The official declaration of the presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton on Saturday and Jeb Bush on Monday triggers a kind of political weariness. That’s not to diminish their credentials or qualifications. Who knows? Either could turn out to be one of America’s great presidents.
But in a country where, in theory, anyone can grow up to be president of the United States, we are a nation that is in danger of confining its political leadership to two families. If either Hillary or Jeb is elected next year, and then re-elected, that will mean the president for 28 years of a 36-year period will have had the last name Bush or Clinton.
That just doesn’t feel right.
Our country’s modern day flirtation with political royalty began with the Kennedys. They eschewed being depicted as a dynasty, but did not dissuade the more romantic and less threatening references to the fictitious kingdom of Camelot.
The Bush family has been correctly identified as a dynasty. Author Peter Schweizer, who wrote the Bush family biography, calls the Bushes “the most successful political dynasty in American history.” Less flattering biographers have portrayed the Bushes’ political dominance in more caustic terms.
Then there are the Clintons, who are neither family dynasty nor romanticized nobility. They are the grinders who wear you down and create a sense of inevitability. After awhile, it’s easier to just give in than fight them.
With such long and contestable personal and familial legacies, Clinton and Bush must find ways to reintroduce themselves to a skeptical nation. Hillary has morphed into the benevolent grandmother, while Jeb kicks off his campaign with a logo that pointedly leaves out his last name (as though we don’t know).
The founders, fresh out from under the thumb of King George III, made clear the leaders of the new country would not be royalty. Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution even specifies “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States.”
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 69 assuring Americans of the distinct differences between a President and a King. “The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for four years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and hereditary prince.”
Granted, our president is still chosen by the electorate and not by divine right, but the significance of the family’s last name as we head into the next election cycle cannot be ignored. True, neither Clinton nor Bush may end up as their party’s nominee (although Clinton seems assured), but if that is the November 2016 matchup, the familiarity may just be too much.
Freshness is good in politics. It fits with the theme that campaigns are about the future, but it’s going to be difficult for either Clinton or Bush to generate the kind of enthusiasm and optimism necessary to inspire great things when so much of them is about the past.