Why do would-be Presidents protest against American royal families? Perhaps because many Americans subconsciously crave royalty. Is there a Freudian slip in Elle this month? “In her May issue editor’s letter, ELLE Editor-in-Chief Robbie Myers writes: ‘There is something innately regal [royal] about Chelsea [Clinton]…a calling to make the world a better place.” (emphasis added)
This “calling” is foretold by The Guardian’s Hadley Freeman as “the all-but-guaranteed eventual ascendancy of President Chelsea Clinton.”
Thanks to George Washington, America has fended off hereditary rule for more than 200 years. Would-be Presidents condemn American royalty from both sides of the political fence. Gov. Martin O’Malley (D), Maryland, has spoken with the clearest voice, “The presidency is not a crown to be passed back and forth between two families,” speaking to Ari Melber (MSNBC) in almost the same words he said to George Stephanopoulos (ABC) two weeks ago.
Will Barack Obama be the only non-Bush/Clinton president for 36 years, from 1989-2024?
Freeman may be right, “We always want what we don’t have and so America, a country founded at least partly as a reaction against the idea of a royal family, can’t help but create royal versions of its own.”