president replaced the monarch

[Tomsan]

I had a discussion with my brother, who has read far more on this subject then I ever will.
I was amazed on the phenomena that the US presidents are often closly related to eachother. I didnt understand this because I would think the 'best man' would make the biggest change, but instead people with good connections make a better chance. I dont know if hilary is gonna win the coming election, but it astonishes me that she is running for president. Also the fact that celeberties enjoy such popularity in politics amazes me. I would want a person in office who has went to college and has some sort of master degree. I would expect him to have alot of experience before he would get an important policy making job.

Well my brother, who I dont think came up with this himself, lsaid this could be due to the fact you are a republic, you have no king.
people want a ruling family it seems, they want a sort of a soap. I cant really put it down in (english) words, but it seems to me that in a way the monarch families are replaced by famous influencial families.

I mean, I think everyone agrees (even the people who like bush) he isnt really world leader material. BUT he is the sun of a relative good president.

discuss

[LordJaric]

We've only had presidents that were related to each other twice in our countrys history so far.

John Adams-John Quincy Adams

George H. W. Bush- George W. Bush

Kind of funny how both sets had the same first and last name, its a conspiracy I tell you!

[therealsylvos]

At 10/23/07 06:47 PM, LordJaric wrote: We've only had presidents that were related to each other twice in our countrys history so far.

John Adams-John Quincy Adams

George H. W. Bush- George W. Bush

the roosevelts were related, although distantly. and the 22nd and 24th were also closely related ;)

[Proteas]

A more interesting topic of discussion would be the genealogical relations between candidates running for president, in my mind... didn't it come out during the last presidential election that Kerry and Bush were like 24th cousins twice removed or some shit?

[K-RadPie]

Well, Obama is related to both Bush and Cheney...

[Britkid]

At 10/23/07 07:11 PM, Proteas wrote: A more interesting topic of discussion would be the genealogical relations between candidates running for president, in my mind... didn't it come out during the last presidential election that Kerry and Bush were like 24th cousins twice removed or some shit?

24th cousins? That's hardly a revelation. Now the Queen and Philip being 4th cousins, that was a little weird. 'Royal blood' and all that.

And you are right, it's hard to imagine Georgie getting where he was without his dad. And if Hilary gets in you'll have had twenty years of US Presidency dominated by two families. But I think that's just the situation of the moment, and not a general problem.

[therealsylvos]

At 10/23/07 07:46 PM, TheRoyalEnglishman wrote:

And you are right, it's hard to imagine Georgie getting where he was without his dad. And if Hilary gets in you'll have had twenty years of US Presidency dominated by two families. But I think that's just the situation of the moment, and not a general problem.

We already have 20, hillary would make it 24

[jcorishas]

Well, the prez is more of a figurehead than anything now, making an actual decision would cause him to lose plausible deniability. The president's handlers are the one's who call the shots, the prez just does what he's told.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 10/23/07 09:45 PM, jcorishas wrote: Well, the prez is more of a figurehead than anything now, making an actual decision would cause him to lose plausible deniability. The president's handlers are the one's who call the shots, the prez just does what he's told.

Interesting argument, any proof?

[jcorishas]

At 10/23/07 09:51 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 10/23/07 09:45 PM, jcorishas wrote: Well, the prez is more of a figurehead than anything now, making an actual decision would cause him to lose plausible deniability. The president's handlers are the one's who call the shots, the prez just does what he's told.

Interesting argument, any proof?

You want what?!?!

Seriously though, I was just saying that the president isn't as powerful as people think. He has to bend to the will of the people, the old bureaucracy and special interests. Decisions are often thrust upon him (the Iraq war, architected by Karl Rove, justified with faulty intel for one) then being criticized for them. Maybe the Bush's and the Clinton's (or any political family) can get campaign money and therefore get elected because they will "play ball" with the old bureaucracy and their campaign funders.

I remember Bush vetoed a bill to give all kids free healthcare the other day. It seems in that case the old bureaucracy (the G.O.P. heads) and the special interests (insurance companies) trumped the will of the people.

So, all in all, no real proof per se, but an increasingly interesting argument.

[Fierce-Deity]

It is true, but only on an assumption level. I believe it. If you haven't noticed, they just about all look the same in at least a feature or two. The articles providing proof of this would be so deeply buried you would be digging a lifetime to find them though.

[emmytee]

At 10/23/07 06:47 PM, LordJaric wrote: We've only had presidents that were related to each other twice in our countrys history so far.

John Adams-John Quincy Adams

George H. W. Bush- George W. Bush

Kind of funny how both sets had the same first and last name, its a conspiracy I tell you!

I heard Bush was Kerrys cousin

[TheMason]

At 10/23/07 07:52 PM, therealsylvos wrote: We already have 20, hillary would make it 24

Could be longer. If Hillary does not win then when Bush leaves in '09 then it will be right at 20. However, if you count the 8 years Bush the Elder was VP for Reagan (1980-1988) then we will have had 28 years of having a Bush elected (more if you count the year Bush the Elder served as director of the CIA) to the Executive branch. So if Hillary gets elected we're looking at 32-36 years of two families one of the top two positions in the Executive.

As for the topic starter's point: I think that societies do yearn for some sort of royal family structure. This is true in America where it does not have to be just political but celebrities (and maybe even business) also fill the void.

