Dynasty

Bush, Clinton, Bush . . . Clinton. Am I the only one who sees this possibility as dreadful, irrespective of the qualities of the four politicians in question? In my view, the fact that there is even a serious chance that 2008 may bring us yet another dynastic restoration in the presidential office is reflective, in and of itself, of the current dysfunctionality of American democracy.

In truth, I know I'm not the only person troubled by this. After all, political historian Kevin Phillips wrote a whole book back in 2004 about the dangers of dynastic power for our democracy, focusing on the Bush family (American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush). This past June, Phillips, in a Washington Post review of two books about Hillary Clinton, asked the obvious question about her candidacy:

In light of the endless deceits, interest-group baggage, messianic overtones and shameless money politics of the two Bush dynasts (presidents number 41 and 43), do American voters want to empower yet another dubious dynasty (Clinton presidents number 42 and 44)?

The mainstream media, which long ago declared Hillary Clinton the Democratic "front-runner" - - actually "presumptive nominee" seems more accurate - - based on nothing but name recognition and how much money she was expected to be able to raise, have, of late, expressed muted concern about this dynastic issue, if only at the margins. For example, Nancy Benac, in a September AP story, wonders, "Does a nation of 303 million people really have only two families qualified to run the show?" And an Agence France-Presse article earlier this month ("US Ponders Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton White House") makes the obvious connection between dynastic politics and the decisive influence of big money in the political sphere.

For a succinct statement of the irony of this outbreak of dynastic succession in the United States, we can turn again to Phillips, this time in a 2004 BuzzFlash.com interview:

[D]ynasties are something that the United States came into being fighting against. We have George III in 1775 and 1776. I don't see any reason why, in the last 25 years, we should have George I and George II, and think about Jeb I [three years later, this seems highly unlikely, thank god] and so forth. It's pernicious, almost, by definition of what America's all about.

Unfortunately, pernicious it may be, but dynastic privilege is clearly on the rise throughout American society, and not just in the political realm. Take the entertainment industry: given the prominence of actors from Michael Douglas (son of Kirk), to Gwyneth Paltrow (daughter of Blythe Danner), Nicholas Cage (nephew of Francis Ford Coppola), and Ben Stiller (son of Jerry Stiller and Anne Meara) - - the list here is endless, frankly - - and directors like Sofia Coppola (daughter of Francis) and Nick Cassavetes (son of John), can anyone doubt that one of the most important success factors for those seeking a career in Hollywood is family ties? Although less pronounced, the same can be said for recording artists - - examples include Natalie Cole (daughter of Nat "King" Cole), Jakob Dylan (son of Bob) and Julian and Sean Lennon (sons of John). Ditto for television journalism, which has come to exhibit the nepotism characteristic of other "celebrity" spheres - - Chris Wallace (son of Mike), and Andrea Koppel (daughter of Ted), are two examples.

We see dynastic privilege at work in the spheres of politics and entertainment because, given their nature, these are especially visible to the general populace. Less visible, but, if anything, more rampant and pernicious, is the nepotism that is constantly at work in academia (where the children of wealthy alumni are given admissions preference at elite universities), and the world of business and finance, particularly at elite levels. To take just a single example, the children of Sanford Weill, Wall Street deal-maker and one of the world's richest individuals, both held top positions in his Citigroup empire - - son Marc was chief investment officer until he was forced out due to personal problems in 2000; daughter Jessica was mutual fund marketing chief for Smith Barney (owned by Citigroup's predecessor Travelers), before striking out on her own in 1999. It is unlikely in the extreme that either of these individuals would have gotten these positions on their own merits.

The fitness of these people for the work they do is not the relevant issue. Presumably, any number of people would have the necessary talent to occupy these roles. The question is, who is afforded the opportunity to hold these privileged positions and why?

What all of this reflects, it seems to me, is the coalescence of oligarchical power and control in the United States. In the mid-1970s, wealth inequality in the US, which had been generally declining since the onset of the Great Depression, began an inexorable rise. The following chart, taken from a Wikipedia article on the "gini coefficient," a key measure of income and wealth inequality, shows the postwar trends (for income distribution, in this case), for several countries, including the US:

[Click on chart for full-size version]

The cause of this steady growth in inequality is obvious: the period since the late-1970s - - the era of neoliberalism - - has seen a relentless attack by elites on the living standards of the mass of the US populace, through massive tax cuts that have primarily benefited the ultra-wealthy, deregulation of business, multilateral "free trade" agreements, offshoring of production to low-wage countries, undermining and destruction of labor organizations, etc. That this tremendous increase in the share of societal wealth controlled by a tiny minority should correspond to the mushrooming of dynastic privilege throughout US society is unsurprising.

When the issue of the potential for a multi-decade dynastic lock on the US presidency is considered by the mainstream media, it is generally attributed to the importance of "branding" in contemporary political campaigns (as pretty much everywhere else in American society these days), and, ultimately, to the power of money in determining which candidates are deemed "viable." In this view, wealthy donors are more likely to contribute to the campaign of the offspring (or spouse) of a former president, because this candidate has immediate national name recognition and media attention, and, thus, a better chance to win. This seems akin to the movie business, where investors, focused on ROI, generally favor sequels to blockbuster films over new material.

Although not incorrect, this view seems superficial. To understand the importance of branding, we must ask ourselves what a presidential brand might actually mean to these well-heeled donors who, it is taken as a given, have the primary power to select candidates for public office under our system. It seems to me, in this context, the dynastic brand is about safety and continuity. It goes like this: The first Bush and Clinton proved trustworthy in giving elites the key things they wanted (tax cuts, regulatory "relief," free-trade agreements, dismantling of the "welfare state," etc.), so it would be assumed that the second Bush and Clinton would faithfully serve elite interests, as well. Much of these latter dynasts' early "campaigning," then, would consist of offering private assurances of the validity of this assumption.

Interestingly, in the specific cases of George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton, there seems to be another factor at work, one that may or may not be generalizable: A key attraction of both of these politicians to their patrons consists of their potential ability to overcome political contradictions. In the case of Bush II, he was able to unite the primarily working and middle-class fundamentalist Christian base of the Republican Party, with the wealthy elite "country club" elements who have traditionally controlled the party, despite the fact that the latter effectively dictate a policy agenda that undermines the living standards of the former. In the case of Clinton II, the fact that she is a woman, and thus, potentially the first woman president, is no doubt viewed by elites as helpful in putting a progressive gloss on a fundamentally conservative candidacy, and, on that basis, forestalling the defection from the Democrats of millions of voters fed up by the party's craven support for militarism abroad and erosion of democratic rights and the living standards of average Americans at home.