ShareThis
~ How Do Dynasties Affect Our Politics ?
~ “Part of the excitement of a Hillary candidacy was how a new Clinton presidency would work with a woman in charge, and a former president, her husband, behind her. The Clinton journey continues to be a joint enterprise.” ~ Carl Bernstein, 2007
~ “ Hillary was advised on Iraq by her husband and Sandy Berger, his former national security adviser. Both felt she should support the president – G.W. Bush – in the vote. Her perspective is of someone who lived and worked in the White House for eight years as one of the two right hands to the president – Bill Clinton” – Carl Bernstein, 2007
~ “Other institutional aspects of a family-based presidency warrant national attention. Dynasties tend to show continuities of policy and interest-group bias—in the case of the Bushes, favoritism toward the energy sector, defense industries, the Pentagon, and the CIA, as well as insistence on tax breaks for the investor class and upper-income groups.” ~ Kevin Phillips, 2004
~ “Jeb Bush’s adult pre-political career was spent in Texas, in Venezuela, and in south Florida where he employed a political and business strategy familiar to historians of the political dynasty whose name he carries : The strategy was to exploit the Bush family name and to draw on a huge universe of family relationships, friendships, family money, and elite contacts in order to propel himself into successful careers in both business and politics.” ~ Robert Crew, 2009
~ “Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue; or affecting the value of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change and can trace its consequences; a harvest reared not by themselves but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the few not for the many.” ~ James Madison, 1788
Like me, you may be starting to take more interest in who may be voted our next U.S. President in 2016. After all, if recent history is any guide, two new flocks of candidates in the Republican and Democratic parties will be declaring their candidacies within six to nine months from now. Candidates Obama and McCain declared themselves eighteen months before the 2008 U.S. Presidential election – significantly earlier than in previous such contests. This was doubtless due to the pressures of raising large amounts of campaign funding, setting up a national campaign organizations, and the now much earlier than before and more institutionalized campaign primary calendars across fifty states.
These factors put a premium on candidates having deep resources to call on in terms of financial backers, political advisers and experienced operatives. As with other national, state and local elections, candidates with established political credentials, name recognition, backers have a decided edge. Which is why perhaps across America today we are seeing the heyday of political dynasties, with more and more family members seeking to replace a father or a brother or an aunt in a run for office.
If they run, the highest profile political dynasty competition would surely be between Republican Jeb Bush and Democrat Hillary Clinton. Both are reported to be actively considering a bid. Each represents today their respective party’s longest lasting, most powerful political dynasty with over twenty years at the pinnacle of American politics. But our Founding Fathers in the eighteenth century – see James Madison quote above – frowned upon such concentration of power as an “elected despotism” to be kept in check or prevented through the separation of powers. In addition to assessing carefully the candidates and what they stand for, we might do well to consider the risks posed by the power of dynasty and its perpetuation in our politics.
Key Questions : What is the impact of established political dynasties – such as the Bush and Clinton clans on American politics today? How would the narrowing of Presidential candidacies for the two major parties – Republican and Democrat – to two political dynasty leaders (such as Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton) impact the openness of the race for President in 2016? What risks are posed to America’s political system and its ability to provide leadership and tackle the challenges we face as a nation? What, if anything, needs to be done to restrain the dominance of political dynasties and of establishment politics broadly?
Rise and Past Impact of Dynasty : From their impressive recent past records in office – Jeb Bush as governor of Florida, and Hillary Clinton as U.S. Senator for New York then later as Secretary of State under Pres. Obama – it is clear both are highly qualified, very hard-working and capable individuals with by now considerable experience. Yet, in a very real sense, they only rose to high office by virtue of their family connections : Jeb’s with his father and brother, both former U.S. Presidents; and Hillary with her husband, also a former U.S. President. In itself, reliance upon family connections for career advancement, provided skill requirements are also met, is quite wide-spread and accepted. However, when a succession of members of the same clan are able to hold the same or related offices for long periods of time it can – almost inevitably – narrow average citizens’ access to political power and influence by perpetuating the preponderance of privileged small groups in which power – and wealth – are then concentrated.
Powerful vested interests tied to a political dynasty – such as the oil, defense and Wall Street financial interests linked to the Bushes, and similar financial interests tied to the Clintons – will also consolidate major influence over government decisions. It is perhaps not surprising that in the past twenty five years, the rise of political dynasty as a force in our politics has occurred as poverty and inequality in our society have considerably increased.
