-7

This question was formed because of Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama recurringly being seen as viable Presidential Candidates.

Being first lady is a great position politically to know what it takes to do the President's job but beyond that, wouldn't the public see this definitively as a kind of same deck leadership taking place if these spouses were to incur charge of the US. We already saw a brush with dynasty like in the case of the Bush father-son. In India, for a time dominant leadership was with the Nehru family.

Imagine a future where Melania Trump is in the race, Hunter Biden or even Don Jr. It can be reasoned that certain groups experience a retention in power and connection when the candidate pool that one can choose from is made connected like this.

Is it in the spirit of the constitution to allow the pool of political celebrities like first ladies and direct relatives to remain in the political arena hindering fresh new individuals from taking charge, that could potentially do a better job at representing, understanding and responding to the growing needs of the newer generation in concern now.

Has one ever claimed such running is undemocratic somehow to the extent it be barred? How?

I assume, in asking this question, a position that political dynasties are against the spirit of true democracy and policy should be adopted to curb recycling a deep state with allowed change only being a superficial one.

Improve this question
20
  • 6
    Are you really suggesting that someone isn't qualified to be president because they also used to be the first lady?
    – Joe W
    Commented Jul 22 at 16:42
  • 10
    follow-up: is it considered nepotism if a large part of Trump's family had charges in his administration?
    – njzk2
    Commented Jul 22 at 17:06
  • 4
    Can you clarify where you see the nepotism? A former presidential spouse running for president would have to jump though all the hoops as everyone else.
    – MisterMiyagi
    Commented Jul 22 at 17:12
  • 6
    Your title asks if it can a 'sign of nepotism' to endorse a first lady , and the body asks 'is it constitutional' to allow someone like a first lady to 'remain in the political arena'. What is your actual question? The title question seems opinion-based, and the body question doesn't make much sense since there have been several presidents who were children/relatives of previous presidents.
    – Giter
    Commented Jul 22 at 17:17
  • 7
    Point of interest: Melania is not a natural born US citizen, and so is ineligible for the presidency.
    – Ted Wrigley
    Commented Jul 22 at 18:23

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
8

Can one claim such running is undemocratic somehow to the extent it be barred?

What's undemocratic about 'wife of a president' running for office?

She would need to follow the same process as any other candidate and the electorate will decide whether or not to vote for her.

While endorsing the first lady may give her substantial support from the president's supporters, this does not constitute a violation of democratic principles.

Improve this answer
3
  • Pool of power acclimation does not shift drastically to give air to unrepresented and stagnating people groups when they are represented by essentially a single deck of players. Stirring the pot is required to cook evenly, lest the unreported get burnt.
    – MisterGeeky
    Commented Jul 22 at 19:04
  • 5
    @MisterGeeky maybe you want to sound deep, but it does not seem that you are saying anything at all other than rehashing some memes. Also, are you on a diet? All of you analogies are related to food...
    – SJuan76
    Commented Jul 22 at 19:16
  • Yes Juan, I also craved to sate that hunger with knowledge that the system in play will favor us with a fresh young face more capable to lead and affect ground level undesirables like unplanned hunger and what have you... I did not hear anything today to the tune of adding any fire to that desire. Also, this was really the best answer. A simple no - "your position is wrong". However can expand why this does not violate democratic principles. It just did not spiritually sit right. Hence, the trying to be deep
    – MisterGeeky
    Commented Jul 22 at 19:27
7

Nepotism generally means hiring relatives for significant positions. For example, when former president Trump placed his children and their spouses in key administration positions, that was clearly nepotism. However, elected offices are not 'given' to people by the current president; they are won through an election process in which every candidate needs to secure votes for themselves. No one can gain an elected office merely because a powerful relative or friend wills it to be so, so nepotism in its proper sense can't happen.

