America's coming presidential game of thrones

In its early days, the United States was beset by rumours about plots to install a monarchy. Thankfully, in George Washington it had a president who understood the power of precedent. He removed his general's uniform and gave up power after two terms. Thus was sealed the world's most enduring republic. More than 200 years later, the US is bracing for the most dynastic contest in its history. The chances that either Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush will become its 45th president are high. The country's elections are far more democratic than in Washington's day. But there are grounds to worry that America is becoming less of a republic.

The odd thing about the prospect of a 2016 "game of thrones" is that Mrs Clinton and Mr Bush would be the two best-qualified candidates to win their party's nominations. Mrs Clinton has much more experience than any potential rival - and there are not many of those. Having served as secretary of state and twice elected as a US senator, Mrs Clinton would be as fluent in world affairs as any incoming president in recent memory. Only George HW Bush, who had headed the Central Intelligence Agency and served as vice-president, would have been better versed. Many fear the upcoming Democratic primaries will be Mrs Clinton's coronation. That may be so. But she would take it on merit.

Jeb Bush faces a far more contentious battle than Mrs Clinton. His chances of winning are lower. But the Republicans almost always opt for the establishment candidate in the end - Mitt Romney in 2012, John McCain in 2008, and, of course, Jeb's brother, George W Bush in 2000. Mr Bush's prospects might be weaker if there were other viable moderates in the field. But Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey, is too tainted by a Sopranos reputation for irascibility. As a first term senator in his forties, Marco Rubio of Florida sounds too much like Barack Obama.

Mr Bush has twice served as governor of a big state (Florida). Moreover, he is the Republican with the likeliest crossover appeal in a general election. Most of the rest are too conservative. Mr Bush, like Mrs Clinton, would be his party's most effective nominee.

Yet there is something profoundly disturbing about the prospect of another Clinton or Bush presidency. Should either win in 2016, then by the time he or she completed their second term, the US would have had a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for 36 of the previous 44 years. There are inbred autocracies with richer blood circulation than this. Nor would that necessarily be the end of the Bush-Clinton story. Chelsea Clinton has consistently refused to rule out running for elected office. In recent years she has taken an increasingly high-profile role at the family's philanthropic organisation, the Clinton Foundation . Bright though she clearly is, it is hard to believe she was picked on merit. In an age driven by philanthrocapitalism, Chelsea has inherited a starring role.

The Bush story is multi-generational. Jeb Bush's son, George Prescott Bush, 38, was elected in 2014 as Texas land commissioner - a state wide position that is a springboard for higher office. He takes his middle name from his great-grandfather, who was a US senator. He takes his first name from his grandfather and uncle, who were both US presidents. A couple of weeks ago, George P's grandmother, Barbara Bush, 89, shed her apparent reluctance to see yet another Bush in the White House: "Our problems are so profound that America needs a leader who can renew the promise of this great nation," she wrote in a mass email. The former first lady concluded by saying she was launching a financing vehicle called the "Run Jeb Run fund". It is hard to imagine this happening in another democracy.

The other odd aspect of the Bush-Clinton game is that it is new to US presidential democracy (there have been plenty of family businesses at the state level). Among the founding fathers, only John Adams, the second president, had an offspring who ran for the top job - John Quincy Adams (he became the sixth president). Neither Washington, nor Thomas Jefferson, nor Thomas Madison, were followed by namesakes. Among those who shared a name, Franklin Roosevelt (32nd president) was a second cousin of Theodore (26th) whom he met only a few times. Their presidencies were more than 20 years apart. The US won the world's admiration by often electing men from humble origins. The myth of having been raised in a log cabin was close to reality for Abraham Lincoln, America's greatest president. He, too, was the last of his family line. Presidents such as Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and, of course, Barack Obama, rose up from modest backgrounds.

So, indeed, did Bill Clinton. But here is the thing. At a time of rising inequality - and in an era where the rich tend to be hard working - those who do well in today's US tend to be the offspring of those who do well on merit. They are given every educational advantage. US society is taking on the character of a hereditary meritocracy. It is far preferable to the indolent aristocracy so rightly abhorred in Washington's day. But in one respect it is more insidious. Those who believe they have succeeded on merit alone are often free of self-doubt. This can blind them to the perceptions of others. If 2016 is indeed to be a Clinton-Bush contest, we should expect a low turnout.

[email protected]

© The Financial Times Limited 2015. All rights reserved.
FT and Financial Times are trademarks of the Financial Times Ltd.
Not to be redistributed, copied or modified in any way.
Euro2day.gr is solely responsible for providing this translation and the Financial Times Limited does not accept any liability for the accuracy or quality of the translation