BREAKING: @EdMarkey, the Green New Deal, and the progressive movement just ended the Kennedy Dynasty!— Ryan Knight 🌹 (@ProudSocialist) September 2, 2020
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.
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.