"For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48.
Recently, the New York Times (NYT) praised Chelsea Clinton's current successes and commitment to public service. Ms. Clinton is the daughter of current U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President William Jefferson Clinton. It reported some Democrats' excitement about having Ms. Clinton in Congress, because according to Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf: "She's smart, she's charming, and she's got the last name Clinton."
Western media criticize the favorable treatment received by offspring of the politically important outside the U.S., particularly the princelings in China. In a vicious circle, princelings' access to powerful people (derived from their parents) gains them prestigious private-sector positions (with high pay for little work). These prestigious private-sector positions justify public-sector leadership positions, which justify even more lucrative private-sector opportunities, and so on. Princelings insist a sense of noblesse oblige draws them to leadership. A fawning domestic press facilitates this cycle by treating princelings as celebrities.
Government by princelings easily becomes government by kleptocracy. Companies granting princelings lucrative positions expect a return on their investment, through influence with (or at least access to) the government. Even if not overtly corrupt, this nepotistic approach erodes leaders' legitimacy (making it difficult to govern), and prevents the best qualified from leading (resulting in less competent institutions). Most corrosively, government by princelings sends a message that putting personal and family interests ahead of society's interests is acceptable.
Ms. Clinton's rapid career progress raises the same issues for America as with the princelings overseas.
The NYT reported Ms. Clinton is making the sacrifice of leading us because she feels a responsibility to serve the public good and "hopes to make a positive, productive contribution."
Ms. Clinton's newsworthy steps toward public service, noted by the NYT, include: meeting people such as Elton John and Richard Gere, taking a public role with her father's Clinton Global Initiative, presenting an award to her mother at Diane Von Furstenberg's International Women's Day event, and hosting her father's 65th birthday at a Clinton Foundation Hollywood benefit with fellow guests Lady Gaga and Bono.
Ms. Clinton's board of directors seat at media conglomerate IAC, alongside former Disney CEO Michael Eisner and former Warner Music Group CEO Edgar Bronfman, was also described. Ms. Clinton's IAC position pays $50,000 a year, plus a $250,000 grant of restricted stock. Mentioned too was Ms. Clinton's joining NBC News as a special correspondent, after her advisers arranged interviews with top network executives.
The NYT noted downsides to being the Clinton daughter, including critics attributing her success (such as the IAC position) solely to her famous parents. But the NYT didn't question why a 30ish year old (with no significant media or management experience) joins the board of a multi-billion dollar media corporation, with compensation qualifying Ms. Clinton (by my quick calculation) for America's top 1 percent, for only about 1 to 2 hours of work per week. The IAC position clearly raises the issue of whether Ms. Clinton is being paid for her skills, or access to her family.
The NYT article cited another leadership qualification: "... unlike some other famous offspring, she has never been photographed drunkenly stumbling out of a club..." (Note to the NYT: For a photo of Ms. Clinton apparently drunkenly stumbling out of a club, please see -- "Boozy Night for Chelsea".)
The U.S. has fought two wars over the past decade. Many Americans of Ms. Clinton's generation volunteered at great personal risk to support their country, in the military or in other ways -- the NYT did not report that Ms. Clinton has not.
My concern is that Ms. Clinton is not an outlier, but part of a trend. The Washington Post found a pattern of members of Congress using tax dollars to benefit their families (e.g., tax money to entities represented by lobbyist relatives). It's no wonder we've lost faith in our leaders, with Congress' approval rating in single digits.
As has been widely discussed, income inequality in the U.S. is at record levels. Such inequality would be more acceptable if resulting from individual effort. However, we are increasingly a society of class privilege and inherited opportunities. According to "A Family Affair" (OECD, 2010), America has among the lowest social mobility levels of any major developed country. The 1 percent arrange advantages for their families that aren't available to the rest of society.
We are viewed as a relatively corrupt country, where connections, family, and political campaign contributions drive business. Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index 2011 ranks the U.S. as more corrupt than Qatar, a small Middle Eastern state ruled by a hereditary monarchy with a tradition of nepotism. (U.S. ranks 24th, behind Qatar ranked 23rd and far behind New Zealand, ranked 1st.)
Ms. Clinton received opportunities other Americans -- without her family connections -- don't have. Using these connections might not be illegal, but it isn't admirable. Ms. Clinton's career isn't a cause for celebration, but an urgent wakeup call that, for America to compete effectively in the 21st Century, we need the best leaders our society can produce, whatever their last names.
We have the right to expect more from a leader than simply being smart, charming, and named Clinton.
Please let me know your thoughts:
About the Author: Steven Strauss was founding Managing Director of the Center for Economic Transformation at the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). He is an Advanced Leadership Fellow at Harvard University for 2012. He has a Ph.D. in Management from Yale University and over 20 years private sector work experience. You can follow him on twitter at: @Steven_Strauss.
Follow Steven Strauss on Twitter: www.twitter.com/steven_strauss
This sums it up! This article encapsulates what I have been posting on this post for years!
•Do you believe Ms. Clinton achieved her positions through merit, or did family connections play a part? : Yes!!!!
