On the Matter of Political Dynasties

Of the rationales for supporting Obama (or Edwards, Richardson, Biden, etc) in the Democratic presidential primaries, one of the best, in my opinion, was the argument that the U. S. presidency should not be a revolving door for Clintons and Bushes.

But, come to think of it, do we not effectively have alternating dynasties in the form of our two party system? Each time a Party returns to the White House, it brings with it the usual suspects, the familiar elites, the people whose expertise has gotten us into the crisis situations we are in today in the first place. This two-party tango is essentially as tight a trap for this country as any system of alternating family dynasties would be.

I have been particularly critical of Republicans lately, but today's New York Times has me remembering just how presumptuous, infuriating, and corrupt the Democrats can be as well. It is not just our little brown mousy Congress allowing felonies to be committed by the White House. It is (today's example) Congressman Charles Rangel accepting a gift of four rent-controlled apartments in Harlem, using one of them possibly illegally as a campaign office, and expressing surprise that anyone would raise an eyebrow. Rangel denies knowing that he got a special deal not available to others in the city, including people who are being thrown onto the street so that landlords can raise the rent. But, in any case, he believes he deserves the apartments. Would he be so happy with them if he had to pay the same market value that almost everyone else has to pay to live in New York?

How do we get a new party started in this country? Seriously?

One Reason I Don't See Myself as a Republican

Douglas Moran, in his comment on a Ross Douthat blog at the Atlantic, identifies one reason that I will not consider voting for the Republican Party this year despite whatever reservations that I have about Obama.

Douglas wrote:

The flip side of the last 40+ years of the Republicans using social issues as wedge issues has meant that if someone is interested in, say, gay marriage, or equal protection under the law, or legalization of marijuana, or divesting from South Africa, or helping poor folks in Appalachia, or whatever, the Democratic party is the only place they could turn. And more recently, if you are an economic conservative as well as a social liberal, the Republican party has actually been actively hostile.

For the last 8 years--and even arguably before then--the Republicans have been fixed on personality, the personality of The Leader. For the last 8 years, that has been Bush, and no matter what Bush did, his base didn't desert him. Torture? Pre-emptive, nation-building wars? Vast expansion of executive power? Huge new benefits programs? New cabinet-level government department? Massive deficits? None of these are "conservative" stances in any way, yet Republicans supported them because *Bush* did.

End of quote. Thanks, Douglas.

The disorganization of the Democratic Party seems to have some merit now. Politics really are very personal and, therefore, should be messy. When a group of disparate individuals agree too often, the word "cult" should maybe come to mind. But, to be fair, I think a lot of Republicans were quietly unhappy about how the last 8 years were turning out. It's just that we are all so partisan now, we do not perceive that we have choices. So we live like soldiers in trenches, adjusting our bayonets and getting ready for the next charge, the next drive for a few more inches of land (the NFL really reflects our culture back to us). This trench warfare, this constant winning and losing of territory, is what our elections feel like.