Are Political Dynasties un-American?

Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian

Here we are, still more than three years away from the next American presidential election, and already, among Democrats, the drums are beating for Hillary Clinton to get the nomination.

Many assume that she is next in line to the throne, so to speak, as if the Clintons were royalty. NBC-TV is already planning a four-hour miniseries named “Hillary,” timed to precede the 2016 presidential election.

Bill Clinton was president for eight years. He defeated sitting president George H.W. Bush in 1992. When Clinton left office in 2000, he was succeeded by George W. Bush, son of George H.W., and he served a full two terms.

Even so, the Republicans seem less inclined to monarchical politics. Since 2008, two non-Bushes have run for the top job. Barbara Bush, wife of George H.W., has herself dampened expectations that another of her sons, Jeb, might seek the presidency. “There are other people out there that are very qualified, and we’ve had enough Bushes,” she told NBC’s “Today” show in April.

Not so with the Democrats. Indeed, of late there have been a number of articles wondering whether the Clintons’ 33-year-old daughter Chelsea might enter the political arena, despite her rather undistinguished career thus far. (She has worked at a Wall Street hedge fund, as an Assistant Vice Provost at New York University, and as a “special correspondent” for NBC News, all sinecures obtained through her family name.)

“I’m attempting to lead a purposely public life,” Chelsea Clinton told CNN recently, while on a trip to Africa with her father on behalf of their Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, which, according to a statement, works to improve “economic growth and empowerment, equality of opportunity, and health access.”

Dynastic politics are a feature of political life in many countries. India has been dominated by the Nehru-Gandhi family, Pakistan by the Bhuttos and Sharifs, Bangladesh by the Mujibur Rahmans and Ziaur Rahmans, and Sri Lanka by the Bandaranaikes.

All four states have had women as leaders – but they have been daughters or widows of male rulers. These are traditional societies, where high-status families expect and receive deference from their “subjects.” The United States, on the other hand, was founded as an egalitarian republic that repudiated aristocracy.

Every now and then, as in a monarchy, there is an “interregnum” – right now Barack Obama, who, to the shock and horror of Hillary Clinton’s supporters, beat her for the Democratic Party nomination in 2008, occupies the White House. But it’s interesting that nobody mentions his wife or two daughters as potential future presidents.

Isn’t it time, though, that a woman became commander-in-chief? Of course. But even apart from the “baggage” Hillary Clinton carries – her husband Bill’s notorious sexual peccadilloes; her close personal assistant Huma Abedin’s current problems with spouse Anthony Weiner, who has been caught “sexting” with various women across the country – there are two women who come to mind who should be more politically attractive to Democrats.

Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand, elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts and New York, respectively, both have had distinguished careers.

Warren has taught law at several universities throughout the country, while researching issues related to bankruptcy and middle-class personal finance; she is currently a law professor at Harvard University Law School. She also set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2011 for Obama as a response to the financial crisis that began in 2007.

Senator Warren has written several books, including “All Your Worth: The Ultimate Lifetime Money Plan” and “The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke,” coauthored with her daughter, Amelia Tyagi.

“The ability to evoke genuine, organic passion in potential voters is the rarest and most critical of all candidate characteristics,” noted Washington Post columnist Chris Cillizza recently. “Warren has that ability.”

Gillibrand is another liberal Democrat. She has been lauded for her work advocating for same-sex marriage, and she was active in the opposition to the now-defunct federal “Defense of Marriage Act,” which had prevented same-sex married couples from being recognized as “spouses” for purposes of federal laws, or receiving federal marriage benefits.

She also was instrumental in the movement to repeal the federal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” law, which had barred gays and lesbians from military service. And the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence has “enthusiastically” endorsed her work on behalf of gun control.

This year, responding to an epidemic of sexual assaults in the U.S. military – the Pentagon estimates that 26,000 troops were sexually assaulted last year, but only 3,400 attacks were reported -- Senator Gillibrand has proposed legislation that would remove military commanders from the process of deciding whether sexual misconduct cases should be prosecuted.

“The fact that only one in 10 go to trial, those statistics are highly concerning,” she stated in a recent interview on the PBS “Newshour.”

These are all issues dear to the hearts of Democrats. Warren and Gillibrand don’t have Hillary Clinton’s “rock star” status, or the millions of dollars she has amassed from various “donors,” but they are far more preferable if the Democratic Party is not to become a Clinton “family business.”