•Do you feel America is increasingly a country where the 1% structure society to benefit themselves?:!!!!
•If you are concerned about these issues, what would you suggest to re-focus America on equality of opportunity?: All road to equality of opportunity leads to African-Americans. Until the dominant majority within the 99% realizes that they are being used as puns by the 1% to subjugate Blacks, through racial divisions, in order to perpetuate the interests of the 1%, it will get worse.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-strauss/are-low-taxes-and-limited_b_1246514.html
I am distinctly on the left of the American political spectrum and elected to write this post about a democratic dynasty to emphasize I view this as a bi-partisan issue.
My main concern was not about Ms. Clinton, but the general issue I raised: we rank 24th on the global public corruption index, just about worst of any major country; that we have among the lowest levels of economic mobility between generations of any industrialized country and that basically we are ceasing to be a land of equality of opportunity.
And, I do think democrats and republicans should be able to agree that America should be a land where equality of opportunity and non-corrupt government are our goals, and that internationally we should aspire to be best practice, not the worst country in our peer group.
I hope that helps explain my perspective.
Again, with thanks.
A) we rank 24th on the global public corruption index, just about worst of any major country (source: transparency international) ;
B) that we have among the lowest levels of equality of opportunity of any industrialized country (source: OECD)
C) a recent Washington post article highlighted a pattern of politicians using their positions to enrich themselves or their families.
I felt Ms. Clinton was a useful illustration of the issue, but this is not really about her.
Again, with thanks.
=================================
because her name is Clinton, because of the oval office job her father got under their nose, and because of her mother war hawk ways in Libya and other places, her name Clinton is a good reason for her to stay the hell away from politics and go get a real job at Walmart or McDonald's and do some real public service work.
Do you believe Ms. Clinton achieved her positions through merit, or did family connections play a part?
Obviously family connections.
Do you feel America is increasingly a country where the 1% structure society to benefit themselves?
Obviously.
If you are concerned about these issues, what would you suggest to re-focus America on equality of opportunity?
A support of the OCCUPY movement by Congress, and The White House in real concrete terms.
1) Elimination-through pardon- of all student debt.
2) Eliminate ALL income taxes on labor, and increase taxes on tertiary economic endeavors. (This would be simple enough by using the Supreme Court's definition of Wages, Profit and Income)
Still, it remains that the kind of education afforded Chelsea Clinton isn't accessible (in immediate generations, anything is theoretically accessible as generations climb the ladder) to everyone, even those that work hard.
It's not as if Chelsea is next in line for Governor of Arkansas, or Hillary's Senate seat or Secretary of State position. And if she did decide to pursue those goals, she'd have to be elected. Same as anyone else.
I'm no great admirer of the Clintons, there are plenty of things in their background that could give someone legitimate cause to criticize. But this is a bit silly.
On one level in any society who your parents are gives you advantages or disadvantages, but other countries seem to be handling this better and creating a more level playing field.
We are a society of celebrity worship, and that extends into politics where the one-liner is the preferred mode of communicating political discourse.
The tone of this article shows the writer dislikes Ms Clinton. But in all fairness, a lot of people, without a famous last name, serving in politics right now haven't served in army/navy/air force either and definitely far more questionable in their credence and motives than Ms Clinton.
It is true she has preferable treatment as daughter of a former president and secretary, but that in it of self does not make her bad for the country. If anything in this case she maybe really suitable for it as her parents have served admirably.
Nepotism kills meritocracy and is currently rampant, however it would be a shame to lose good people in politics just because the pendulum swung too far the opposite way.
A) the Washingtoh Post recently found a pattern of our congressional representatives using their offices to benefit family members
B) transparency international ranks the united states 24th for public corruption, we basically do worst of the major industrialized countries
C) an OECD study found that we did just abut worst among the major industrialized countries at providing equality of opportunity.
Say whatever you want about Ms. Clinton, but I do feel we should try to do better.
Again, thank you for commenting.
Solution: A livable wage, a 50 percent tax on corporate wealth (not income) that goes into a guaranteed income for all. Why? Because automation and outsourcing are eliminating American worker's income at the same time that the government subsidizes and supports corporate access to resources and markets worldwide. We need to establish socialism for the poor just as we have Socialism for the Rich.
There are 435 members of the House and 100 members of the Senate. How many of them are children of former US presidents?
In fact, this celebrity-obsessed article pretty much tell us more about American media than it tells us about America.
From the IAC Website: "Chelsea Clinton has worked at McKinsey & Company and Avenue Capital and studied at Stanford, Oxford and Columbia Universities. She is currently pursuing a doctorate at Oxford, working at New York University and working with the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative. Her recent professional and academic work, including her recent publications, have focused on questions around how to improve access to relatively low-cost, high-quality health care services around the world, both for acute and chronic health care needs, as well as questions of empowerment and equal rights, including areas related to health, the arts and focused more holistically, particularly on those that concern children."
Sounds pretty qualified to me. And I'd rather have someone like Chelsea in Congress than a religious wing-nut child of coal miner any day.