BREAKING: @EdMarkey, the Green New Deal, and the progressive movement just ended the Kennedy Dynasty!— Ryan Knight 🌹 (@ProudSocialist) September 2, 2020
Pelosi comes from a political dynasty. Her father and brother were both mayor of baltimore and her father was in the house for a long time.
There are tons of political dynasties all over the country, especially at the state legislature level. There are likely hundreds of state reps that have family who used to be a state rep (I can point to over a dozen in NY alone).
This said, political dynasties aren't inherently bad. There are absolutely instances where being part of a political dynasty helps them to position themselves as more progressive since they don't need corporate money to survive electorally.
This said, political dynasties aren’t inherently bad.
They ARE inherently bad. They're not as bad as money determining who gets to run, but of course political power shouldn't be inherited! That's fundamentally undemocratic.
There are absolutely instances where being part of a political dynasty helps them to position themselves as more progressive since they don’t need corporate money to survive electorally.
This is exactly the same argument you'd use to support Bloomberg or Trump running for office - "They're billionaires already! They won't be influenced by corporate money." Theoretically it might be possible - maybe RFK would have been the fabled real deal, but there're a lot more examples of dynasts representing their economic class and social circles first.
I can think of left wing political dynasties all over the world. Why is it fine when the Castro's do it in Cuba, but not the Clinton's in the US. Political ideology is often passed down within families in my experience, so I don't see it as inherently corrupt in the way I do with Billionaire politicians. Things being intereted are also not the same as winning the race yourself.
Billionaires have very different interests when it comes to running for office than legacy political families do. The former is because they want to advance their personal status, the later is almost entirely about maintaining the family name separate from any material aspect.
Another example of this is how MLKs kids have meaningfully carried on his legacy with careers in activism themselves. There's nothing wrong with this so long as they are fighting for the marginalized.
Why is it fine when the Castro’s do it in Cuba, but not the Clinton’s in the US.
Ideally, Raul Castro wouldn't be in charge of Cuba. A different leader would signal the health of Cuban democracy. Cuba's under a 60-year-old siege and prizes internal stability more than it would otherwise.
But Raul Castro isn't some washed up nephew - he was a revolutionary just like Fidel. He put his life on the line for Cuba before Fidel got any power. He has the bona fides few others do.
The Clintons are a relatively short dynasty, ending in failure, so they aren't the perfect example. I'll grant you that their overall corruption is so deep that the dynastic element of it is less significant. But it's still inherently undemocratic for a Presidential spouse to use the connections obtained from being in power to propel themselves ahead of other worthy candidates.
Political ideology is often passed down within families
Right, and considering most past politicians are conservative shitheads, we should oppose such inheritance.
The former is because they want to advance their personal status, the later is almost entirely about maintaining the family name separate from any material aspect.
These are unfounded assumptions.
MLKs kids have meaningfully carried on his legacy with careers in activism themselves
Non-elected kids of a non-elected father? Not really a political dynasty. But if they ever got a leadership position on their name alone, that wouldn't be good either.
is there now any political dinasty that has not eaten shit still like trump got both the clintons and the bushes in 2016 and now the kennedys went
Yeh but trump just replaced one dynasty with another lol
Roosevelt 3, Electric Bullmooseoo.
Lots Of smaller ones unfortunately.
I've been hearing media figures trying to turn the Obamas into a new dynasty with talk about how "presidential" Michelle Obama is.
Pelosi comes from a political dynasty. Her father and brother were both mayor of baltimore and her father was in the house for a long time.
There are tons of political dynasties all over the country, especially at the state legislature level. There are likely hundreds of state reps that have family who used to be a state rep (I can point to over a dozen in NY alone).
This said, political dynasties aren't inherently bad. There are absolutely instances where being part of a political dynasty helps them to position themselves as more progressive since they don't need corporate money to survive electorally.
They ARE inherently bad. They're not as bad as money determining who gets to run, but of course political power shouldn't be inherited! That's fundamentally undemocratic.
This is exactly the same argument you'd use to support Bloomberg or Trump running for office - "They're billionaires already! They won't be influenced by corporate money." Theoretically it might be possible - maybe RFK would have been the fabled real deal, but there're a lot more examples of dynasts representing their economic class and social circles first.
I can think of left wing political dynasties all over the world. Why is it fine when the Castro's do it in Cuba, but not the Clinton's in the US. Political ideology is often passed down within families in my experience, so I don't see it as inherently corrupt in the way I do with Billionaire politicians. Things being intereted are also not the same as winning the race yourself.
Billionaires have very different interests when it comes to running for office than legacy political families do. The former is because they want to advance their personal status, the later is almost entirely about maintaining the family name separate from any material aspect.
Another example of this is how MLKs kids have meaningfully carried on his legacy with careers in activism themselves. There's nothing wrong with this so long as they are fighting for the marginalized.
its actually not fine when Castros are doing it
Ideally, Raul Castro wouldn't be in charge of Cuba. A different leader would signal the health of Cuban democracy. Cuba's under a 60-year-old siege and prizes internal stability more than it would otherwise.
But Raul Castro isn't some washed up nephew - he was a revolutionary just like Fidel. He put his life on the line for Cuba before Fidel got any power. He has the bona fides few others do.
The Clintons are a relatively short dynasty, ending in failure, so they aren't the perfect example. I'll grant you that their overall corruption is so deep that the dynastic element of it is less significant. But it's still inherently undemocratic for a Presidential spouse to use the connections obtained from being in power to propel themselves ahead of other worthy candidates.
Right, and considering most past politicians are conservative shitheads, we should oppose such inheritance.
These are unfounded assumptions.
Non-elected kids of a non-elected father? Not really a political dynasty. But if they ever got a leadership position on their name alone, that wouldn't be good either.