Improve this answer
8
  • Are you sure if I put a cake infront of you, you won't go to the ballot poll and choose it over the salad? The public will is coerced by the opportunity to cling onto sameness.
    – MisterGeeky
    Commented Jul 22 at 19:11
  • 3
    @MisterGeeky The analogy makes no sense. If you put a salad and a cake in front of me, perhaps (probably) I will chose the food even if it is not the best option for me. But you are not coercing me to take the bad option. To be frank, calling it coercion seems quite a dishonest argument.
    – SJuan76
    Commented Jul 22 at 19:14
  • There is a fridge you do not know about. There is a store you are not party to. There are movers and shakers executing a grand circus and all you can do is play Hamlet with the cake, to eat cake or not to eat cake - all the while it didn't need to be on the table. Honestly, what's the point in the choice if the decision consequence is already planned - the choice made for you and you choose to choose it. That's very much coercion.
    – MisterGeeky
    Commented Jul 22 at 19:19
  • @MisterGeeky: There's clearly a 'party' problem here with both the Repubs and the Dems. The parties (to a large extent) dictate who we can choose for the nominee, and they are not always entirely respectful of the Public. Parties are a problem. I doubt Trump would be the 2024 Repub nominee except that he took very unsubtle actions to wrest control of party mechanisms and force them to choose him. But within the Dems, Harris has popular support (something like 80% of voters approve of her), and it's likely she would have been the nominee even if Biden had dropped out earlier.
    – Ted Wrigley
    Commented Jul 22 at 20:54
  • 2
    @MisterGeeky: if you want to complain about party politics (which I encourage you to do) don't pretend only one party has a problem. The dems may have to scramble a bit to straighten things out, but what they are doing in 2024 (unlike what they did in 2016) is about as kosher as it can be. But if you just want to go down the rabbit-hole and eat all the cakes that say "Eat Me", there's not much else for me to say. Try not to sit on any walls…
    – Ted Wrigley
    Commented Jul 22 at 20:59
3

John Adams was one of the Founding Fathers of America, organised the committee that wrote the the US Constitution, and went on to serve as the 2nd President between 1797 and 1801. His son, John Quincy Adams, later served as the 6th President from 1825 to 1829. If we're going with the definition that relatives of former presidents being nominated is a sign of nepotism, then those signs have been around since the very beginning, and are clearly constitutional. I fail to see how a former First Lady being endorsed for presidency is any more egregious than any of the historical examples.

As for whether nepotism is undemocratic, I'll note that it's not enough by itself to get someone into the White House. Voters have two opportunities to reject candidates they believe have benefitted from nepotism: once in the primaries (where Jeb Bush lost in 2016), and once in the main election (where Hillary Clinton already lost once before, also in 2016).

Improve this answer
5
  • 1
    Just because a father was elected as the 2nd president and the son was elected as the 6th president doesn't mean that it is nepotism and it doesn't matter if the father is still alive. In the end 13 of of the 24 state congressional delegations selected him for president in a contested election.
    – Joe W
    Commented Jul 22 at 17:57
  • 3
    Going by OP's definition of "nepotism" here, I'll edit to make that clearer.
    – F1Krazy
    Commented Jul 22 at 18:12
  • Jeb Bush being both a son of and a brother of a previous president.
    – Caleth
    Commented Jul 22 at 18:17
  • 1
    Thank you for that clarification, that makes much more sense.
    – Joe W
    Commented Jul 22 at 18:35
  • The process is not at fault, noted. One is not inclined to improve upon representation policy because of historic precedence inorder to conserve traditions of familiarity.
    – MisterGeeky
    Commented Jul 22 at 19:14
1

This question was formed because of Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama being seen as viable Presidential Candidates.

This is not a hypothetical situation. Hillary Clinton already ran for Democratic presidential candidate in 2008 and ran for president in 2016.
This was not unconstitutional or undemocratic back then and is not either today.

If a former president endorses their spouse despite them not being a suitable candidate, this would be nepotism but of minor effect - a candidate still has to go through all the hoops of actually getting elected.

Improve this answer
1
  • Proof by historic example. Not a single answer here to address any issue this causes. It's fair because it happened and it will keep happening and there's nothing OP or anyone irked can do about it.
    – MisterGeeky
    Commented Jul 22 at 19:10

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .