I read an interesting article in The Economist today about the dangerous new monarchical tendencies that are sweeping American politics. It accurately pointed out something that is a commonly known fact, but one that we seem to be brushing off as a harmless byproduct of political fame: the Bush/Clinton dynasties that have had a stronghold on political power for 28 years now.

One dramatic quote that really caught my attention was this:

“There is nothing inherently wrong with the children or wives of politicians seeking high office, but there is definitely something wrong when people start treating them as heirs to the throne rather than candidates. And there is something very wrong indeed when people begin to see politics as a game that is played by “them” rather than “us”.”

We have always prided ourselves on our presidents and politicians coming from meager backgrounds and ascending to political fame and fortune. And by some measures it is still alive and well. Few people have to ask John Edwards what his childhood was like – rarely do 15 minutes pass before he makes another comment about being the son of a mill worker.

Candidates for political power still embody much of the proletarian spirit that has built our “government of the people, by the people, for the people”, but those candidates have lately remained just that-candidates. Edwards, though his current financial status takes him off of the list of regular folk, was within grasp of power the last time around, but only by playing second fiddle to a pure bred politico and a descendent of the wealthy Forbes family.

Currently, the media is smacking their collective lips at the fat lead Senator Clinton has gained in the polls against her Democratic rivals. As she barges down the runway to 2008, she is dropping gift-wrapped ratings into the laps of rival network news factions that make a fortune on either loving or hating the Senator. But, unsurprisingly, the media is on a dangerous ledge by failing to adequately discuss what another bout of Clinton presidential power means for the future of our democracy. By creating, if through name recognition alone, apparent heirs to the throne of the president we are jeopardizing the very democracy that we pride ourselves on.

The fact that the Bush/Clinton dynasty is destined to continue (if 2008 is not successful for Clinton it is likely no more than a small pause in the monarchy) is just another symptom of a population gripped by fear of breaking the hold of our oppressive two-party system.

I watch with jealousy the wild and disparate candidates that pepper elections in other nations. I wish that fringe candidates and those that provide strikingly different viewpoints would be seriously allowed into the conversation instead of just tolerated for a debate or two and then left to be laughed at in the op-ed pages. Maybe not in hopes that they will win, but to break the drip of stale and recycled political rhetoric that comes out of so many mouths.

The debate over political dynasties has little to do with the individual politics or personality of anyone in the Bush or Clinton clans. Whatever your political ideology, it’s not healthy for a handful of families to tighten the reigns on political variety. As warm and fuzzy as your memories of the Clinton years may be, or however much you think of the Bushes as a royal family, we must stop this slide towards monarchism.

It is tempting and comforting to return to the familiar, but if this wash of nostalgia has the chance, it will settle like a fog over our political system and blur the vision of democracy that, for better or worse, keeps us going.