I recently came across an article claiming 40% of Americans have lived their entire lives with a Bush or Clinton in the White House. I've written about the two-family dynasty before, and because the original author didn't offer any verifiable evidence (and the website was a dedicated anti-Hillary site), I checked out the claim using Census data just to be certain.
Sure enough, about four in 10 Americans have always lived with a Clinton or Bush in the executive branch (myself included). Reagan was sworn in, with George H.W. Bush as his vice-president, in 1981. So roughly anyone 26 and younger fits into this category. That's around 111,000,000 people according to 2006 data. The total population then was about 299,000,000, giving us 37.5%.
If Hillary wins the 2008 election and serves two terms, nearly half of the population will fall into this category. Am I the only one bothered by this?
Let me clarify, I think she's very competent and capable, and I prefer her over any of the current Republican nominees (yes, even Ron Paul). If Hillary wins the nomination, I will vote for her in the general election, as long as she doesn't do something inexcusable like vote to give Bush authority to attack Iran.
But is she leading in polls because she's the best candidate for the job right now, or because of name recognition and a well-oiled political machine? What does it say about the gullibility of the American public if we constantly complain about our lack of choices but continue to vote the same two families into power?
Like this post? Get updates via|
Comments (3)
Does voting to give another $10 billion in funding Bush's war machine count?
Yes, people are dumb and gullible enough to vote for Hillary because the "polls" have told them that she's going to win from the moment she entered the race. Just because she's unremarkable in every relevant way doesn't mean that we shouldn't believe the "scientific polls." I mean, you want to vote for the winner, don't you?
The MSM has defined your choices for you - they're called "first tier" candidates - and they've started their favorite horse with a lead. And in the same manner that they dispatch with any third-party candidates, the MSM has managed to convince the voting public that a vote for a "second tier" candidate, no matter how much you might agree with their views, is a vote wasted. Again, you want to vote for the winner, right? That's the whole point, right? To be able to say that you voted for the candidate who won? Everybody wants to be on the winning team, even if the winning team couldn't care less about them.
I agree, Hillary is very capable and competent - so long as you're a fortune 500 company trying to avoid having to hire those pesky Americans who expect benefits and health care...
Posted by meatwad | September 28, 2007 3:43 PM
My point in adding the disclaimer that I'll vote for her if she gets the nomination is that, if presented with the usual "lesser of two evils" choices in Nov. 2008, I think she has fewer flaws than most of the Republican candidates.
Once it gets to that stage, it's too late. The chance to change the pattern is in the primaries. Unfortunately, 1) As you mentioned, the media tends to set a narrative defining a few "top tier" candidates, and 2) Many people aren't that interested in the primaries and don't participate that early in the process.
Posted by Elyas | September 28, 2007 4:08 PM
No, you're not the only one bothered by the prospect of a two-family dynasty. I'm incredibly frustrated by what America is, as opposed to, I suppose, the myth (?). Don't know what else to call it. So much power concentrated in the executive, the media selecting top tier candidates, the candidates being selected because they can raise millions from corporate or other wealthy backers, the possible two family dynasty and the public pretty much accepting all of it because what, we're terrified of fundamental change? We're *that* comfortable in our daily lives? We're *that* ignorant of what an American-style democracy is supposed to mean?
Posted by Carla Murphy | October 4, 2007 8:36 AM