In a liberal Democracy, are political dynasties...

[Clarkie1]

Poll question: In a liberal Democracy, are political dynasties...

And dynasty means a politically elite ruling family or families holding the office of the Presidency continuously over an extended period of time, for those on the board who are apparently unclear on my meaning.

Reminder: There are over 300 million people in America today, a good portion of which are over 35 years of age.

[IndianaGreen]

1. America doesn't need a Prince Charles and a Camilla

No more Bushes or Clintons!

[BeFree]

5. No more bushy clintons?

But More Gore? A Gore dynasty sounds good. look at what he's doing... fighting for the little guy against the mass of polluters who would turn this world upside-down for a few dollars. Gore's a hero! The stuff history is made of!

[ck4829]

2. Democracy and Dynasties are completely incompatible IMHO.

[SaveElmer]

3. A Succession of members of the same family...

To be precise!!!

We have had one dynasty in American history...the Bushes

[Clarkie1]

6. Let's not make it two. nt

[SaveElmer]

7. There has never been a dynasty...

I have been up too late...

Of course there has never been a succession of Bush Presidencies either...

I'll meet you half way...I do not want to see anymore Bush presidencies


Another CLinton I am all for!

[Clarkie1]

8. Whatever. The dictionary definition isn't my point.

I think you understand my point. See ya.

[Selatius]

4. This is really up to the people.

I'm sure, though, most people, informed and free from the deleterious influence of corporate propaganda, would probably choose against the formation of dynasties. It's one step backward towards aristocracy.

[jgraz]

9. Depends on the dynasty

Does anyone honestly think we'd be worse off if we'd had 16 (or even 24) years of Kennedy Presidencies?

[oasis]

11. Excellent point. (n/t)

[Bridget Burke]

13. We had a couple of fairly decent Roosevelts....

They were only distant cousins, but had the same name. (And I wouldn't have minded a few more Kennedy years.)

I say--vote for or against Hilary because of what SHE does & says.

[StClone]

10. Poll is at odds

First off Hillary is Rodham and a Clinton by marriage.

Second what do you think of sports families where generations (Mannings in NFL and more http://www.askmen.com/sports/fitness_top_ten/41b_fitness_list.html) or siblings (Serena and Venus in tennis) are tops at their game. Is that not possible in politics? Were the Kennedy's a negative influence in U.S. history? It seems nurture and nature can produce a dynasty that can be good the Bush family not withstanding.

[loyalsister]

12. It's a concentration of power

The interrupted succession of the Bushes could have kept that family in power for generations if they had chosen the "right son."
All of those electoral and political relationships continue to amass power.
If Hillary Clinton is elected as a part of an interrupted succession with James Carville on the team, he's back on top, as well as every person associated with the first Clinton administration.
Of course, a considerable number of people conceive of putting Hillary in the WH as a way of getting Bill back into policy?
Don't think he doesn't still owe some favors, and that that won't place her in an awkward position.
It's a terrible idea.

[Finder]

14. Many of the US presidents have been related...

by blood and/or family.

If I recall correctly, FDR was related to about 15 other presidents.

[NashVegas]

15. I'm More Bothered About Financial Dynasties

Except for the cost of a campaign, which one must be able to afford, I'm not so bothered by the idea of families who dedicate themselves to serving their country, politically.

Financial dynasties, on the other hand, serve only to screw the "common folk."

[StClone]

16. I think that's it

Wrong-headed Dynasty for the sake of power and money rather than governance should be deeply feared.

[slackmaster]

17. "Power corrupts," said Lord Acton

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Lord Acton was right.

[wyldwolf]

18. all this talk of "dynasties"

I think it is a crutch (one among many) by those who can't face the possibility that Hillary Clinton could become President.

I'd be willing to wage that none of you would feel this way if the last name in question was "Kennedy," specifically, if Bobby had lived and won or if Ted had won.

Then it wouldn't be a dynasty, it would be the "will of the people" or "Democracy in action" or "that's ok because they're good progressive candidates."