Ammendment Needed Against Dynastic Politics?

[Dave1001]

This is ridiculous. Now Jimmy Carter's son is running for federal office? I think a constitutional amendment may be needed to bar children, grandchildren, and spouses of federally elected or appointed politicians from serving in federal elected or appointed office. Sure the people want to worship their golden calfs, but it doesn't mean it's good for them. We're a nation of 300 million. We can fill our top federal positions with something other than the children, grandchildren, and spouses of previous position-holders. I would analogize this to the amendment barring a president from holding more than 2 consecutive terms.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/15/D8JH8SOG0.html

 

[TragicMonkey]

It's not really American to penalize one person for the actions of another. It wouldn't be my fault if my grandpa had been president, but I'd be barrred from running, anyway?

I thought this thread was going to be about Dynasty politics, and was wondering if Condoleeza Rice had been wearing large shoulderpads lately.

 

[7th sextile]

I don't even remeber hearing about Jack when Carter was President-I thought Amy was his
only kid.
Even if the guy is elected,it'll be 30 years between him and his pappy holding office.
The Jets won Superbowl III in '69-still a chance for Jets dynasty?

 

[andyandy]

Why stop at "top federal positions"? How about barring all offspring of figures in authority from themselves holding a position of authority?

not sure how this fits with your ideas on elitism dave - which i'm still awaiting a thread on

 

[Dave1001]

Why stop at "top federal positions"? How about barring all offspring of figures in authority from themselves holding a position of authority?

not sure how this fits with your ideas on elitism dave - which i'm still awaiting a thread on

Why stop at top federal positions? Cause I think that would be prudent at the present and I'd be uncomfortable with the encroachment on the spheres of the states or the public by the federal govt. if it was expanded beyond that (for example to state governments or to large private institutions). But the question and its follow-up seems a bit ad absurdum, like asking why stop at an 8 year office limit for federal presidents, why not have an 8 year limit for anyone in a position of authority.

As for how this fits in with my ideas on elitism -I give utilitarianism primacy, to the degree I'd support your concept of elitism, it would only be to the degree to which it maximizes utilitarian benefits for myself and those I'm in social contract with.

I know I owe you a thread on elitism, but since I'm on this board for leisure purposes, it probably won't pop up until whimsy dictates.

 

[andyandy]

Why stop at top federal positions? Cause I think that would be prudent at the present and I'd be uncomfortable with the encroachment on the spheres of the states or the public by the federal govt. if it was expanded beyond that (for example to state governments or to large private institutions). But the question and its follow-up seems a bit ad absurdum, like asking why stop at an 8 year office limit for federal presidents, why not have an 8 year limit for anyone in a position of authority.

i was merely highlighting the arbitrary nature of your suggestion, and hoping for some clarification as to the reason for the cut off there....

As for how this fits in with my ideas on elitism -I give utilitarianism primacy, to the degree I'd support your concept of elitism, it would only be to the degree to which it maximizes utilitarian benefits for myself and those I'm in social contract with.

I know I owe you a thread on elitism, but since I'm on this board for leisure purposes, it probably won't pop up until whimsy dictates.

well, maybe elitism can be crowbarred into this thread....
I don't see how an elitist system (power invested in a intellectual "elite" who then make decisions of behalf of the non "elite" masses) would produce anything other than the kind of dynastic progressions that you're railing against.

 

[DreadNiK]

It's not really American to penalize one person for the actions of another. It wouldn't be my fault if my grandpa had been president, but I'd be barrred from running, anyway?

Indeed. Not only that, but if someone has a family connection, then they are more likely to be in a position to do their job, since they'll have pre-existing networks and contacts...

There are obviously potential pitfalls with nepotism, but to prevent anyone from having the chance to 'follow in the footsteps' of their father/whoever, rather than judging them on individual merit, seems rather unfair.

 

[Mephisto]

I think we could reduce the number of potential Juniors running for President the same way we could stop the number of uninsured motorists in my state - mandatory IQ tests and mandatory drug tests. It seems to me that if you need to take a drug test to work at Wal-Mart, you certainly should need one to hold the highest position in the land (which our current little coke-monkey has refused to take).

 

[Dave1001]

i was merely highlighting the arbitrary nature of your suggestion, and hoping for some clarification as to the reason for the cut off there....

The way you highlighted could make just about any suggestion arbitrary, as I think I illustrated with my example of federal president term limits. However, I'm happy to clarify. I think we're at a unique period in history where of the 3 living ex-presidents, there are 2 people in federal office and 3 persons seeking to be in federal office (counting Hillary Clinton in both categories), each of whom are only 1 degree of family separation away from the former president. And that cover 2 of the 3 ex-presidents. That seems ridiculous to me in a country of 300 million. And I don't count on the public to reverse this trend, any more than our republican decision makers counted on the public not to elect presidents to multiple terms after FDR.

well, maybe elitism can be crowbarred into this thread....
I don't see how an elitist system (power invested in a intellectual "elite" who then make decisions of behalf of the non "elite" masses) would produce anything other than the kind of dynastic progressions that you're railing against.

Two things.
1. What I want is something more nuanced (and a bit different) than your description of an elitist system. My focus is more on utilitarianism and meritocracy for the purpose of decision-making. What one might call the bourgiose affinity for rule by experts.
2. Such an elitist system as you describe based on intellectual capacity wouldn't necessarily produce this level of dynastic progressions. For example, parent and offspring IQ correlates at far lower than 1:1.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Indeed. Not only that, but if someone has a family connection, then they are more likely to be in a position to do their job, since they'll have pre-existing networks and contacts...

Which is an argument against permitting family business in government, in my opinion. Politicians are already corrupt enough without needing more connections and favors and backroom deals and family friends and let's give the position to Chip and Buffy's boy, he'll stick by us even when the scandal hits because our daddies went to Yale together and we reward loyalty, yes we do, you scratch my back, and I'll see that thirty million in government contracts go to your family's business.

 

[andyandy]

Two things.
1. What I want is something more nuanced (and a bit different) than your description of an elitist system. My focus is more on utilitarianism and meritocracy for the purpose of decision-making. What one might call the bourgiose affinity for rule by experts.

well, if you'd care to elaborate.....

2. Such an elitist system as you describe based on intellectual capacity wouldn't necessarily produce this level of dynastic progressions. For example, parent and offspring IQ correlates at far lower than 1:1.

sure, but when power is concentrated into an "elite," with it tends to follow that these individuals also have a concentration of the money, the best access to education, healthcare, job-contacts etc. etc. Making their offspring disproportionaly likely to also "rise to the top" so to speak....elite systems therefore by their very nature tend towards dynastic progressions of power.