It is interesting. I'm not sure this is true, though:
"George W. Bush would not be president today were his name not George Bush"
He was able to become president by taking advantage of the extreme right wing... which he had helped his father try to do in '92. If he'd been anyone else in the same position who'd done the same thing, he'd still be president.
I agree, but I don't think the article is saying that nobody else could have used his strategies to successfully become the president. I think that the article is merely saying that this particular individual would never have gotten so far with it if he had not been George Bush. His family name gave him the opportunity; he didn't get the opportunity by a series of political successes being used to build his own name recognition.
I think he was one of the ones pushing the divisiveness for political advantage in the early 90s and I think he's one of the ones making it worse now... it's not just the result of people not liking inherited presidencies.
Again, I completely agree. I don't think the author was blaming the current political situation on a public distaste for inherited presidencies. I believe his position was that positions of power being "handed down" as family heirlooms runs inherently counter to our entire basis of government in America. It creates an aristocracy. That, in the long run, is always bad for the people whether GWB or H. Clinton are good or bad choices judged in a vacuum.
It is interesting. I'm not sure this is true, though:
ReplyDelete"George W. Bush would not be president today were his name not George Bush"
He was able to become president by taking advantage of the extreme right wing... which he had helped his father try to do in '92. If he'd been anyone else in the same position who'd done the same thing, he'd still be president.
I agree, but I don't think the article is saying that nobody else could have used his strategies to successfully become the president. I think that the article is merely saying that this particular individual would never have gotten so far with it if he had not been George Bush. His family name gave him the opportunity; he didn't get the opportunity by a series of political successes being used to build his own name recognition.
I think he was one of the ones pushing the divisiveness for political advantage in the early 90s and I think he's one of the ones making it worse now... it's not just the result of people not liking inherited presidencies.
Again, I completely agree. I don't think the author was blaming the current political situation on a public distaste for inherited presidencies. I believe his position was that positions of power being "handed down" as family heirlooms runs inherently counter to our entire basis of government in America. It creates an aristocracy. That, in the long run, is always bad for the people whether GWB or H. Clinton are good or bad choices judged in a vacuum.