Also, ever stop to think that Donnie would be good at this for all of his talent and experience AND because has been raised by a family that believes in big D Democratic values so much it spends most of its working career in and for the party?
I trust that because Donnie is his father's son that he was raised to believe in inclusive politics, in the value of hard work, in the promise of a democracy, and in the obligation to help your fellow Americans.
I absolutely believe in meritocracy. So much so I find it astounding that you are using meritocracy as justification for oligarchy. Geez. Take a look at the Economist (not exactly a bastion of Marxism) for a recent study on the death of social mobility in the US. We rank behind most of Europe now by a huge margin.
I have no doubts that ol Donnie might be good at what he does. I also have no doubts that if his name was Donnie Dubowski, son of a postman, he would never have gotten the opportunity to demonstrate this. For every connected kid that gets through the door due to Mommy and Daddy, 10 others don't get the chance. Folks who might just be better...but we'll never know because phone calls were made.
As to the last two paragraphs of drivel, you could easily make a few word swaps and replicate 19th century writings defending the British nobility. I'm always astounded when supposed Democrats defend inherited privilege by pumping up the concept of noblesse oblige.
Also, yes I think the continuous elevation of people simply because the share blood is bad for our country. Bayh son of Bayh. Clinton wife of Clinton, mother of Clinton who gets the evr so common 6 figure income straight out of college. Jackson son of Jackson. Bush son of Bush. Kennedy nephew of Kennedy.
So much for social mobility.
and i wouldn't call it disingenuous or drivel. it was an argument. you don't buy it and that's fine, but that disagreement doesn't ipso facto define the comments as drivel, just not yours.
one other bit that i've been pondering is the 1776 reference. i'd argue, fairly strongly, that while aristocracy and nobility were factors, the revolution was just as much about tax policy and representation in the House of Commons as it was about the monarchy. by that point in Britain's history, Commons was almost as powerful a political force as the king and nobility.
