Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Apr 13, 2015 in 2012 Elections, 2016 Elections, At TMV, Breaking News, Economy, Finance, International, Internet, Law, Media, Places, Politics, USA Presidential Election 2012 | 12 comments

Hillary Run Reinforces ‘Quasi-Feudal System’ in America (Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland)

hillary-cllinton-what-difference-caption_pic[1][icopyright one button toolbar]

Is it time for Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush to stand down and let people from other families run the country? For Gazeta Wyborcza, columnist Mariusz Zawadzki writes that Hillary Clinton’s campaign launch yesterday, contrary to America’s oft-repeated mythology, shows that the ‘everyday Americans’ Hillary Clinton says she wants to help have little or no hope of running for high office or even improving their lot in life. He also criticizes the Clinton’s apparent belief that rules do not apply to her.

For Gazeta Wyborcza, Mariusz Zawadzki lays out why he thinks the Bushes and Clintons should step aside:

“The presidency is not some crown to be passed between two families!,” former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley said recently. He meant, of course, the Bushes and the Clintons who, as seems a really possibility, have governed and will govern the United States from the year 1989 until 2025, excluding an eight-year interruption by Barack Obama.

 

On Sunday that dark scenario moved a bit closer when Hillary Clinton, the wife of former President Bill Clinton, officially announced her candidacy in 2016 presidential election. In her steps will soon follow Jeb Bush, brother and son of two former Republican presidents.

 

O’Malley, though far from objective as he himself is considering becoming a candidate, is undoubtedly correct for many reasons. In recent years much has been said about the growing inequality of the American economy, and how a child from a poor family has less of a chance at social advancement. America increasingly belongs to the millionaires and billionaires. A quasi-feudal system has formed in which the fate of a man and his future position in life are determined at birth. A Bush-Clinton relay would confirm that this unhealthy process is occurring not only in finance but politics as well.

 

To my surprise, Americans, at least those supporting the Democrats, don’t seem to mind. It would be quite a sensation if someone else won the party nomination (things look completely different on the Republican side, where Bush will have a much harder path, with his most dangerous rival apparently Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker).

 

I have to admit to a personal bias here, as I do not understand the reasons for Mrs. Clinton’s dominance. The fact that she is a woman seems like a considerable advantage in the face of more than 200 years of male rule in the White House. However, as asserted by the more malicious, to be a woman one must be a human being, whereas Mrs. Clinton sometimes resembles a cyborg in her public appearances.

READ THE REST IN ENGLISH OR POLISH, OR READ MORE GLOBAL PERCEPTIONS OF OUR NATION AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of global news and views about the United States.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 The Moderate Voice
  • Markus

    It is very enlightened to see ourselves through a stranger’s eyes at times. The Bush/Clinton axis certainly does appear to show the power of the elites in maintaining their power, but in fairness to America it can be said that Presidents like Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Obama were clearly not born into the elite social class.
    Some of the criticism of Hillary in the article makes no sense. She can “resemble a cyborg”? Does this mean she reminds someone of Daryl Hannah in Blade Runner?

    • As I was reading this I thought that if I was posting such an excerpt I wouldn’t have bothered with the last paragraph. It doesn’t add anything meaningful or relate to the main point.

  • Is it time for Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush to stand down and let people from other families run the country?

    There is a fundamental and very obvious difference between being related by marriage and being related by blood.

    contrary to America’s oft-repeated mythology, the ‘everyday Americans’ … have little or no hope of running for high office or even improving their lot in life.

    In fact both Clintons demonstrate the validity of that “mythology,” as does Barack Obama. All three of them started in quite modest circumstances and ran for the highest office. To find presidential-level dynasties in the Democratic Party, you have to go back to Al Gore and Jack Kennedy.

  • The problem is not so much that candidates are members of a family with previous presidents but the two particular families involved. The family business for each has become seeking power and influence peddling. Both the activities of the Bush family and Clinton Foundation create similar concerns.

