Imagine if Hillary Clinton wins the 2008 US presidential elections. Statistically speaking, she is likely to be re-elected in 2012 (most presidents have been) and therefore remain president until 2016. This will mean that between 1988 and 2016 two families will have shared the presidency — 28 years of Bushes and Clintons. You could even add another eight years if you consider that George H. W. Bush was a relatively powerful VP under Reagan because of his intelligence and foreign policy background and was even acting president for eight hours on 13 July 1985 when Reagan underwent surgery.
If this happens, a generation — my generation — will have spent the time between its teenage years and its middle age ruled by two feuding families. That will be oddly familiar for those of us with Arab origins, a situation reminiscent of Kuwait’s succession system or the much-gossiped rivalries of Saudi princes. So it seems that Arabs don’t only have political lessons to learn from America, but that they can export some of their cherished political values too. But for some reason, I don’t take much comfort in that.
The odd thing about this is that there have been lots of news stories over here about how the Bushes and Clintons have become friends.
wonder if hillary, with her HORRIBLE record on the Middle East, will stoop to http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=158928“ rel=”nofollow”>this level.
It’s not exactly a recent development in American politics. Way back in the dark ages I remember reading a rather cheeky piece in an anthropology reader titled Kinship Networks on Capitol Hill that straight-facedly applied old-fashioned kinship charts to senators and congresspersons over the course of a century and it was remarkable how pervasive family ties were, and how important descent was in producing new generations of representatives. Voters like Family Names (ahem, the Kennedys?)
On the presidential level, see this:
http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2007/01/20/5834
Interesting, but remember that 1992 was the only Clinton vs. Bush election. The other four (including 2008, I assume) are all against someone else. So it’s a stretch to call them “feuding.”
But compared to Saudi rivalries and other succession debates in the Arab region it’s been more or less the result of free elections. I’ve got a problem comparing two things that have nothing to do with one another….!
What’s free about an election where two powergroups decide who’s going to represent them (after each use their connections to raise millions of dollars), and then get the public to annoint one of the TWO candidates?
… then there is the questionable exploitation of the electorate’s religious sensibilities in a secular democracy.
What la-di-da fantasy world do you live in, where a large and socioeconomically diverse pool of candidates vie for head of state with equal financial backing from their respective parties? Where candidates run campaigns free of marketing techniques and religious influence and are judged solely based on their platforms?
very well put Arabist… ideyha ya me3alem 🙂
Well, I live in a la-di-da fantasy world where, although we do indeed have a two party system, independents and small parties have grown in popularity and our independent Electoral Commissions (state and Federal) give grants to parties based on how many votes they got. Whilst marketing campaigns are important, no party seems to be fully in bed with any particular interest group except for a shared general ideological outlook. None of our Prime Ministers have been related to any of the others, although there has been some family names that have popped up from time to time, and the Premier of my state in the early 80s was the son of a former Premier. On the whole, though, it’s reasonably credible. It’s a LOT more credible than the US system, although obviously both shit all over the emirates (small e!).
Still, what the hell is up with that Electoral College?