"No more dynasties"--for women, that is

[Rilgin]

154. Very Distressing Post

Your post is very distressing because it makes up facts and history to attack policy concerns that exist within the Democratic Party.

The American Revolution followed the French Revolution in trying to fashion a system not based on aristocracy. Note that in aristocratic countries marriage as well as blood brings a person a royal status and leads to power.

Dynastic political families and Nepotism in appointments directly conflicts and causes uneasiness in this desire to eliminate aristocracy as a fundamental driving force in the development of the American System. This is not the only factor and sometimes nepotism and meritocracy conflict. You could make that claim about Hillary but should not claim that people troubled by a Clinton dynasty are just making it up for one gender is ignoring all of American History.

The history of nepotism in America and attacks on it has been exclusively male for much of our history because Women had little to no power other than as spouses and were not appointed in business or politics. In recent years this has changed as women have started to gain some power in society and the private sector.

Note I am only addressing the one claim that nepotism and dynastic issues are only addressed at women which was the claim of your OP. This is blatantly false because of both near and far history. Ignoring historical problems with nepotism within the male power structure, we only have to look at the 2016 election where both parties put up dynastic politicians and tried (with only success on the democratic party side) to establish these candidates as the inevitable most electable choice. The Republicans put up Jeb Bush who establishment politicians said would be the most electable because of his name recognition and connections in the establishment. Before he ran, even his mother, expressed concern over a Bush v Clinton race. He was soundly rejected by the Republican Voters and not because he didn't have the establishment support, a big bankroll, press favorability and other advantages that one would think would carry the day. The most important factor was he was another Bush part of the establishment and part of a dynasty and as far as I know MALE.

This is what is distressing about places like DU a place I have felt at home with for almost 20 years. We can not unify if parts of the democratic party make up facts and history to support a claim that another part of the democratic party is racist or sexist because they have a concern about policy or system Dynastic concerns amongst liberals and progressives is not a gender issue, it is a concern about whether America will be a meritocracy or aristocracy and this applies to all dynastic candidates. One could suppose a candidate chosen by God (make it the God of your choosing) who certifies that a candidate is the most capable, bright, intelligent and far-seeing candidate amongst a bunch of candidates. But this candidate is a dynastic candidate. The concern will still be there and it will be up to the voters to decide if the concern over dynasty overcomes the merit of the candidate or the merit overcomes the dynasty concerns but please do not pretend this will only occur if the candidate is a women.