matrixmann (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
matrixmann) wrote2018-04-02 03:53 pm
matrixmann) wrote2018-04-02 03:53 pm
Entry tags:
Reigned by the same family
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?
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?
no subject
no subject
And, even if not that, then it's a cronyism nesting fully at the time one got a step into an important door.
Well, that tends to happen too... (I don't remember, how was it with the Kennedy clan? I feel like at those times where that name was something, there were also all kinds of members of that kin in various not unimportant positions...)
no subject
no subject
Well, these days it might have declined a bit already, as the real famous original clan that moved into the White House is all close to being old enough to die from natural causes these days (if they haven't already).
Schwarzenegger's wife, I think, already was like 2nd generation descendents from the famous part of the clan.
On another note, I think, even the wider extent of the clan also contained quite a bit of individuals which had a habit for psychologically dysfunctional behavior or so. Drug use was something in there...
So that, slowly but surely, becomes less influential all by itself. Just because they don't matter that much anymore as they used to.
What they ate about this clan 50 years ago anyway, I don't understand. If you take the reports of today, glorifying them, it gives you the impression like that was the first royal family of America. Even though the US never had anything like nobles in their hierarchy counterpart to the European nobles.