focusonz It would seem that many people view the term, ‘Dynasty’, to be acceptable for describing families that maintain political power within their line. I am not going to dispute it. I think you know what I mean about their maintenance of power.
I see a rich, well connected, politically active family. There are many of them in the US, some more widespread then the Bushes. The Kennedy Family has had more members in Congress, and could have easily had 2 presidents if it weren’t for assassinations. They’re powerful clans, but to call them dynasties is ludicrous.
The political power you believe you hold over a politician does not exist until about six weeks before an election at which time it grows to full flower during the lead up to election day.
Your ephemeral political power will pop out of existence (to revive six weeks before the next election) the instant after you cast your ballot.
In the interim, you and the rest of the people have no political power.
Makes that one ballot of yours extremely important don’t you think.
And don’t you also think that you have enormous responsibility to get it right since you are actively participating in the campaign on the GD.
I would say that your responsibility equals that of state and national party campaign managers due to the amount of influence that internet communities have over other posters.
Relevant companies Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. - Wikipedia. - Look at the people who formed it ( Yes Prescott was building a Dynasty before shedding that mantel as required by law of that era upon entering the public sector) Dresser Industries - Wikipedia - George HW’s employer, Prescott was on the Board, they got setup by Harriman (an employee does not a Dynasty make) HRG Group - Wikipedia - George HW’s oil company, became the Z in Penn Oil. Was involved in Watergate, Bay of Pigs and Iran Contra. (Bush ran for the US Senate in 1964 and lost; he continued as president of Zapata Off-Shore until 1966, when he sold his interest to his business partner, Robert Gow, and ran for the US Congress.)(Yes HW was building a Dynasty before shedding that mantel in 1966) (That hyped Kevin Phillips author speculates that the ‘Texas connection’ for money laundering of the Watergate affair involved HW Bush. (Nixon tapes for June 23, 1973))
Please don’t consider this a flippant response and my only response to your big big question of ’ maintenance of power’. 18Hrs is enough for one day.
The vote of a single person could only have a meaningful impact in an election (local or national) where the outcome depended on a tiny handful of votes.
In all cases, once the vote has been cast its ephemeral power disappears instantly.
As an American, I’m kinda hard-wired to be skittish about the notion of families being powerful “public Servants” or no. Or perhaps even especially when they’re nominally “Public Servants”. See, families tend to pass down what they have acquired to their heirs. Political power shouldn’t be passed down that way.
As to the notion of “Public Servitude”, I keep flashing on Ian McKellan’s performance as Richard III, where he has directed his stooges to essentially beg him to assume the crown, for the good of the country. He faces direcetly into the camera, and says, “I’m not made of wood.”
focusonz It is naive to think that people shed their power and wealth when they assume public office. The merely absolve themselves of authority in an official capacity. If you cannot imagine power outside of an arbitrary institution with a name, then we can’t really have this conversation. If all the information presented is merely hype, then there is nothing that can be shown. Every evidence provided for you will be dismissed. shrugs
One of the problems with the conspiracy theory is that W. didn’t have designs on the White House until he was in his 40s. He was a half failed oilman who was pretty much propped up by the family. “Ambling Into History” by Frank Bruni makes the case that W. was uninterested in personal political power to a remarkable and almost disturbing amount. You’d think a good politician would have some strong ideals he was trying to implement and push forward.
Well, if it’s part of a long term ambition by the Bush family in general, he doesn’t need to be anything but a tool of that ambition, not partake in it himself. Bush is more minion material than mastermind material, when you get right down to it.
The real problem with the conspiracy theory concerning the Bush family dynasty ambitions is that it’s impossible to run for public office secretly. Well, at present. Anyway, there could well be a conspiracy by the Bush family and some other Republican leaders to subvert the democratic process by rigging elections (Karl Rove Karl Rove Karl Rove) and creating an “Imperial Presidency” (Dick Cheney Dick Cheney Dick Cheney). You could reasonabluy spin a potential conspiracy to turn the Presidency into a perpetual Republican dictatorship from what the Bush administration has done (trumped-up war on Terra).
Except that our government is run largely by information provided by appointed positions that are not subject to the electoral process. Whether it be the FDA, the CIA, the DEA, etc… There are lawyers and lobbyists, Think Tanks, and Military posts that don’t change with the election cycle. Regardless of who is President Carlyle and Rand are still there, and still have power. When Clinton was President, Bandar ‘Bush’, was still the good buddy of the Bush family. Positions of authority in governments and corporations are not the only form of power. People carve out little fiefdoms within the institutions. If you are in good enough with a corporate hierarchy after you leave the company, you can still influence hiring and firing, and put people loyal to you in positions within the company. Power is about money and intel as much as it is about being placed into a position of authority. The corporate, ‘Mandarin’, is an old story. Some of my favorite novels, are James Clavell’s books about the Noble House in Hong Kong, which address that very subject.
This is not meant specifically as an attack on you, mswas, but I’m constantly fascinated by conspiracy-theorists use of fictional works in their arguments.
It’s called a ‘theme’, and I was referencing fiction in reference to the use of the theme in mainstream society. I wasn’t using it as a cite. The entire point of fiction is to bring out themes and display them for us to look at. I’m surprised at how controversial this is for some people.
One of the main methods of distracting from these topics is that people will ignore ‘influence’ as a valid form of power. They will point to chairs of authority as the final arbiters of power. The most common one I know of is to say that Bush Sr. couldn’t have been very powerful or he would’ve been re-elected in 88. This is one of the most irrational arguments I’ve ever heard, but it’s persistent and common. We have a man who was at the highest levels of power in government for a quarter of a century, and yet he loses one election due to the entrance of a surprising third party candidate, so somehow this is evidence of hi ineptitude. Meanwhile, the man leaves office, having in his rolodex thousands of the wealthiest people on the planet, has access to enormous reserves of capital, can make a couple phone calls and setup meet and greets between corporate heads, spies, diplomats, mercenaries etc… and yet because he lost the Presidency people think he no longer has power.
No, exercise any power as an ex-president to do much of anything. I’m not convinced that an ex-president has any significant power. He tried really hard to win a second term and failed. How can you claim that puts him in a better position to effect any change in the world is beyond me.