Dynastic politics can be complicated. Obviously, it offers vast benefits in name recognition, a built-in network of supporters and invaluable experience in the nitty gritty of politics. But it has its downsides. Jeb Bush keeps having to explain how he’s different from the previous two Bush presidents. And Hillary Clinton finds herself mired in a conflict-of-interest controversy over a family foundation that sucked in $2 billion in donations from heavy hitters domestic and foreign who crave influence in Washington.
OPINION
Dynastic political families aren’t alien to America. Think of the Adams, Harrisons, Roosevelts and Kennedys. What is new is the possibility of a clash of two dynasties for president, as could happen in 2016 if Bush and Clinton are the Republican and Democrat nominees.
Neither has faced the issue of dynasty head on. Bush has referred to it, saying, for instance, that he confronts an “interesting challenge.” Or he differentiates himself from Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush as he did the other day at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs: “I am my own man, and my views are shaped by my own thinking and own experiences.”
But that doesn’t address the question of why Americans should vote for a family dynasty. Likely he doesn’t have an answer to that. Clinton, wife of former President Bill Clinton, probably doesn’t have an answer other than she offers the best hope of electing the first woman president.
Though Bush the father had many successes in the White House, he was brought down by a revolt among the party’s conservative base over a tax increase he promised would never happen and an economic downturn. President Bush the son has seen the stock in his presidency rise a bit in recent years, but he is remembered for the Iraq war and the disastrous aftermath. That his military surge left Iraq largely stabilized is mostly lost in the crisis of the Islamic State.
Jeb Bush is haunted by that history. With foreign policy looming as a top tier issue in 2016, he will only be pressed more and more about the Iraq war. How quickly and how well he can separate himself will be a major test of whether he can secure the GOP nomination and then convince voters that the nation needs a third Bush president.
Clinton seems all but assured of the Democrat nomination. Still, take away the history-making prospect of a female chief executive, and there’s not much to get excited about in a Clinton dynasty.
First lady is neither an appointed nor elective office (despite the Clinton 1992 campaign two-for-one theme). Who remembers anything about her U.S. Senate term — other than her vote for the Iraq war? Her time as secretary of state was mostly distinguished by miles traveled — activity, not accomplishment, as possible GOP presidential candidate and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina put it. Clinton’s book tour for her “Hard Choices” was a flop, noted for blunders, like her claim that her family left the White House “dead broke.”
Now come disclosures of mega-donations from big corporations and foreign countries and families to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Everyone proclaims innocence and lofty charitable motives, but it smells like influence peddling and currying of favors. And the foundation looks like a home for Clinton staff between campaigns. For example, the Wall Street Journal reports that a Clinton campaign fundraiser in 2008 is back at that job for 2016 after working in the intervening years for the foundation. Ironies abound, such as a foundation dedicated to women’s rights taking millions from Saudi Arabia, which doesn’t permit women to drive a car.
Clinton vs Bush.
Any votes for a fresh face in 2016?
