In an age of plutocracy, what could be more fitting than a dynastic contest for the White House? If either Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush becomes their party’s 2016 nominee, it would be the seventh out of the past 10 US presidential elections with a Clinton or a Bush on the ballot. Should both do so, it would be the second in which each name headed their party’s tickets. There is a good chance that is exactly what will happen. As wealth is concentrated in fewer hands, so too is political capital. What could be more appropriate?
The cynical view is not always the right one. The problem with plutocracy is that it is unmeritocratic. But in each case, Mrs Clinton and Mr Bush are by far their party’s most qualified candidates. Both deserve their nominations on merit. Each has, moreover, made at least as strong a case against the new age of inherited wealth as their peers. The last dynastic scion to reach the White House was Franklin Roosevelt. He was also its most progressive.
Of the two, Mrs Clinton, whose memoir, Hard Choices, comes out tomorrow, is by far the most likely. So strong are her credentials that almost no one of note is touting their rivalry. One or two, such as Joe Biden, the vice-president, and Martin O’Malley, the little-known governor of Maryland, might still throw their hat into the ring. Mrs Clinton would have both for breakfast and come back for seconds. Others, such as Andrew Cuomo, the governor of New York, and Rahm Emanuel, the mayor of Chicago, will wisely sit out 2016.