Dynasties
You can be forgiven if you didn’t notice, but the British Royal Family recently took a tour of the United States, to considerably less fanfare than Princess Diana’s tour(s)… a fact that sparked the British to ponder American aversion to royalty:
America’s history as a republic makes it harder for them than we suppose to embrace our Royal Family with warmth, or even to feel much interest in them. Diana, Princess of Wales won hearts in America partly because she was, as her critics here complained, the antithesis of what most people expected a royal to be like.
Naturally therefore, Camilla, who has taken pains to be a worthy consort to the heir to the throne, arouses less excitement. Much of our own press, taking its cue from the republican Rupert Murdoch, tend to report this visit either as boring to America or a burden on our taxpayers.
That is not fair. This is the most testing royal tour of America since King George VI and Queen Elizabeth responded to President Roosevelt’s invitation in 1939, on the eve of war in Europe. I was fond of Diana, because we shared the dream of ridding the world of anti-personnel mines, so cruel to poor people living off the land; but I admire Camilla for her courage. This is a brave trip that she and Charles are undertaking. We should forget our prejudices and wish them well…
The truth is a bit more complicated. Americans hate royalty, but are we’re thrust with it nonetheless. Occasionally we’re given an opportunity to reject it, and when we do it’s rather liberating and can result in some curious results.
If I were to compile a list of the names of esteemed politicians — Governors, Representatives, Senators, Presidents — who are the offspring of former governors, representatives, senators, presidents… it would be a long list indeed. In 2000, the American people were tossed with George BUSH (son of… um… GEORGE BUSH, who was son of Prescott Bush, who was son of…) and Al Gore (son of… um… AL GORE!!!)… and that was part of why the campaign and election was so uninspired and insipid.
But then again… one of the reasons that Jesse Ventura won the Minnesota governorship (I suspect)… the Democratic primary had been a campaign that had been dubbed the “My Three Sons” campaign: Hubert H. “Skip” Humphrey III (son of … um… HUBERT freaking HUMPHREY!!!), Ted Mondale (at least Walter didn’t name him after himself), and Mike Freeman (not particularly famous outside Minnesota, but the son of a popular governor.) This is in deference to the two non-sons who were running — and who did better than one of the “three sons”, but nonetheless didn’t fit the narrative.
In my blog entry on “1986: Lyndon LaRouche’s Political Peak”, publishing an old article about how LaRouchites screwed up the Illinois Democratic party in 1986, I made a mental note of the gubernatorial candidate they screwed up: The Gubernatorial candidate that was stuck running with LaRouchites was Adlai Stevenson III, son of two-time failed Presidential candidate, Illinois governor, and namesake of that which we call the “Stevenson Moment”… ADLAI STEVENSON, who himself was the grandson of a former vice-president ADLAI freaking STEVENSON!!! My theory on this election was that Adlai Stevenson, circa 1986, was rejected by the public via the elevation of the LaRouchites. The people had had enough with Stevensons.
And so it goes… I was happy when Mary Kennedy Townsend lost her election in 2002. And I hope to gawd that we get out and then “Stay out” the Bushes.