Partisan Poison and American Political Aristocracy

Number 2 in a series of comments about something I have read recently.

I found an article on the web entitled “Anyone but a Bush or a Clinton”. It was written by James Burkee who is an assistant professor of history at Concordia University Wisconsin and co-founder of the bipartisan political action committee Americans for Responsibility in Washington. It was written January 22, 2007 and can be read on the Los Angeles Times website here.

The gist of the article is that the next president should not have the last name of Clinton or Bush. These names might become a sort of "unnatural" aristocracy who inherited great fortunes and political office – something that Thomas Jefferson warned against. There is also a great partisan divide right now in politics that I think is threatening this nation – something that George Washington warned against.

Just imagine that Hillary Clinton serves 2 terms as president. And then Jeb Bush gets elected for two terms after that. We would have had a Bush or a Clinton as president from 1989 until 2024! That’s 36 years that the United States will have been governed by either a Bush or a Clinton. That's an awful long time governed not just by the same two families but probably by much of the same supporting staff.

The thing about the Clintons and the Bushes is that they are loved by many and hated by just as many. I think it would be foolish to elect someone in 2008 that will be hated by as many people as hate George Bush right now. Leave aside the reasons people hate George Bush and Hillary Clinton. Why elect someone to mirror what is going on now with George Bush?

I think it is time for someone that one side will like and the other side will be able to respect – someone who can heal the great divide that exists right now. But to do this, the dividers on both sides of the aisle must realize that being bipartisan does not mean when the other side does it our way. And, probably most important of all, can put the nation before party or power.

Is there a candidate who can win 55% or more of the votes? The last candidate to do so was Ronald Reagan who got 59%. Since then, no one has received more than 50.1%.

We need someone new. I do now know who this will be and I do not have an opinion yet other than to say that it should not be a Bush, a Clinton, or anyone else central to the last few administrations.