News Is America turning into a Monarchy?

[Anttech]

I read this interesting article in the economist this week, regarding American Democracy and Monarchies.
In the light of the Queen (of GB) Visiting the USA, it does seem to be highlight a rather ironic fact that:

George Bush 89-93
Bill Clinton 93-03
George w Bush 01--09
Hilary Clinton?? 09--

See a pattern?

But one of the most conspicuous things about America these days is that it does not take a visit from the British monarch to give the White House “an air of royalty”. In 2009 the betting is that America will see the son of a former president replaced by the wife of another former president. If Hillary Clinton is then re-elected in 2012, the world's greatest democracy will have been ruled by either a Bush or a Clinton for 28 years straight. And why should things end there? Michael Barone, author and pundit, points out that George P. Bush, the current president's nephew, will be eligible to run for the presidency in 2012, Chelsea Clinton will be eligible in 2016 and Jeb Bush will remain a viable candidate until 2024.
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9149798

Ironic?

I just thought this was very Ironic, that the self-perceived beacon on Democracy seems to only have a few families brokering all the power, just like a Monarchy. The difference with GB is:

But lately ambivalence is turning into out-and-out royalism. Montesquieu described 18th-century Britain as a republic in the guise of a monarchy, because the elite was happy to swap one royal family for another whenever it suited them (as in 1688 and 1714). These days, it is tempting to argue that America is becoming a monarchy in the guise of a republic.

To me this is against all of what a Democracy should be about...

 

[Moridin]

The 25th Amendment is still in place. So is the ability for Congress to overturn a Presidential veto. I do not think that Congress or the SC would allow a change of either on a whim.

 

[loseyourname]

Well, even if our last few and next few presidents come from the same families, they aren't exactly ruling autocratically by the divine right of kings, and they don't own the country either. We've also had two Adamses and two Roosevelt's in our history, and might have had two Kennedy's had Bobby not been killed. We've certainly got our capitalistic version of an aristocracy. The older families that have had money the longest do accumulate power, and in most of the oldest cases, they were simply the first to claim large plots of land.

 

[devil-fire]

i don't know a lot about presidents but i think its been a while since the son of a farmer/factory worker/shoe maker has been a candidate for president.

ps. its tough to say there is a monarchy in american politics, but people seem to be hiring their friends/family over more qualified people for government positions. there is a "you scratch my back and ill scratch your back" culture in american politics that amounts to more of a class centered monarchy then an ideal democracy

 

[BobG]

i don't know a lot about presidents but i think its been a while since the son of a farmer/factory worker/shoe maker has been a candidate for president.

ps. its tough to say there is a monarchy in american politics, but people seem to be hiring their friends/family over more qualified people for government positions. there is a "you scratch my back and ill scratch your back" culture in american politics that amounts to more of a class centered monarchy then an ideal democracy

Not since Jimmy Carter. He was a peanut farmer, although a rather well-to-do peanut farmer.

 

[honestrosewater]

i don't know a lot about presidents but i think its been a while since the son of a farmer/factory worker/shoe maker has been a candidate for president.

If you considered Ralph Nader a serious candidate in 1996, 2000, or 2004:

His parents, Nathra and Rose Nader, were Lebanese and Egyptian immigrants. Nader has always declined to name his family's religious affiliation. Nathra Nader was employed in a textile mill and at one point owned a bakery and restaurant where he engaged customers in discussions of political issues.

— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader

 

[loseyourname]

Harry Truman was the son of a farmer.

 

[Anttech]

Harry Truman was the son of a farmer.

Extreemly Rich farmer?

 

[loseyourname]

Nah, just a normal farmer. Abe Lincoln was also born to farmers living out on the frontier. Andrew Jackson was the son of recent immigrants, both poor, and his father died right after he was born. He actually ended up joining the military when he was 13 and was a POW for a while and nearly starved to death in prison. Those are the only three I can think of that came from notably humble beginnings, though, and they're all from a while back.

 

[Cyrus]

Why do people automatically think that becuase someone grew up from humble beginnings that they somehow are going to care about the person down there? Lots of people become sellouts for power and wealth, and would spit on you rather than help you when it comes down to it.

 

[Office_Shredder]

How can anyone forget John Edwards' upbringing?

 

[kmarinas86]

The Cliton's go way back:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Clinton_(vice_president )

George Clinton (July 26, 1739 – April 20, 1812) was an American soldier and politician. He was the first (and longest-serving) Governor of New York, and then Vice President of the United States under Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

 

[Skyhunter]

The Cliton's go way back:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Clinton_(vice_president )

Bill Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III. He adopted his stepfathers surname at 14.

