« Will Americans accept Romney's weird cult? | Mgmax's Blog | In Which I Violate the 11th Commandment »

Will nepotism finally become a real issue in our politics?


Here in Illinois, we have a governor (Blagojevich) whose father-in-law is a powerful alderman (Richard Mell) and gave him his start; a mayor of our largest city who is, of course, the son of a famous mayor (the Richard Daleys, J and M); an attorney general and a speaker of the house who are daughter (Lisa) and father (Mike Madigan); a county board president who is the son (Todd) of the previous officeholder (John Stroger), appointed when his father had an incapacitating stroke; and assorted other second and third generation names scattered about our politics. My son is good friends with the son of one of the rare exceptions to this rule, and the father and I have both made jokes about my son riding his son's coattails to power. Hey, third grade is none too early to start planning your political career in a state like this, where dynasty is destiny.

Illinois' politics are unusually corrupt, up there with Rhode Island or D.C., but it's not like the rest of the country can say too much when a second Clinton is running to replace the second Bush (who defeated the Junior to a powerful senator who, by all accounts, groomed him for the job from birth). So it is cheering to see someone-- even if it's the mercurial figure of Grover Norquist-- finally arguing that we need to do something about nepotism in our politics:

While Americans complain about Hosni Mubarak’s plan to replace himself as president of Egypt with Mubarak Junior, roll their eyes at Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, the son of the late President Hafez al-Assad, and giggle at North Korea’s Kim to Kim dynastic communism, we are about to hold a presidential election that may extend a sequence that gives the land of the free four years of George H.W. Bush, eight years of William Clinton, eight years of George W. Bush, son of, and the start of eight years of Hillary Clinton, wife of...

This creeping tendency to see elected office as a family heirloom is not just present in the executive. Congress is littered with the spouses and sons and daughters of former congressmen who wanted to keep the position in the family. The father of Representative John Dingell of Michigan served in Congress for 22 years and then handed the job to his son in 1955. The debate recently has been whether the incumbent will hand it to his wife or one of his sons...

A bipartisan revulsion at this recrudescence of an aristocracy – Democrats think there have been too many Bushes, Republicans think there have been too many Clintons – has led concerned citizens (OK, me) to launch a campaign to enact a constitutional amendment to ban this practice. The draft now circulating was written by the legal scholar Bruce Fein and reads:

Section 1. No spouse, sibling or child of an elected or appointed federal, state or local official outside the civil service may immediately succeed that official in the same elected or appointed office.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation, including exempting certain elected or appointed offices from its general proscription and defining the term “immediately succeed” to prevent circumventions.

Interestingly, even this proposal would not have prevented either of the presidential dynastic situations we've recently faced (nor would it have stopped Mayor Daley the II). (It also doesn't deal with the fact that Hillary could have run as early as 2000 by simply divorcing Bill.) For that reason, frankly, I would be happy to see it go further, and prevent any relative (as defined above) of the president from running for 16 or 24 years.

If people still remember Hillary fondly enough in 2016 or 2024 to elect her, she can try then-- but in the meantime, we'll have expanded our bench of capable candidates, not allowed it to contract to a few families with built-in name recognition. It may be mildly unfair to a few talented individuals of famous families-- but it is of obvious benefit to the nation in allowing many more individuals to run without all the cash and oxygen in their race being sucked up by individuals who have a famous name and, often, little else apparent to offer.


35 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

OK, Mgmax, what is your real problem with Hillary? I may not want to vote for her, but I wouldn't say that she has nothing to offer. She's gotten some big backing from former Bush Pioneers just by meeting with them and talking. The CEO of Morgan Stanley is one of them.

Edited to add: Hillary's voting record would also seem to match more closely with your beliefs than any of the other Democratic candidates. So what gives?


...the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. Bill Moyers

user-pic

I've said it before: I'm opposed to nepotism. Despite knowing one of the Illinois politicians mentioned above (who is quite competent, but still).

And I really dislike the idea of Bill (who I voted for twice) running an end-run around the 22nd amendment by getting his wife elected. I dislike even more that no one is even willing to talk about that happening. I can like someone's policies and still find nepotism a sign of rot in our politics.

There are 300 million people in this country. I feel quite confident we can bar the Bushes, the Clintons, the Reagans, the Kennedys and various others from the presidency and still manage to produce perfectly decent leaders. In fact, I'd say the odds would go up.

user-pic

It's all the same to me, you understand; but you really ought to look up the word "nepotism." What you're opposed to ain't nepotism, and this is just another example of your making yourself look foolish. Just a suggestion.

