PDA

View Full Version : Should political dynasties be outlawed?



LeaningRight
05-06-2015, 08:48 PM
I understand already the constitutional ramifications of this; the Constitution would have to be properly amended to allow this idea to fly.

But one thing our Founders hoped to avoid was the creation of an aristocracy; we broke away from the Crown to get away from Dynasties and Nepotism. Yet, look at our political system today; You had FDR as President for 12 years; then his wife served with the UN; You had Joe, John, Robert and Ted Kennedy all serving in various offices and all three brothers running for the Presidency at one point or another; you had Bush I, then Bush II as President; now we're likely to have Clinton's wife versus a third Bush.

So many I know favor term limits in Congress for a similar reason. With the exception of Obama, if either Jeb or Hillary win in 2016, we will have had either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House since 1989. Is there not a point where this should stop? That new blood and new politicians with new ideas can come to represent us, and not the same old brands of yesteryear? I really doubt that our Founders would've liked seeing how dynastic and aristocratic our politics have become, where you have Congresscritters serving decades going virtually unchallenged and where the only way one can become President is if they come from an old family with a well known name and lots of money behind them. That's not what this country was supposed to be about.

Rockntractor
05-06-2015, 09:09 PM
No American born citizen should be held back because of who their parents are, bloodline or race from having any political or private sector job.

LeaningRight
05-07-2015, 02:00 AM
No American born citizen should be held back because of who their parents are, bloodline or race from having any political or private sector job.

In that case, why do we have the 22nd Amendment? It was put in place theoretically as a safe-guard against would-be dictators and acts as a restrictive measure, both restricting a sitting President from running for a third term and from restricting the people from their right to choose whoever they want for President; I am working along the same logic that banning dynasties (the specifics would of course have to be worked out) would act as a safeguard against the politics we have now.

noonwitch
05-07-2015, 09:02 AM
1. I don't think that either Hillary or Jeb has a lock on their respective party's nomination. The primaries haven't even started yet and Jeb hasn't even officially announced he's running.

2. Laws passed to prevent certain people from serving in any political office because of their family ties would be overturned by the courts as prejudicial, and would, if enacted, eventually have a down side when some really great candidate is determined to be ineligible because his Grandpa George or Bill was once President.

LeaningRight
05-07-2015, 01:26 PM
1. I don't think that either Hillary or Jeb has a lock on their respective party's nomination. The primaries haven't even started yet and Jeb hasn't even officially announced he's running.

2. Laws passed to prevent certain people from serving in any political office because of their family ties would be overturned by the courts as prejudicial, and would, if enacted, eventually have a down side when some really great candidate is determined to be ineligible because his Grandpa George or Bill was once President.

All reports I've read make it seem as if Jeb and Hillary will more than likely be the nominees. In Hillary's case this makes sense, I mean, Martin O'Malley is a nobody and the other prospective candidates don't have the "star power" or brand recognition that she does. Bernie Sanders won't really challenge her, just make it so she caters further to the left.

And I predict the GOP primary season is going to be a mess ala 2012. So far Cruz, Huckabee, Carson, Florina, Paul and Rubio....If Jeb joins I can see it becoming a drawn out affair like the '12 primaries or the Dems '08 primaries. What I'm hoping is that Cruz can knock down Jeb, and then have Jeb run as his VP (to get Florida and moderate GOP votes). If Jeb is on the ticket as Prez, it's just going to be a replay of '96, '08, and '12 - we've seen what happens every time we've nominated a moderate. The last moderate we elected was Nixon and that's because he served up conservative rhetoric to seem much more right wing than he actually was.

noonwitch
05-07-2015, 01:39 PM
All reports I've read make it seem as if Jeb and Hillary will more than likely be the nominees. In Hillary's case this makes sense, I mean, Martin O'Malley is a nobody and the other prospective candidates don't have the "star power" or brand recognition that she does. Bernie Sanders won't really challenge her, just make it so she caters further to the left.

And I predict the GOP primary season is going to be a mess ala 2012. So far Cruz, Huckabee, Carson, Florina, Paul and Rubio....If Jeb joins I can see it becoming a drawn out affair like the '12 primaries or the Dems '08 primaries. What I'm hoping is that Cruz can knock down Jeb, and then have Jeb run as his VP (to get Florida and moderate GOP votes). If Jeb is on the ticket as Prez, it's just going to be a replay of '96, '08, and '12 - we've seen what happens every time we've nominated a moderate. The last moderate we elected was Nixon and that's because he served up conservative rhetoric to seem much more right wing than he actually was.



The last moderate elected was either GHW Bush or Bill Clinton, depending on what side you are on. Most far-lefties don't consider Bill Clinton to be a liberal-he signed NAFTA, supported the death penalty, signed the defense of marriage act, ect.

Dlr Pyro
05-07-2015, 03:43 PM
Outlawed?. No. But I would like the American electorate to use some intelligence when voting and not vote for someone just because of what their family lineage is.