No more dynasties.
No more Clintons, Bushes, Kennedys, Roosevelts, or Rockefellers.
“The Founding Fathers must turn in their grave as the Kennedys, Bushes and Clintons grab the glittering prizes.”
Oh, sure. I bet John Adams and John Quincy Adams would be just livid.
There are two ways that America could be present in a major conflict:
fanning the flames or defending liberty.
When we saved the misbegotten author's parents from the Nationalist Socialists, we were defending liberty.
I'll not defend the notion of whether one may defend liberty for another, or whether true liberty may only be won when the price is personal.
But I would argue that in Korea, or Vietnam, or Grenada, or Iraq, or Afghanistan the motive of securing liberty for some enslaved people was at least the intention for many Americans.
Nor do I think, as Kant, that intentions are more moral than results. But I would argue that a man, such as the author, who is incapable of discerning whether America was involved in these conflicts as liberator or as aggressor; a man who would lay equal blame upon attacker and defender; such a man is incapable of tendering advise to the greatest defender of the liberty of others that the world has ever known.
Actually, she's much, much worse than that.
Dynasties? The only "dynasty" I'm aware of is the so-called Camelot days of JFK, and he didn't even serve a full term!
I think you have to look at who is claiming "dynasty" - the libs. Liberals are child-like, so they need a leader to look up to, to follow (to be led by!). So when they find one they like - POOF! - they claim their dear leader has a "dynasty". And they will follow him, if need be, off the cliff into anarchy (like they're doing right now with Zero).
But as tolerable as she is the point remains: many have died for the right to be free of family and class rule, yet we are sadly creating it again ourselves.
Nothing wrong with family members being elected to office after another one serves, but the opinion that they are somehow elitists and deserve their turn is the problem. You see that in the democrats especially, but not so much in the republicans. Sorry, but I never felt that GW felt that we owed him the presidency because his father had been. Just because his brother Jeb has been bandied about as a running mate and possibility for 2012 while the primaries were budding doesn’t mean that any of them felt that they had it owed to them. Clinton does. In fact, Bill would like nothing better than to be able to run again. Hillary would feel she was owed the presidency. The Kennedys feel that they ARE the Camelot family. That they are the legitimate rulers in America. If there was ever a vote to return to having a king, for sure they’d think that their family is the ONE.
Can YOU explain YOUR country's "shameless love" for your monarchies?
An Englishman is asking this? Well, we don't have a monarch, and servility, a part of human nature, has to express itself somehow.
If you look at British politics, the same families held power for generations. They've only recently gotten over that system, and today they make much of their rejection, but it's a recent thing.
The very institutions that guaranteed the continuity of the ruling families in power -- titles and the House of Lords -- became a way of excluding them from the highest offices (until Lords was itself transformed by throwing out the hereditary principle).
Romanticizing politicans or looking for family continuity among our rulers isn't the worst thing in the world, but when you look at some of the families that are chosen -- well, you wonder.
Fans of monarchy or aristocracy want to believe that ability to govern runs in families. Sadly, that's not the case. At least, the competence or ability to rule doesn't last forever in the same families. Sooner or later they drop the ball.