Ana Marie Cox published an interesting and evocative article that raised valid points here and there. The piece is in the Daily Beast, titled Sorry, But Clinton's Inevitability is Not A Problem.
Whereas I like Ana Marie Cox, and I wholeheartedly believe she makes a deeply invaluable contribution to our democratic and political discourse, I become really, really unnerved by an under-examined absence of a historically-based philosophical conversation of what we truly mean when we talk of inevitability.
Where I feel we must start this discussion is asking ourselves this simple and straightforward question: what is the place the notion of inevitability has in our representative democracy? No one who speaks of inevitability asks this fundamental question, so I will pose it here. I will provide my own brief thoughts on the question, and I would be very interested to hear yours.
Whereas I feel this article is interesting and brings up valid points not adequately addressed by my fellow liberals, I cannot help but wonder why nobody talks about how fundamentally incompatible the idea of inevitability and republican democracy is. Why does the question never enter into the conversation: why did we fight the American Revolution? Why did our system of government spring from a distinction between monarchy and representative democracy? If we did not mind the notion of inevitability or inherited rule, I see very little reason why we're no longer loyal British subjects now or why the American Loyalists did not win out when they wanted us to be restord as a colony.
If we become complacent regarding the place of inevitability in our democratic discourse, what is the point of us being opposed to the idea of inherited rule in countries around the world? If we allow such complacency, we have to be very careful in speaking of our supposed deference to the idea of choice, and whether that idea can productively coexist with the idea of the inheritability of rule and inevitability.
To be sure, I vehemently disagree with my fellow liberals that the same dynastic qualities can be attributed to the Clintons as to the Bushes, but I remain deeply concerned that we are missing out on a deeply crucial philosophical discussion on whether we want the notion of inevitability to have a place in our democracy, and whether we can even call ourselves a truly representative democracy if we create such a space for passive acceptance. And if we truly want to passively accept the idea of inevitability, we also by necessity have to interrogate our assumptions behind why we have had primaries.
** I would like to point out this is more of a question of political philosophy, and not of practice or pure historical precedent. Whereas I believe Jamelle Bouie does offer a refreshing take on the role of political dynasties throughout our history, we are not talking about that here.