Opportunity Cost is Narrowing of Choices : In very powerful ways, the perpetuation of political dynasties can lead to a narrowing of choices for the broader society – the “great body of their fellow citizens” referred to by James Madison (above).
In the case of the Bush dynasty, while Jeb has been portrayed as more pragmatic – and in some way more benign and thoughtful – than his brother and former President George W,, his approach to governing as Governor of Florida (1999-2007) was, if anything more radically conservative, following the ideology espoused by conservative Republican business groups – in Florida and elsewhere. Despite Florida having a lower level of taxation and government spending proportionally than many other U.S. states, Jeb set about a major reduction in the role of government, in taxation and in public services. He privatized many public services (including welfare, child services, education, healthcare) but without setting up regulatory or oversight systems. He rightly prioritized business development, and infrastructure investment. But his radical welfare reform reduced the rolls substantially contributing to a major increase in poverty – almost 20% of Floridians now live below the Federal poverty line, up from 12.5% in 1990. And his style of government was regarded as autocratic and not inclusive, with little consultation of those with differing views. When he left office, over sixty per cent of Floridians polled said they would not vote for Jeb for President.
More recently, in 2013-14, presumably in preparation for a possible run for President, Jeb has rightly focused strongly on the need for immigration reform and education reform, in addition to further trade liberalization. Once again, however, his approach is predominantly that of the conservative business community. His proposals would limit immigration for family reunification to allow for more work visas for specific skills. As in Florida, his approach focuses more upon testing – core standards under the bi-partisan Common Core – but with little effort to increase funding – for example to improve class size. In sum, from his record, Jeb – as a scion of the Bush dynasty – comes across an uncompromising proponent of business conservative, small government policies.
In the case of the Clinton dynasty, Hillary appears substantially to follow and be influenced by her husband, former President Bill Clinton’s policy approaches both on the economy, climate change, and foreign policy. In the late 1990s, the Clinton administration – in line with the budget agreement with Congressional Republicans – underinvested in infrastructure and education, despite budget surpluses by 1998. Hillary’s economic thinking however does seem to be rather more protectionist and interventionist than the more liberal, free-market approaches espoused by Pres. Bill Clinton – notably vis-a-vis China and on labor market standards. In foreign policy, meanwhile, Hillary has benefitted from the advice of Bill and his former advisers – such as Sandy Burger – on national security issues. This led her initially to accept the George W. Bush rationale for the War in Iraq and, as Senator, to vote to give him full war powers in 2003. In her recent memoir “Hard Choices” (2014) recounting her experiences as Secretary of State, Hillary shows an admirable grasp of the details of a wide range of foreign policy issues – from the Middle East to Iraq, to China, to Israel-Palestine, to Europe, to international climate change negotiations. But the overall framework she operated in was essentially one inherited from the past. She is clearly reluctant to depart from American policy approaches of long-standing, even where these have proven, in fact, quite ineffective.
Facing America’s Challenges of Today and the Risks of Dynasty : As the above sketches show, long-term narrowing of U.S. political leadership to reliance upon major political dynasties carries with it the risk of considerably narrowing the policy choices and options for America. An entrenched dynasty will see less need to work with others across the broad spectrum of views and groups to fashion a consensus. In the race for the U.S. Presidency in 2016, a contest limited to Jeb versus Hillary may have great star appeal, which is why it is often written about in the media. But it would present in quite stark terms, one suspects, two fundamentally different governing philosophies. Yet, in some ways, in practice policy positions on such matters as banking and free trade might be more similar. More fundamentally, both Jeb and Hillary will rely considerably upon past play books and teams of advisers, and be influenced by well-known, well-established sets of vested interests. For us, as American citizens, our choices will inevitably be narrowed.
Conclusion : If, like me, you consider that our country stands today at a cross-roads where new thinking and new approaches – and especially new, more consensual approaches to government are needed, we had all better think twice and think again before we welcome the idea of a Jeb versus Hillary Presidential contest. It might be good theater, but we might not like the outcome too much either way. I, for one, hope that our political and civic leaders will move away from perpetuating political dynasty and reach out to find a new and different generation of leaders for our country. Just remember, the election is not far off : We had all better start actively lobbying for positive change. Starting Now!