
- Why 800 people fled a sun-kissed Mediterranean village
- Watch: Cow hit by police car gets to its feet
- 'I wanted seven kids but instead I became a nun'
- Unknown Feed
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- Unknown Feed
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- Deadspin
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
My DD214 
Will, I agree with you. what my comment was saying in my discussion with monty was not about lessening term limits, it was about CREATING THEM. As of right now there are NO term limits for Congressmen or Senators and this is part of the travesty that you mentioned: People stay in office, corrupt and feeding nepotism, just ponder for a minute the number of elected officials who break laws that we never find out about or, even worse, they sit in office for years on end, using the title, basking in the prestige, without ever effectively doing what they were asked to do, and they continue to slide by. Your note about the Bush/Clinton legacy is interesting, and not something I’d considered before… and it does tie into this cronyism. Look at the current President’s cabinet over his two terms- Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rove…these are men that have been entrenched in the Washington/Republican political machine since the 70s! Over thirty years of keeping their hands in the cookie jar…and Clinton’s administration was much the same. The vast, vast majority of Democrats taking over the key committees in the Senate and House are either well into their 50s or in their 60s or 70s (it was the same for the Republicans when they had control), and have been playing at national politics for decades. We need to vote out the incumbents, establish term limits, and get new representation; and not just those who stand out in public view but the folks who work behind the scenes as well; these “professional” politicians are neolithic politicians and its time for them to retire. (sorry if this seemed like a rant…I’m venting after a long, rough day…but I fully believe in the ideas above)
I have to agree with you about the run Bush and now, potentially, the Clintons have had. However, it is a bit frustrating to witness the people chose a candidate and have the decision overturned due to a miss-alignment with predetermined political paths. The incident in Florida was a slap in the face to all those who finally got off their ass and went to the polls in the hopes that democracy would keep an embarrassment like W out of the White House. I will still vote, as it is the only current means to voice your say, but not with the confidence of ignorant bliss I once enjoyed.
To add to the Legacy you guys are speaking of…think about this. Jeb Bush became Governor of Florida in 1998 and is still in Power. Check out this link to the Bush Family: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_family
It claims that in the 20th century they have had 2 Presidents, One Vice President, Two Governors and a US Senator (Which was George Sr.’s Dad, Prescott Bush)
There are many names that are prominent like Rockefeller, Kenedy, etc. We are a country that was once run by Robber Baron’s, and once they were stopped, they infiltrated politics and here we are. Money and more money will make you a politician. The reality is, the best candidate doesn’t win because they are too moderate and nobody who has the money wants to invest in someone who might jump over to the other side on an important vote.
I like the idea of limiting terms and changing the system. People have talked about changing the contribution system but thats all they have done is talk. Because if they really did reform it, they would be shooting themselves in the foot.
At least one person has already dropped out of the run for presidency because he did not have enough money. If I were to run for president, I would have to raise two hundred million dollars or more. I can barely pay my bills. I would have to start a long road of ass kissing and become a politician, and by the time I could run for president, I would be in cahoots with some very powerful people who would essentially “own” me because they are placing their bets on me to win the race. If I lose they lose their power and so on. If I win, I will spend my first four years paying them back by passing laws that run counter to my campaign, because in my campaign I made a lot of promises to the world just o please them.
I think you get my point.
I agree that the presedency is an expensive endevor. That is exactly why it’s handed down or owned.
The Bush-Clinton run is something that I too found remarkable. On top of that, the US (I’m a Canadian guy – eh) is essentially a 2 party system. With all this in consideration, just how many different/opposing points of view throughout America are missed, neglected or passed over.
It’s awful when you’re only allowed one choice …two choices sometimes isn’t a whole lot better.
As for the money required to run …maybe lower campaign limits have to be imposed to keep things fair to everyone – giving the ‘underdog’ more of a chance?
Troy, good point! The only point of view we have seen over the history of our country is White Male. That is why it is important that we have a chance to vote in a woman or minority. An average American is not LEFT or Right but hovers in the middle and slightly to one side or the other. People are usually swayed to vote by one thing that is really important to them. The politicians are so smart that they scout an area and they they speak to their audience but the next day they may say something to the contrary to another crowd. Here in Michigan they all tell us how important automobiles are to the future of America, but the president only gives the CEO’s of GM, Chrysler and Ford one hour during the year to voice their concerns. We are constantly “played” by the politicians. They decide who is going to win. With all of the information that we have at our finger tips, it seems like we would have a better chance to make an educated vote, but now the politicians are infiltrating our space, literally. They are on Myspace and YouTube telling us what to do. We will never have someone who has the perfect or unique point of view that you have, but we must vote in an exceptional person who can lead us!
Well put, both of you. Difference in opinions and backgrounds are the lifeblood of any thriving democracy. That is why ours is so much like a broke-winged bird: filled with the need to fly, but crippled to do so.
I’d like to draw attention to what Curt said in the last sentence of his most recent comment: “…we must vote in an exceptional person who can lead us!”
That is my whole message to voters. Vote who you think should be in office based on your confidence in him/her to carefully and honestly execute the duties prescribed by his/her office.
Stop voting according to a strategy that one party thinks will make the biggest impact. Just vote for who you want in office. It’s quite simple.
I understand that voting according to a strategy like voting all Democrat or all Green can make a vote more effective. If by effective you mean the party will have an easier go at passing legislation and such, but I would say to you that an effective government is one that has diverse and far reaching goals, objectives and perspectives. To me, voting all Green Party for the sake that they’d have an easier time at passing bills undermines the idea of teamwork. Make those parties work together. Force them to recognize other minority parties. Help our democracy to flourish.
If one party gains too much control (as two of them have) you can expect to see them clinging to their doctrines, policies, internal philosophies and practices like dogmas. Party politics turns into a sort-of religion on its own in this fashion. Where decisions are made not out of personal belief, but of collective agreements on “why” without ever asking the question yourself. If you let another make decisions for you, especially without rationalizing it on your own, you cease being a leader. That just makes you a follower.
Loyalty should lie in the Constitution. Not the Presidency or the Party.
It’s a shame what happened to Bangladesh. I hope the world steps up and helps them.