I read an editorial a few weeks back in the New York Times that introduced to me the idea of the Clinton “dynasty”. It maintained that America is currently divided into two groups: those who think that after 16 years of Hilary pushing herself onto America, its time to reject her, and those who think that after those 16 years, the public will finally just give in to her. In his new book, “The Evangelical President,” Bill Sammon interviewed President Bush about the 2008 election. Mr. Bush said that Hillary Clinton would beat Barack Obama, because she is more well-known and therefore can raise more money, implying that it is her connections from her husband that will get her the presidency in the end. This is how our current president thinks that our future president will be chosen, by their connections, by the amount of money their name warrants? This is not promising. This would be the second time that the "Clinton dynasty" succeeds the Bush one. The author compared the current Clinton dynasty to an earlier generation, which had the Roosevelt and Kennedy dynasties. Now, 116 million Americans, nearly 40 percent of the nation, have never lived when there wasn’t a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. That is weird. The Clintons have tried to combat this idea of the “dynasty”. Hilary is constantly making the statement that she is running on her own, that she is going to the people on her own.
Personally, I think that to attempt to fight nepotism would be to fight a battle that cannot ever be won. Maybe it is true that without the connections that she has made, Hilary would not be running for president. But then, nepotism exists in every area of America. Think about the entertainment industry and school acceptance, just to name two. Ultimately, I was not convinced by this editorial's argument against Hilary Clinton. Discussing nepotism is not what will help us to determine her competency, in fact I think it is a disservice to Hilary and shows a total disregard for a lot of the hard work that she has done to get herself where she is and so the goal has to be to look to other areas to judge her competency.
2 comments:
I think that Hillary has definitely benefited a great deal from her connections to Bill Clinton. While her husband was president, Hillary had the opportunity to learn politics applied to real life and formulate many of her own opinions, policies, and her political ideology. Although Bill Clinton has been a major factor in her candidacy, she definitely seems committed to being her own person and her own type of president. Whether or not she is fully competent is a different story, but she nevertheless knows a great deal about politics in America and has her own grounded principles. It will probably be hard for most Americans to see her as legitimate because of her past, but in order to choose the best president, America must look beyond her last name's legacy and judge her as an individual.
Nepotism certainly abounds in American culture, however, i feel it is inappropriate in a political context. Politics is a public service that must be chosen with good intentions and an honest attitude. It seems that Hillary entered politics not because of some inner revelation or burning desire to serve her nation. Instead, it appears that she chose a career in politics because the door was so conveniently opened by her husband. Her bid for a place in the Senate representing New York was certainly aided by the implied message that if she could handle white house affairs she could handle the little ol' Congress. However, I'm not sure if the First Lady is ever truly confronted with the same problems and challenges as the President. It seems most First Ladies focus on charity or humanitarian causes to boost the Presidential familie's ratings. While this is an admirable cause, it really does not deliver an accurate exposure to leading national politics. In the instance of the Presidency, nepotism must be disregarded in determining the most fitting candidate for the position.
Post a Comment