Jump to content
The Education Forum

Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

It seems that there is a good chance that Hilary Clinton will become the next president. She has made much about how this will herald a great change in American politics. However, as an outsider, it seems that this really reflects the very unhealthy elitism that has developed in the United States.

Since 1989 you have had presidents from only two families: Bush and Clinton. This sounds more like a duo-monarchy than a democratic republic. Is this an issue that is being discussed at all in the US?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not an American but I agree, John. It's becoming like royal accession. Further evidence that the US political system has been corrupted beyond repair. I think there's a case for making an amendment to the US Constitution prohibiting direct relatives of former Presidents from running for the office.

Otherwise wealthy, well connected families might provide long lines of Presidents, including clueless dunces like the present incumbent. Money and connections were the main reasons Bush was twice elected and America is now paying a high price for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

There's discussion, and then there's discussion.

Of course the B/C/B/C succession is the topic of intense interest outside the mainstream of political discourse. When it does become the focus of major media "attention," it is exclusively within the context of so-called voter "fatigue," and otherwise absent a scintilla of deep political analysis.

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this an issue that is being discussed at all in the US?

One can't expect any meaningful discussion of such an issue in a country where a significant percentage of the population know little about history, presidential or otherwise.

To give you a stark but, I fear, representative example of America's informed citizenry, "American Idol" winner Kelli Pickler is now a hot country music star. There's a video clip online of her appearing as a celebrity contestant on some TV game show. She is asked, "Budapest is the capitol of what European country?" After hemming and hawing, she says, "I thought that Europe was a country." Then she says, "Buda-pest. I've never heard of it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this an issue that is being discussed at all in the US?

One can't expect any meaningful discussion of such an issue in a country where a significant percentage of the population know little about history, presidential or otherwise.

To give you a stark but, I fear, representative example of America's informed citizenry, "American Idol" winner Kelli Pickler is now a hot country music star. There's a video clip online of her appearing as a celebrity contestant on some TV game show. She is asked, "Budapest is the capitol of what European country?" After hemming and hawing, she says, "I thought that Europe was a country." Then she says, "Buda-pest. I've never heard of it."

That is an illuminating commentary on youth and on society in general.

I have often joked that many people could not identify their governor, senators, or Congressman, but can easily tell you who are the remaining contestants on American Idol or who was last voted off the island on Survivor.

Don't believe me? Just go to the mall and start asking people.

They have no clue as to the meaning of "we the people".

This year's Presidential election will be a protracted American Idol-style beauty contest.

Edited by Christopher Hall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is an illuminating commentary on youth and on society in general.

I have often joked that many people could not identify their governor, senators, or Congressman, but can easily tell you who are the remaining contestants on American Idol or who was last voted off the island on Survivor.

Don't believe me? Just go to the mall and start asking people.

I'd hazard a guess that it is true in a lot of countries; IMO it is certainly true in Australia. There used to be a segment on a comedy / social commentary programme that did interviews with people on the street, ending with the on screen visual of: "THIS PERSON VOTES!". Frightening.

The B-C-B-C succession is interesting, but I don't think you can legislate against it (Mark's comments). If so, then RFK would never have been allowed to run (which actually may have been a good thing; he might still be alive!). Would Ted be allowed to be a Senator?

It's probably just an interesting blip in history - though if people are worried then they should campaign for other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's probably just an interesting blip in history - though if people are worried then they should campaign for other people.

Would George Bush have become president if his father had held the job? Would Hiliary have been in the race if her husband had not been president?

On 19th December, 1783, William Pitt, at the age of only twenty-four, became Britain's youngest ever prime minister. He would never have got this position if his father, the Earl of Chatham, had not been prime minister under George II. When it was announced that Pitt had accepted the king's invitation, the news was received in the House of Commons with derisive laughter. However, this was before Britain had become a democracy. Since universal suffrage, no prime minister has been related to any previous prime minister.

Members of this forum have argued that it makes no difference who is elected president as they are all under control of the large corporations. That might be true but I would have thought that it was important to give the impression that you have a democratic republic instead of a oligarchy. Is it possible that the American Empire is becoming like the Roman Empire? If so, will it end up in the same way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Members of this forum have argued that it makes no difference who is elected president as they are all under control of the large corporations. That might be true but I would have thought that it was important to give the impression that you have a democratic republic instead of a oligarchy. Is it possible that the American Empire is becoming like the Roman Empire? If so, will it end up in the same way?

I wonder. JFK certainly took advantage of his father's power; was that wrong?

I think that Chris and Ron have highlighted the problem. Unless the people are willing to critically examine the candidates - with resources other than the mainstream media - they become susceptible to deception. If the people do not exercise a measure of discretion in their voting habits, then they probably deserve the person who ends up in power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Members of this forum have argued that it makes no difference who is elected president as they are all under control of the large corporations. That might be true but I would have thought that it was important to give the impression that you have a democratic republic instead of a oligarchy. Is it possible that the American Empire is becoming like the Roman Empire? If so, will it end up in the same way?

