G_B_ Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 false equivalence. Clintons and Bush etc have to pay their dues and run whole primary campagns, do fundraising and lead debates etc on policy. and our heroes like Prince Rahul are parachuted onto the leader of the party posts thats more of a system and an indication of dynasty. Ie term limits kick in. The likes of Clintons (i dont really consider them a dynasty yet) and Bushes run their campaigns from positions of strength with money (much of their own) and brands. The Gandhis are an extreme case of dynasty. But that does not mean dynasties dont exist in other nations. In the UK i can say hand in heart post WW2 there has been no dynasty. You dont see the sons/daughters of Thatcher etc in politics let alone as PM.
Recommended Posts