Undess you're going to extend your silly idea out to 40 years, it wouldn't keep Teddy out of the White House. Of course, he took care of that himself.

Oh, and please excuse me for stalking you -- or doesn't it count as stalking unless you mention me in your post? What the hell, why don't we make a law about that, too?

user-pic

...please excuse me for stalking you...

Damn. I must have missed that episode of TPMtv, "Tank stalks Max." Got time for a recap?


...the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. Bill Moyers

user-pic

It wasn't a particularly eventful episode of the series -- just neocon Wingnuttiness raising its paranoic head. On two or three previous occasions, Max called me out in a post, then accused me of stalking when I replied.

user-pic

It's actually simple enough to go through my past blog posts and find the truth for yourself. That was addressed to the total number of people who care, which is zero.

user-pic

See, this is the part you don't seem to get: You have to read the post to which I was responding.

In the case of your stalking paranoia, you seem to have missed the fact that you called me out.

Earlier in this thread, you missed the fact that I was responding to your remarks about Hillary.

And in this particular case, you missed the fact that I was answering a question from a person who does read.

You're really losing it Max. It's a bit sad, really. Take your own advice and go through your posts. Note the steady decline in quality.

user-pic

Note the steady decline in my interest in your bait.

user-pic

So good at writing, it's a shame you have such difficulty thinking clearly, troll.

user-pic

"So good at writing" --Tankard

On my next dust jacket!

user-pic

It's all the same to me, you understand; but you really ought to look up the word "nepotism." What you're opposed to ain't nepotism

It's all the same to me, but maybe you want to read the whole piece which is NOT only talking about Hillary succeeding Bill but cites several examples of:

patronage bestowed or favoritism shown on the basis of family relationship, as in business and politics

In other words, nepotism.

Undess you're going to extend your silly idea out to 40 years, it wouldn't keep Teddy out of the White House

Yes, but it might keep a few other Kennedys out of office. Not that I was talking about the Kennedys except a brief mention at the end. Oh, and it's Grover Norquist's silly idea, not mine. But other than all of that, your comments are spot on!

user-pic

Actually, I did slog my way through the whole piece, and even sacrified a few moments of precious time (I have so few left, I am honoring you by doing so) reviewing it. I still don't find any examples of nepotism there.

I wonder about which Kennedy you predict will be the next to assume the Chief Executive, thus preventing his progeny from attaining the status of J. Q. Adams. Can we expect another startling prediction from Mgmax in the near future? Can't wait!

your comments are spot on!

Thank you. I shall use that on the dust cover of my next publication.

user-pic

OK, and where did you get the idea that Bill is doing this end run around the 22nd amendment? What do you have that backs up your theory?

Why is it different if Bill is the WH in 2016 or in 2009?


...the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. Bill Moyers

user-pic

where did you get the idea that Bill is doing this end run around the 22nd amendment?

It's a simple fact. There's no other way that he gets back in the White House than by being at Hillary's side when she's elected. Because... the 22nd amendment prevents it.

Why does everyone find it so odd to think of it that way? How have they been so successful at preventing us from looking at it that way?

user-pic

How have they been so successful at preventing us from looking at it that way?

Because the campaign is about Hillary as President, not Bill?

Why do you find that so hard to believe?


...the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. Bill Moyers

user-pic

To answer your own question, read the first six words of your sig.

user-pic

Well, I'm glad there is an answer somewhere here to this question. Mgmax wouldn't answer it last time, either.

Edited to wonder: Why did ole gRover choose the Financial Times in London first to push his amendment? Seems like he should be where the people that actually vote for it are.


...the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. Bill Moyers

user-pic

Why does any freelancer write for any publication? Because they'll pay him for it.

user-pic

Didn't the Left Wing Liberal Press (tm) in the U.S. didn't find him attractive?

user-pic

Didn't they apparently didn't!

user-pic

Oops. You didn't answer my other questions (these are not hard questions, but you do like to avoid them):

mgmax: How have they been so successful at preventing us from looking at it that way?

seashell: Because the campaign is about Hillary as President, not Bill? Why do you find that so hard to believe?


...the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. Bill Moyers

user-pic

The fact that I have not answered them the way you would answer them does not mean I did not answer them or, indeed, that there was ever a question in the first place.

