Reigned by the same family

[matrixmann]

In a third world country, they call it "dictatorship" or "monarchy" in the West, when some leader can pass down the power to his spouse or his children.
Last election in the US, they tried to sell that as a positive accomplishment when a certain former leader's wife made it to the presidential position, and they presented it in the public as "ain't no alternative", even going on with citing her biological sex as the perfect reason why she should be there.
Now tell the fuck what is so different about that mindset than the one from the third world country?
What is so different about people from the same dynasties offering themselves as leaders for the election over and over again, presenting themselves as a holy gift of God that needs to be chosen?
Like politics got nobody else to offer who's also talented for the job?
And, at all, what makes the people to elect those think, because their spouse, their father/mother or anybody else from the family was a good politician, that they're good politicians too?
What is the difference in here what distinguishes one aristocracy from the other and gives it the positive moral attribute?

Comments

[mai-neh.livejournal.com]

I agree with you! I don't think political offices should be hereditary in a democracy. There was either a Bush or a Clinton on a major party Presidential/Vice Presidential ballot in:

1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 ... then we took a break until 2016, but only because Obama surprisingly beat Hillary in 2008, so she patiently waited until her next chance.

Somehow only two families had whatever it took to become leaders in the US

[matrixmann]

Looked up the elections you named briefly and - indeed! -, from 1980 to 1992 there was Bush Senior in the administration (both as president as well as vice president; strangely more years under Reagan as vice than as first president (only one term)).
Now that's what you call "always reigned by the same idiots"...
And with the line only cut by Mr. Clinton's two terms, then again there was a Bush in the highest of both offices - and that also for two terms.

I don't know what to think about this.
Pretty recently, there's been some documantary about the donation network behind the CDU party here (they had a huge scandal about this at the end of the 90s, which partly also lead to Kohl being not reelected in 1998). How much that is featured by the big industry "investing" in the parties and certain politicians, of which they think they gonna realize their own policies at the very best.
As Kohl had been a chancellor for very long (only Merkel now is on the way to top his time of reign, but hey, twinkie, twinkie, she's also from the CDU and she always was like "his pupil" to follow in his steps...), this just naturally goes back to the times of Cold War where two German states still existed.
So, now make your own think out of this...

When somebody stays that long in such a position, all the while he also doesn't decide for only the popular solutions, then you know there's somebody else responsible than the people themselves that he's kept in that position.
In other words... What worked here, it even the more must have worked in America previously because a lot of unpleasant crap comes from there.
I'd see something similar to this system over there.
Who knows who bet on that horse and which networks behind the curtain the Bush family is part of...
Same also goes for the Clintons too. (As after Bill, the end of a Clinton reign wasn't set.)

And I thought they always try to make a Royal family out of the Kennedies... (But maybe that's only media here, for whatever reason.)