Not exactly a dynasty. Bill Clinton, though not a farmer, was not a child of privilege.

His father William Jefferson Blythe was killed in a car accident before he was born.

There is some speculation that Blythe was out of the country when he was conceived and he is descendant of Thomas Jefferson through his slave concubine.

http://www.samsloan.com/billsdad.htm

The Clinton coat of arms is Scottish.

http://www.houseofnames.com/xq/asp.c/qx/clinton-coat-arms.htm

The Bush geneology traces it's roots to Konrad King of Burgundy in the 10th century.

http://www.svu2000.org/genealogy/George_W.pdf

 

[loseyourname]

Why do people automatically think that becuase someone grew up from humble beginnings that they somehow are going to care about the person down there? Lots of people become sellouts for power and wealth, and would spit on you rather than help you when it comes down to it.

I'm just answering a question. I hate Andrew Jackson more than any other single figure in American history.

 

[Smurf]

I'm just answering a question. I hate Andrew Jackson more than any other single figure in American history.

Why?

P.S. You guys still have nothing on the USSR, Khrushchev didn't learn to read till he was like 30.

 

[wasteofo2]

i don't know a lot about presidents but i think its been a while since the son of a farmer/factory worker/shoe maker has been a candidate for president.

Bill Clinton's biological father was a traveling salesman who died 3 months prior to Bill's birth. His mother re-married, and his step-father was the co-owner of a car dealership.

Ronald Reagan's father was a shoe-salesman.

Jimmy Carter was born on a farm, and famously became a peanut farmer.

In the last 30 years, only the two Bushes have come from aristocratic backgrounds.

 

[BobG]

I'm just answering a question. I hate Andrew Jackson more than any other single figure in American history.

Why?

Jackson was a pretty controversial person.

As a general, he decided on his own to invade a foreign country (Florida, which belonged to Spain at the time). You would think President Monroe would have gotten pretty upset about a general starting his own war, but the war turned out pretty good, since it resulted in the US obtaining Florida (we had to pay Spain $5 million, though).

As President, he was responsible for evicting the Cherokee out of Georgia to land west of the Mississippi (around 25% of the Cherokees died on a cross country march from Georgia to their new reservation). Chief Justice John Marshall and the US Supreme Court ruled against him on this, saying US law had no jurisdiction over a sovereign nation (the Cherokee), but he just ignored them ("John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" ).

He also had the obnoxious habit of appointing friends and party loyalists to government positions regardless of their qualifications.

When John Marshall, the US Supreme Court Chief Justice that ruled against him on the Cherokee, died, he appointed a Chief Justice more in tune with Jackson's own beliefs. Chief Justice John Taney wrote the Dred Scott decision, giving the opinion that African-Americans (free or slave) could not be citizens of any state because they were "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

In a lot of ways, Jackson encompassed the things a lot of people fear about Bush.

 

[Jeannie]

Monarchy? Read National Security Presidential Directive/nspd51

If not a Monarchy then how about dictatorship.
Homeland security Presidential directive/HSPD-20

This is really scarey stuff...too much power and ANTTECH has a brilliant observation going...
Bush
Clinton
Bush
Clinton...but...don't forget JEB Bush...he isn't in YET...maybe?

and with the power the President has given himself, no less, he may not need Jeb to keep the Bush in office.

I don't know but it's all very interesting.

 

[Astronuc]

If not a Monarchy then how about dictatorship.

The current situation is more like an oligarchy or perhaps a political aristocracy. Certainly there are those who have a vested interest in controlling the socio-political system. That has always been the case.

In discussions with many on the left and right of the political spectrum, there seems to be widespread and common dissatisfaction with the current system. But people fear change or are adverse to the axieties brought with change, so the current system persists.

When I suggest that those dissatisfied with the current order should run for office, all decline because of what one has to undergo, e.g. attacks on one's character or family, which makes the political process unpalatable to many. Clearly, there are those who enjoy the political process - but are the majority of those really the people we want in control?

 

[momentum_waves]

What distinguishes many monarchies which remain for any significant period of time is intelligence.

Would the Bush family qualify?

 

[russ_watters]

If not a Monarchy then how about dictatorship.
Homeland security Presidential directive/HSPD-20.

Well, now we've come full-circle. This is a mirror image of the Clinton-FEMA conspiracy theory circulated in the '90s after Clinton expanded/reformed FEMA. Clinton didn't seize dictatorial power and neither will Bush.

