American royalty and the never-ending campaign

A blast from the past in 2016 By Bernard Healy-Garcia

“I am thinking about it.” Those were the words Hillary Clinton stated at a marketing summit last Tuesday in nearby San Francisco.

What does she have to think about?

For too long Hillary Clinton has been riding shotgun in the White House: with her husband for eight years and Barack Obama for four. But the issue isn't about patiently-waiting Hillary Clinton’s thought process. It is about how you, the voter, are already getting ready for an election that isn't supposed to be run for another 31 months. It’s like showing up to the Rio de Janeiro Olympics today and waiting for Usain Bolt’s signature 100-meter sprint in 2016! The reason for this obsession with the Presidential election lies in our voting habits.

Political pundits like to say that the American public has “fatigue” and dislikes dynasties.

This couldn't be further from reality.

I mean, let’s consider another person that has been named in recent weeks as possibly entering the 2016 race: Jeb Bush. From 1988 to 2012, there have been three presidents, two governors, one senator, and one secretary of state that have had either the Clinton or Bush surname. Just like in product marketing, the American public has been persuaded into believing that they would rather choose a brand that they already know, rather than try a new one. They have been conditioned to the point that even in politics, brand recognition helps decide their voting choices. Bush and Clinton are trusted names that hold their ground, can fundraise easily, and are naturally likeable. Where it gets rough is in attacking their weaknesses. Hillary’s reaction to her husband's infidelity and Jeb's handling of his brother’s dubious win in Florida in 2000 are two potential banana skins, among other things. But the irony is in the fact that neither have officially declared that they are running. Both have stated that they are “thinking about it,” yet the voters have already started “liking” Facebook pages for both candidates.

The race has begun even before it has been declared, and the two both have purebred pedigrees, with proven winners in their famed relatives.

Is it right to classify two human beings as horses racing in the Kentucky derby while looking at their family tree? Our forefathers fought against the same idea that lineage and last names are privileged in decision-making. Dynastic rule is clearly prohibited in our Constitution! The Framers clearly wanted power to be distributed equally amongst the people -- not an oligarchy or nobility that holds all the power. But instead, “we the people,” have created political nobilities, and these families in turn use their prominent family names to attain office. If political parties are teams, these dynasties anoint the future MVP’s for their respective parties. And the voters cheer on waiting to see if they reach the promised land or go bust into radio obscurity.

The country needs new blood to stop the status quo. We need more Obamas and Elizabeth Warrens to stand up and be our underdog achievement stories. To win against the anointed ones? Now that’s a story line.

However, in reality, the American voter will go with what they’ve had before, because at least they know what they are going to get. So America: your choice is between Corn Flakes and Rice Krispies. Hillary Clinton is waiting to be chosen, and there is absolutely nothing different this time around.