Furthermore, we do have psuedo-royal families: Kennedy, Bush, Rockefeller, Roosevelt...

[Brick-top]

At 10/23/07 07:25 PM, K-RadPie wrote: Well, Obama is related to both Bush and Cheney...

Obviously lol

[Tomsan]

now since most of you recognize the phenomena.
Doesnt this seem to be a big deal? I mean luckely royal families have nearly no political influence, but the president however has alot of influence. doesnt it seem problematic the people need to worship a family who is also of great influence?

[TheMason]

At 10/24/07 12:44 AM, jcorishas wrote: Seriously though, I was just saying that the president isn't as powerful as people think. He has to bend to the will of the people, the old bureaucracy and special interests. Decisions are often thrust upon him (the Iraq war, architected by Karl Rove, justified with faulty intel for one) then being criticized for them. Maybe the Bush's and the Clinton's (or any political family) can get campaign money and therefore get elected because they will "play ball" with the old bureaucracy and their campaign funders.

I think it also depends on the issue, afterall there are so many internal issues these guys have to deal with that no one person can be "the decider" on every policy issue (even though that one person may hold ultimate responsibility for their administration's decisions). However, I think every President has certain issues that they are more influential on than others. With Bill Clinton he was deeply involved with the economy and studied the issue. Alan Greenspan has remarked that no other President had ever looked over the economic data he (Greenspan) produced and asked tough questions that put Greenspan on the spot. With Bush I think it was/is the GWOT (Global War on Terrorism). However, if Gore had won and 9/11 had happened we would have still gone into Afghanistan and even if 9/11 hadn't happened...we were headed to war with Iraq. The question is just how involved Gore would have been in the war as Bush (probably not that much, his focus would've probably been on Environmental policy).

[alchemylord]

At 10/24/07 12:44 AM, jcorishas wrote:

At 10/23/07 09:51 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 10/23/07 09:45 PM, jcorishas wrote:

Seriously though, I was just saying that the president isn't as powerful as people think. He has to bend to the will of the people, the old bureaucracy and special interests. Decisions are often thrust upon him (the Iraq war, architected by Karl Rove, justified with faulty intel for one) then being criticized for them. Maybe the Bush's and the Clinton's (or any political family) can get campaign money and therefore get elected because they will "play ball" with the old bureaucracy and their campaign funders.

I remember Bush vetoed a bill to give all kids free healthcare the other day. It seems in that case the old bureaucracy (the G.O.P. heads) and the special interests (insurance companies) trumped the will of the people.

So, all in all, no real proof per se, but an increasingly interesting argument

If this is true then our country is not a full blown democracy. But a farce. Your saying even though we elect our leaders those leaders are controlled by corporations and people they chose to help them. So even though our president has "supreme power" he is still controlled and run by the people the government is suppose to control not be controlled by.

[jcorishas]

At 10/25/07 12:14 AM, alchemylord wrote:
If this is true then our country is not a full blown democracy. But a farce. Your saying even though we elect our leaders those leaders are controlled by corporations and people they chose to help them. So even though our president has "supreme power" he is still controlled and run by the people the government is suppose to control not be controlled by.

I wouldn't say our democracy is a farce, it has it's quirks and flaws but people still vote and those votes are still counted. What I'm saying is corporations, acting through political and social connections (possibly an old employer) and as campaign contributers (527s, PACs, soft money, etc.), can have an impact on whether a candidate gets elected and thus can influence his decisions. Everyone knows it takes millions of dollars to run a successful campaign, corporations have an edge over private citizens when it comes to money and it is not unreasonable to think they expect a return on their "investment" but this is applicable to all levels of government, not just the president.

You need to take into account the influence that the people (when united) and the old bureaucracy (incumbents, party leaders, other bureaucrats, etc.) have over the president. These powerful and conflicting forces "control" the president, it is in his office where they converge and force his hand on many issues. A governor has more power over his state than the president has over the nation because a governor doesn't have to deal with the forces described above (not as strong on state level) and because a president rarely uses his constitutional powers to the fullest extent.

So, to summarize, our democracy isn't a farce, that's just how it works in the real world. It is a little naive to think one man can "run" a nation, it's more accurate to say that the nation runs him (and it's running him ragged).

[TheMason]

At 10/25/07 12:14 AM, alchemylord wrote: If this is true then our country is not a full blown democracy. But a farce. Your saying even though we elect our leaders those leaders are controlled by corporations and people they chose to help them. So even though our president has "supreme power" he is still controlled and run by the people the government is suppose to control not be controlled by.

1) There is no such thing as a "full blown democracy" since that is chaos (every person gets a vote on every issue). What works in reality is republicanism (NOTE: I am not talking about the political parties, but rather models of government) in which people and interests are represented by elected leaders.

2) As for control, this is the way our government is set up. Remember, governments are set up to control the people as well as the various special interests. However, in an attempt to avoid tyranny the framers envisioned tension between the different parts of society. The government is accountable to the people and their interests (which like it or not, corporate profits is necessary to the people's best interest in a free market economy), which are in turn accountable to the government.

3) There are structural theories that predict that decisions by political leaders in Democracies are made not by the person/actor but rather by institutions and institutional rules (ie: norms in the federal government and the Constitution).