It’s a sign of real degradation in our republic that two families, whose claim to authority chiefly consists of great skill in acquiring power and dispensing benefits to loyalists, are now alternating rule in our country. Where are we . . . Iraq? Since 1988, either a Bush or a Clinton has been President. If Hillary wins, one wonders if Jeb or George P. Bush (who has been grooming himself for a run since college) is next? Geoff Wheatcroft criticizes this trend in the Washington Post:
Among so much about American politics that can impress or depress a friendly transatlantic observer, there’s nothing more astonishing than this: Why on Earth should Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton be the front-runner for the presidency?
She has now pulled well ahead of Sen. Barack Obama, both in polls and in fundraising. If the Democrats can’t win next year, they should give up for good, so she must be considered the clear favorite for the White House. But in all seriousness: What has she ever done to deserve this eminence? How could a country that prides itself on its spirit of equality and opportunity possibly be led by someone whose ascent owes more to her marriage than to her merits?
We all, nations as well as individuals, have difficulty seeing ourselves as others see us. In this case, I doubt that Americans realize how extraordinary their country appears from the outside. In Europe, the supposed home of class privilege and heritable status, we have abandoned the hereditary principle (apart from the rather useful institution of constitutional monarchy), and the days are gone when Pitt the Elder was prime minister and then Pitt the Younger. But Americans find nothing untoward in Bush the Elder being followed by Bush the Younger.
Subscribe To This Feed
There’s some good commentary on this same issue in this week’s Economist as well, which I was reading on the way to work this morning. The prospect of 28 years of Bush/Clinton is indeed pretty scary. My favorite quote from our dear Sir:
“One of the virtues of the American political system is that it is supposed to produce shake-ups whenever a new president takes over. Mrs Clinton will bring back the same cast of characters that everybody wearied of in the 1990s, from slick money-raisers like Terry McAuliffe to professional conservative-haters like Sidney Blumenthal.
Back in 1993 Jacob Weisberg, writing in the New Republic, accused the Clinton team of “Clincest”—being a “tight, hermetic and incestuous clique” who went to the same universities and hung out at the same Democratic gabfests. Mrs Clinton’s election will not only perpetuate “Clincest” for another four or eight years; it will also add another dollop of ageing baby-boomer self-satisfaction. During a campaign speech earlier this year Mr Clinton remarked that he once told Hillary, when they were both students at Yale, that “I have met all the most gifted people in our generation and you’re the best.” This sort of attitude will be difficult to live with.”