I wonder. JFK certainly took advantage of his father's power; was that wrong?

I think that Chris and Ron have highlighted the problem. Unless the people are willing to critically examine the candidates - with resources other than the mainstream media - they become susceptible to deception. If the people do not exercise a measure of discretion in their voting habits, then they probably deserve the person who ends up in power.

Evan,

What about the fact that Bush was not elected but appointed?

It doesn't matter how politically active and educated you are if your vote just disappears in a voting machine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Chris and Ron have highlighted the problem. Unless the people are willing to critically examine the candidates - with resources other than the mainstream media - they become susceptible to deception. If the people do not exercise a measure of discretion in their voting habits, then they probably deserve the person who ends up in power.

It is a bit more complicated than that. In most democracies you only have the realistic option of picking from two possible candidates to become prime minister/president. If those two candidates are completely under the control of big business, as is the situation in the UK and the US, can you really blame the electorate for selecting corrupt and incompetent figures such as Blair and Bush?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest David Guyatt

That hits the nail squarely on the head. The form of democracy we know and have come to love, is an illusionary one, where the outcome is always managed in advance and where the runners and winners are pre-selected to succeed providing they adhere to elite goals. If they do not adhere to this agenda they don't get close to becoming a runner, let alone a winner.

Exceptions to this inalienable rule ends in blood.

As these truths became more widely known it was inevitable that the illusion be replaced by the underlying reality (why bother to hide it anymore) and thus the naked confluence of state-business fascism comes to the fore.

Call it a more caring form of slavery if you wish. I call it the old form of feudalism with spin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would George Bush have become president if his father had held the job? Would Hiliary have been in the race if her husband had not been president?

Baby Doc would have been unlikely to have been elected dog catcher if it weren't for his dad. Nor would have gotten in to Harvard. Yale and the National Guard. Nor would he have been offered repeated sweatheart deals (which he managed to loose money on anyway). Nor would have had the SEC suddenly drop an investigation of him.

As for Hillary she is smart and ambitious, I imagine if she hadn't married Clinton she would have hitched her cart to some other rising star.

As for the prospect of a B-C-B-C sucession if comes November she's the Democratic candidate I'd (though not very enthusiasticlly) vote for her.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a bit more complicated than that. In most democracies you only have the realistic option of picking from two possible candidates to become prime minister/president. If those two candidates are completely under the control of big business, as is the situation in the UK and the US, can you really blame the electorate for selecting corrupt and incompetent figures such as Blair and Bush?

In Australia, if you don't want to vote for any of the candidates (and remember there are more than just two), you'd spoil your ballot paper (informal vote). Your vote doesn't go to anyone, but the number of informal votes gives an indication of the dissatisfaction with the candidates on offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would George Bush have become president if his father had held the job? Would Hiliary have been in the race if her husband had not been president?

Baby Doc would have been unlikely to have been elected dog catcher if it weren't for his dad. Nor would have gotten in to Harvard. Yale and the National Guard. Nor would he have been offered repeated sweatheart deals (which he managed to loose money on anyway). Nor would have had the SEC suddenly drop an investigation of him.

As for Hillary she is smart and ambitious, I imagine if she hadn't married Clinton she would have hitched her cart to some other rising star.

As for the prospect of a B-C-B-C sucession if comes November she's the Democratic candidate I'd (though not very enthusiasticlly) vote for her.

Well the power Protestant elite drove out the only Catholic in the field! But I don't consider it a vote wasted.

From a purely political perspective- a Clinton/Obama ticket will be almost impossible to beat, especially if the whiny crybabies on the far right of the Republican party sit out over sour grapes that Romney is not the nominee.

Now who McCain chooses is another matter that might make for an interesting race. Our immensly likeable, centrist, tan, Greek governor Charlie Crist's name has been floated around, as has Huckabee and Joe Lieberman.

Edited by Scott Deitche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

....Members of this forum have argued that it makes no difference who is elected president as they are all under control of the large corporations. That might be true but I would have thought that it was important to give the impression that you have a democratic republic instead of a oligarchy. Is it possible that the American Empire is becoming like the Roman Empire? If so, will it end up in the same way?

Media coverage of the primary process leading to convention began in earnest over a year ago, earlier than ever before.

Americans have been bombarded with an unprecedented excess of pseudo-political media coverage -- propaganda designed to further the illusion of a democratic society where major issues are open to debate and citizens make a difference.

The electoral process is marked by carefully selected candidates, celebrity endorsements, huge amounts of money raised via the internet, media spin, polls that tell Americans what they should be thinking, promises that can never be kept, voting machines that can't be trusted, endless meaningless sound bites, and a host of other nonsense.

Regardless of the outcome in November, a majority of Americans will believe it was the product of a democratic system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...