Dynasticism, Experience, and the 2008 Election

The point has come in the Democratic contest where the only viable choice is the choice between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In the hubbub over this historic election a rather profound and simple fact has been overlooked. Forget any preconceptions that exist about Hillary Clinton, ignore all the differences between the two leading candidates for the nomination and the fact remains that a Hillary Clinton nomination could mean three decades of dynasticism in the American Presidency. There has been no election since 1980 without either a Clinton or Bush on the ballot. And what of that fact? Why does this even matter? Consider this: Bush Jr. and Hillary started their respective presidential bids with incredible institutional backing, financial resources, and support in the polls. This alone should give us pause. George W and Hillary didn’t do anything extraordinary to merit this incredible institutional support. They were not incumbent Presidents or vice-presidents eager to take the mantle. Clinton and Bush are incumbents by virtue only of their last name. Neither would have had a particularly successful political career without this. And this - as the case of George W shows - is dangerous. George W. Bush was truly an untested leader. The word untested has gotten bandied about a lot in this campaign. Bush certainly had experience in the conventional sense, as does Clinton. But Bush was never tested with any real dilemmas or any tough moral decisions to make. As a consequence he came in unprepared to lead. Clinton may go down a similar path. At a recent debate, Clinton and Obama gave what I think were revealing answers about their skills to govern. Clinton framed the job of the President in a way eerily similar to Bush: as a kind of national chief executive perfectly organized and ready for business. Then Barack Obama spoke. He acknowledged that he was not the most organized person in the world. But being organized, he said, is not what the presidency is about. Constitutionally the presidency is not very powerful. The power of the President comes from his ability to inspire the American people. A President’s ability comes not from experience in Washington. Abraham Lincoln had virtually no political experience. What he did have was trial by fire time after time in life. Barack Obama has been tried in life. His experience is not beltway experience, but it is experience of a much more valuable kind. He is a man who, like Lincoln, has found himself. What is most remarkable about Obama is how little his judgment has wavered. He knew, in 2002, that he had to oppose the Iraq War. He has spoken of talking to world leaders the United States is on hostile terms with, without preconditions, in his first year in office. The move was widely regarded as a gaffe by pundits, as a sign of his “inexperience.” But rather than go back on what he said Obama has stuck with his conviction because he knows he is right.
That is the problem with dynasticism. It distorts our perspective. It makes us think of experience as years inside a political bunker rather than judgment forged through a lifetime. Electing Clinton may perpetuate a dangerous pattern at the highest level of our national life. Students of western history should know that dynasties make empires out of republics. Our politics and our government should not be determined by bloodlines in this day and age, particularly when there are individuals like Obama waiting in the wings.