There’s been much speculation as to who will be running in the 2016 presidential election but there are two names that voters are already familiar with seeing on presidential ballots: Bush and Clinton. The Bush’s and the Clinton’s have already established their families as being political powerhouses that have dominated the political sphere for decades, bringing into question the power and relevance of political dynasties.
The past
The future?
Hillary Clinton has been shown an outpouring of support by Democrats and is considered the strongest candidate with polls reflecting 64% of Democrats stating they would support her over Vice President Joe Biden and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. Jeb Bush has remained much more silent about his potential candidacy and is more unknown than the former secretary of state. The last time Jeb Bush’s name was on a ballot was 2002 and he has shown little interest in actually running for president, yet he is still the second most supported potential candidate for Republicans behind Mitt Romney. 
Are Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush coasting off of the accomplishments of their last names or have they established themselves as capable politicians? Another question to consider is whether or not the continuation of a political dynasty is beneficial for the nation. According to Edmund Burke in the Reflections on the Revolution in France, “the possessors of family wealth, and of the distinction which attends hereditary possession are the natural securities for this transmission. With us, the house of peers is formed upon this principle. It is wholly composed of hereditary property and hereditary distinction, and made therefore the third of the legislature.” While Burke seems to be in overwhelming support for the perpetuation of power throughout families, American politics are founded off of the belief that power is not handed to individuals because of their family ties, which is why we do not have kings or lords ruling the nation.
Would another Bush or another Clinton mean the continuation of the Bush administration or Clinton administration, or would the candidates differ from their brother/father/husband’s policies? Would they have even been considered as potential candidates if it weren’t for their ties? Hillary Clinton has been incredibly active in politics, having made a failed bid for president in 2008 and serving as Secretary of State during Obama’s first term, as well as campaigning across the country for several Democratic candidates for congress. There’s no question that Clinton is no longer known for being Bill Clinton’s wife. Jeb Bush, on the other hand, has remained out of the limelight for quite some time and seems to be coasting on his surname.
It seems as if the Clinton and Bush have not been weighed down by their last names at all. Is it a coincidence that the best (potential) candidates come from political dynasties, or are voters drawn to the power associated with the families? While Burke may believe that “some decent regulated pre-eminence, some preference (not exclusive appropriation) given to birth, is neither unnatural, nor unjust, nor impolitic,” others believe that there are more capable or deserving people to run the country and that Obama shouldn’t be an interlude between a span of Bush/Clinton domination. Will 2016 be the continuation of a political dynasty, or will the nation vote in a manner that reflects Jeb Bush’s mother Barbara’s belief that “this is a great American country, great country. And if we can’t find more than two or three families to run for high office, that’s silly, because there are great governors and great eligible people to run.”
Touchdown Theory 
You must be logged in to post a comment.