I don’t think it’s really fair to include “Biden” alongside “Bush” and “Clinton” and NOT include “Harris”, just to make a point. The point is the Bush and Clinton represent two people each, a dynasty as it were. Biden is just one person. You might as well add then Harris since she has served as VP just like Biden, or Trump but I get the feeling this is intended to somehow make the statement that Harris represents a new breed of politics, a break from the old. That may or may not be true, but it doesn’t hinge on this meaningless metric.
“since 1981 there has never been an election without a Bush, Clinton, Biden, Trump or Harris.”
I think the point of the post is merely to point out that in four decades, at least one of three families has been in each election. Statistically, if candidates were freely chosen at random from the top 0.01% of Americans, that would be insanely improbable. It’s pointing out that presidential elections aren’t the American people picking the best person in the country for the job. There are influential factors other than who-would-be-best at face value. In other words, the people aren’t given a list of American citizens with their characteristics and asked to chose the one they would prefer. The people are told to pick one from a very select few that have already been approved. Whether those candidates have climbed a ladder or been given a silver spoon is irrelevant to that point. The matter is that elections aren’t entirely free in spirit.
It also serves as an argument against social mobility and merit in the USA. Dynasties are government systems in which the ultimate power stays within a family. We’re told that it’s because of whatever bs reason with the family being divine or superior, but the reality is that when the ultimate power rests within the same family, the people that benefit from that also stay in power. It’s a system that maintains those on top on top. Having presidential dynasties shows that social mobility in the USA isn’t as fluid as commonly thought.
The only reason there is one fewer name than expected is because of Bush, which had the father appear on the ballot four times and the son appear twice. The Bush family was a very old school political dynastic family.
The only outlier on the Democratic side is Hillary Clinton in 2016. She used her husband’s political career to help her, but they were a self made political family. You also have the case where Biden could have been on the 2016 ballot and there would be no change in the number of names.
I don’t think it’s really fair to include “Biden” alongside “Bush” and “Clinton” and NOT include “Harris”, just to make a point. The point is the Bush and Clinton represent two people each, a dynasty as it were. Biden is just one person. You might as well add then Harris since she has served as VP just like Biden, or Trump but I get the feeling this is intended to somehow make the statement that Harris represents a new breed of politics, a break from the old. That may or may not be true, but it doesn’t hinge on this meaningless metric.
“since 1981 there has never been an election without a Bush, Clinton, Biden, Trump or Harris.”
I think the point of the post is merely to point out that in four decades, at least one of three families has been in each election. Statistically, if candidates were freely chosen at random from the top 0.01% of Americans, that would be insanely improbable. It’s pointing out that presidential elections aren’t the American people picking the best person in the country for the job. There are influential factors other than who-would-be-best at face value. In other words, the people aren’t given a list of American citizens with their characteristics and asked to chose the one they would prefer. The people are told to pick one from a very select few that have already been approved. Whether those candidates have climbed a ladder or been given a silver spoon is irrelevant to that point. The matter is that elections aren’t entirely free in spirit.
It also serves as an argument against social mobility and merit in the USA. Dynasties are government systems in which the ultimate power stays within a family. We’re told that it’s because of whatever bs reason with the family being divine or superior, but the reality is that when the ultimate power rests within the same family, the people that benefit from that also stay in power. It’s a system that maintains those on top on top. Having presidential dynasties shows that social mobility in the USA isn’t as fluid as commonly thought.
Not really.
The only reason there is one fewer name than expected is because of Bush, which had the father appear on the ballot four times and the son appear twice. The Bush family was a very old school political dynastic family.
The only outlier on the Democratic side is Hillary Clinton in 2016. She used her husband’s political career to help her, but they were a self made political family. You also have the case where Biden could have been on the 2016 ballot and there would be no change in the number of names.