Southern politicians have gotten their wives elected to get around inconvenient facts like term limits or prison sentences for a century. If you refuse to see it when it's happening right in front of you, it's not my fault.

user-pic

Touche. One of us writes clearly, the other thinks clearly.

user-pic

And one of us got a sprain patting himself on the back!

user-pic

Get well soon!

user-pic

I find the idea of a quarter century or more of rule by two families disturbing, too. But is Norquist not joking here? I can't imagine that something like that would pass legal muster.

user-pic

If it's a constitutional amendment, it can be anything and pass legal muster. Ordinary legislation can be struck down, but not amendments.

user-pic

Yeah, but it smells rather funny - I can't see something like this passing.  If it's likely to get struck down as legislation (not that I know it is), it's hard to see how it comports with the constitution it'd be stuck into.

user-pic

I'd say it's unlikely to pass because the legislatures are full of people who would be affected by it, but in any case, I'd love to see more attention focused on the issue through a quixotic campaign.

Again, I can't expect people who look at this as only an example of wingnuttery (whatever that neologism means in the feverish popular imagination) to follow so complex an argument, but suppose Jesse Jackson Jr. had run for the Senate a couple of years ago, as it was rumored he might. What effect would that have had on the Democratic talent bench this year? Well, do you think State Representative Barack Obama would be a national figure? Do you think the Democratic field would be stronger for not having him this year? The semi-to-un-talented sons of power block the advancement of real stars, to the detriment of both parties.

user-pic

A more effective way of accomplishing the same goal -- i.e. preventing "semi-to-un-talented sons of power" from assuming control -- would be to ban anyone with a net worth greater than, say, 10 times the median from running for Federal office.

Another desirable move would be to remove corporations' status as persons, and restrict their ability to corrupt the political process with obscene amounts of money.

A third would be to reverse the concept that political contributions constitute free speech.

I can't expect people who look at this as only an example of wingnuttery (whatever that neologism means in the feverish popular imagination) to follow so complex an argument...

Somewhat smarmy and condescending, aren't you? But you actually seem to have a fairly good grasp on wingnuttery, Max. Now maybe you can enlighten us on "feverish," a topic with which you would be just as familiar.

user-pic

I have trouble with the first condition, as there have been very good presidents of wealth (e.g., FDR) as well as of more modest means.


Your others make more sense. I'm not sure I would revoke all "personal rights" of corporations, but I would not argue they have free speech.


Political contributions certainly need to be limited, but issue ads and organizational advertising is a thorny issue. I have a housemate who is a devout NRA member, who complains about organization ad bands.


There are a range of "associations" that do not elect their leadership through a democratic process, even if that is decentralized. Parent-Teacher Associations seem clearly democrating. Associations such as AAA and AARP do substatial good, but, to the best of my knowledge, they are run by self-perpetuating boards. NRA, and I am open to correction, is somewhere in the middle, in that there are local chapters, but the upper levels are not elected from the bottom up.

--

Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

user-pic

Agreed about my first point. I'm not promoting it, simply offering it as an alternative to Max's scheme, which I find repugnant.

Also agreed that issue advertising is problematic. I like the "clearly intended to affect an election" criterion, although it could obviously be abused by the incumbent powers.

user-pic

although it could obviously be abused by the incumbent powers

Gee, you think?

user-pic

Indeed I do think. You might consider giving it a shot some time, Max.

user-pic

Ironic that Norquist is advocating anti-inheritance amendments. Actually not ironic, just hypocritical as expected.

You're talking about dynasties, not nepotism. An example of that was JFK and RFK. Having your husband present is not the same as hiring him.

No one with sense would waste time reading Norquist. Not that many of us don't feel a little queasy about dynasties, witness our support of inheritance taxes. But it's suspiciously convenient to hear this after, not before GWB. It only adds to our sense that conservatives these days do not have principles.

There is no "creeping tendency." It has always been so. The well-connected stay well-connected. Bring in public campaign support ("Public Forums Instead of Public Financing") and increase inheritance taxes.

BTW, to show that Norquist doesn't even know the Constition, his Section 2 is unnecessary, since Congress is specifically empowered to pass all legislation necessary "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers." Small detail---Congress doesn't enforce (Norquist's term)--the executive does (except for this one).

Leave a comment

Mgmax

user-pic

Following:
Followers:

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address