 

[picklefeet]

Bush is finding ways to make the U.S. a monarchy. But I believe he's a puppet. He's being used by the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court were really impartial, Then the Patriot Act wouldn't get through. What most people don't know, is because of the patriot act, I could get sent to Guantanomo Bay without a trial just for writing this. THE SYSTEM IS CORRUPT!

 

[turbo]

What distinguishes many monarchies which remain for any significant period of time is intelligence.

Would the Bush family qualify?

Ruthless self-serving attitudes, combined with cunning, dishonesty, and an absolute lack of ethical principals trumps intelligence any day in politics. W has surrounded himself with a team that exhibits these "qualities" to the max and uses them to exploit the flaws in our political system.

 

[momentum_waves]

Is it then possible that the Bush family could become a dynasty of sustained longevity?

 

[Smurf]

The idea of the US becoming a monarchy is somewhat preposterous, what the reaganite neo-cons seem to be in favor of is more of an elected dictatorship where the chief executive controls the entire executive which in return controls the legislative and judicial, with little respect for the separation of powers, one of the more important aspects of any democracy.

 

[picklefeet]

What people don't realize is that Bush could suspend the constitution by claiming "National Emergency." This would mean he can stay in office even after his second term is up.

 

[russ_watters]

We already discussed that conspiracy theory, picklefeet. It doesn't get any less rediculous over the years.

 

[Task]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=freedom+to+fascism&total=833&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0"

Too late, the real question is, can we get it back ?

 

[baywax]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=freedom+to+fascism&total=833&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0"

Too late, the real question is, can we get it back ?

Lets see, when Germany came under the corrupt, autocratic control of the NAZI party it lasted about 9 years. Apparently the only way to restore a semblance of German democratic society was for the leader to contract syphilis so he made bad tactical decisions and even then the whole place had to be invaded to bring about a more reasonable rule. Is America ready for this?

 

[drankin]

Lets see, when Germany came under the corrupt, autocratic control of the NAZI party it lasted about 9 years. Apparently the only way to restore a semblance of German democratic society was for the leader to contract syphilis so he made bad tactical decisions and even then the whole place had to be invaded to bring about a more reasonable rule. Is America ready for this?

I'm curious, who would be the "invaders" to bring this about?

 

[baywax]

I'm curious, who would be the "invaders" to bring this about?

Tibet?

 

[drankin]

Tibet?

That's not funny, man! Those Tibetans don't mess around.

 

[Art]

I'm curious, who would be the "invaders" to bring this about?

I thought Mexico had already seized a couple of states

(thats for Edward lol)

As for the question in the OP - Not in a million years.

 

[drankin]

I thought Mexico had already seized a couple of states

(thats for Edward lol)

Yep, at least California.

 

[baywax]

As for the question in the OP - Not in a million years.

Considering how the President treated the English monarch recently; mistakenly dating her last visit to have taken place in 1776, I'd say there is no way, in a million years, that the US could find the composure and restraint to support and abide by the rule of a monarchy. However, the US govt is well on its way to mimicing the operations of a Monarchy.

 

[BoomBoom]

George Bush 89-93
Bill Clinton 93-03
George w Bush 01--09
Hilary Clinton?? 09--

See a pattern?


To me this is against all of what a Democracy should be about...

Yes, the pattern is a swing from one ideology to another and back again...politics.

All these people were ELECTED by the people and that IS what a democracy is all about.

 

[Smurf]

Yes, the pattern is a swing from one ideology to another and back again...politics.

All these people were ELECTED by the people and that IS what a democracy is all about.

oh don't be so simplistic. Just because there are formal democratic structures doesn't guarantee it's what 'democracy is all about'. Iraq had formal democratic structures, I don't think anyone would actually argue Saddam was a democratic leader.

 

[jiohdi]

in the US we have the right hand vs the left hand, but few see they are attached to the same corporate body where all the money and power comes from. Democracy is the people up, the US is the government imposing from the top down and in general the rule by ghosts who's will is difficult to override by the living. In many casing disregarding the desire of the people all together. By giving people the ILLUSION of a say, it makes it very difficult for the masses to conspire and revolt... which is why the gov't gets so upset when fewer and fewer people are voting... they understand that many of them are arming.

 

[Plastic Photon]

Democracy exist to elect presidents, senators, etc. But factions exist to make financial decisions of a community or corporation. IF you take the factions away, you take away people's loans, credit cards, house, car, etc. Everything else aside, monarchies are just traditional style plays for the public's amusement. Bush isn't exactly a Rockefeller then again it is not exactly a peanut farmer.