One of the ideas that popped into my head as I wrote the article just below this one is whether or not a second Clinton presidency, which would result in a Clinton political dynasty of sorts, would be a direct anathema to progressivism. Almost no matter how you look at them, and no matter how progressive or not the individual members might be, political dynasties cannot be considered "progressive." For hereditary ruling classes to receive privilege based on pedigree is actually one of the least progressive things I can think of. I actually always thought of the second Bush presidency, secured through conservative institutions in the 2000 primary and through a minority vote in the 2000 general election, as about as perfect an example of conservatism as one could ever find in a contemporary American context. Even though his father's presidency was rejected by the public and even though the will of the people was against him, the son of a former president became president anyway, and promptly proceeded to secure as much power for himself as power. How very aristocratic.
Of course, the Bush's are not the only example of a Presidential dynasty in America. Famously, the two most popular progressive presidents of the first half of the twentieth century were both named Roosevelt. Also, multiple Kennedy's ran for President, and probably would have won, had it not been for assassinations. Had I been at least 27 years older, I would have had not problem voting for RFK in the primaries, for example. Also, it is not exactly as though the Clinton's come from a wealthy family. Bill Clinton grew up in a single parent home in Arkansas and went to the local public school, for crying out loud. That is hardly the stuff of aristocracy and privileged pedigrees. Further, Hillary Clinton would be the first woman President, and women are by far the largest demographic group in the United States to never have a representative in the Presidency. That would quite obviously, at least in one way, be progress. Outside of Kucinich and Edwards, Hillary Clinton is also the only candidate who uses the term progressive on a regular basis, and I'm pretty sure that she is the only candidate to reference the progressive movement. Finally, even if Clinton becomes President, it will only last either four or eight years. So, barring a run by Chelsea Clinton, the line ends even before my 11 year old niece graduates from college.
Still, the idea of a Clinton dynasty feels fundamentally unprogressive to me in a way that Hillary Clinton herself can do nothing to avoid. Even though they were both from wealthy families, the two Roosevelt were not related from within their nuclear families ala the Kennedys, Bushes, and Clintons. Also, when it came to RFK and later Ted Kennedy, the original Kennedy presidency, which had captured the imagination of progressives on his election, had been unjustly cut short by murder. And, as I wrote above, I expect this sort of thing from conservatives, not self-identified progressives. Are we really making progress if we elect the wife of a former President? In a very real way, isn't that idealizing the past in the same way that conservatives often do? I actually think that one of the main reasons Barack Obama at least started out with a lead within the progressive wing of the party is that while both Clinton and Obama appear as a promise of demographic and cultural progress in the Presidency, Obama was the first choice because he didn't have any of the dynasty baggage. An Obama Presidency would be more progressive from an identity standpoint than a Clinton Presidency not because African-Americans have historically faced more obstacles in the United States than women (certainly a debateable topic), but simply because his position as a Presidential candidate was viewed as having been achieved through more progressive means than either Clinton or any other Democratic candidate (I know that Richardson, Edwards and Kucinich supporters might have disagreements on this front, but since that isn't the main thurst of this piece, let's leave them aside for now).
If Clinton wins the nomination, I imagine it will be difficult for some progressives to get excited about a dynasty candidate in the general election. Dynasties and progressivism simply don't mix very well. One of my favorite parts of the Constitution, if not my absolute favorite part, is the section outlawing hereditary titles in America. Even as a sports fan, I find dynasties both boring and irritating. It is hard for me to watch any movies that feature royalty or nobility and portray the nobles in a positive light (although I admit to liking both the first Elizabeth and Marie Antoinette). It just doesn't feel right. Power should not be fixed on the basis of familial units. That just isn't very progressive.
I don't really know what to say beyond this point, because as I noted there isn't anything that Hillary Clinton can do about this. However, based on the post I wrote earlier today, I felt that this was still something worth saying.