    On the one hand this could raise the question of whether keeping the presidency in a single family invites such abuses, but on the other hand it is also possible to have political families who do not engage in the practices of the Bush and Clinton families.

  • Interesting material in the article beyond the excerpt, such as how she feels privileged, tying this into her feeling she could violate the rules regarding email as Secretary of State:

    “Her biggest drawback, and again this is my personal opinion – is not even the fact that she is privileged, but that she considers herself to be. Certain rules that apply to “ordinary people” do not apply because her name is Hillary Clinton.

    “A perfect example is the so called e-mail scandal that broke a few weeks ago. It turned out that when Hillary was secretary of state she used her personal e-mail account. All correspondence was saved on a server that the Clintons had installed in their home in New York. Last year she forwarded to governmental archives thousands of “business” e-mails, but she deleted 30,000 “private” ones – and she was the one who decided which were which.

    “Republicans raised a fuss, suggesting Hillary was hiding something. Jeb Bush brags that he had a business e-mail account and that its contents were revealed on his Web site. Yet that isn’t the root of the matter! After all, Bush had a private account in addition to a business account, and if he wanted to conceal his business matters he could have kept such correspondence in his private account – and he probably did as all politicians do.

    ‘The point is that internal State Department procedures prohibit the use of private e-mail accounts for business matters. In 2011, when Mrs. Clinton was head of the Department, all employees were given a reminder of that ban. Apparently because she feels privileged, Hillary Clinton concluded that the ban didn’t apply to her.”

  • JSpencer

    “To my surprise, Americans, at least those supporting the Democrats, don’t seem to mind.”

    Well, that’s a pretty blanket statement. I know a great many democrats who are decidedly unhappy about the dynasty aspect (or the neo-feudal system in general). We work with what we have or we change it eh? The extent of influence most Americans have on the process begins and ends with their vote.

    • I noted that sentence and didn’t complain. While there are many exceptions, far too many Democrats are willing to accept problems with Clinton which they would be angrily attacking when seen in Republicans. It is like putting a “D” after one’s name provides immunity to all sorts of misdeeds in the eyes of too many Democrats.

      • JSpencer

        I have a problem with that too Ron. Credible standards have to be universal in order to matter. otherwise there is a constant source of fuel for the “both sides” reflex (not that it takes much). I don’t want my champions (such as they are) to be overly tarnished or my loyalty is going to be riddled with caveats. The struggle to maintain high standards is the good fight, and it is all around us.

    • I know a great many democrats who are decidedly unhappy about the dynasty aspect (or the neo-feudal system in general).

      Sorry, but the Clintons aren’t a dynasty in any sense of the word. They had both raised themselves from modest beginnings to relative prominence before they even met each other; Hillary to being the first student to deliver the Wellesley commencement address and political activism, Bill to a Rhodes Scholarship and anti-war protests. It would be a “dynasty” if Chelsea rode their coattails into high political office; she shows no signs of doing so.

      The extent of influence most Americans have on the process begins and ends with their vote.

      Bill and Hillary Clinton serve as two counter-examples of that. The talk of “feudalism” and “dynasty” is a dog-whistle for “I don’t like them.”

      • JSpencer

        Point taken Bob, but all dynasties were humble beginnings at one point in time. 😉 In any case, the perception (right or wrong) is that it is a dynasty. That said, the Bush clan is more of a dynasty.

        • but all dynasties were humble beginnings at one point in time

          But they weren’t dynasties then. You’re not a dynasty until you do something characteristic of a dynasty, such as getting Chelsea elected President. Every couple capable of having children is a potential dynasty.

          In any case, the perception (right or wrong) is that it is a dynasty

          I’m correcting a wrong perception.

        • It is a variant of Bill Clinton arguing over what the meaning of is is.

          As I’ve also pointed out elsewhere, the use of dynastic to both Bush and Clinton is technically incorrect as a husband and wife are not a dynasty. However it is not worth nitpicking this unless one is trying to distract from the real issues. Most people are well aware of the dynastic complaint is, even if the wording is not technically correct.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com