The Crossed Pond

Andrew Sullivan this morning posts some interesting thoughts on the questions raised by the Team Clinton that is starting to look set to take over the White House. Now, I’m not sure how much of a constitutional issue it actually is, as clearly being married to (or being the offspring of) a former President is not constitutionally out-of-bounds, at least not according to the letter of the document. But a good case can be made that it certainly violates the spirit of it, especially in the case of Team Clinton.

I remember, in John Derbyshire’s endorsement of Ron Paul, him wondering aloud why the wife of the Vice-President has a chief of staff, or a staff at all. But in the scenario of Hillary Clinton becoming President, there can be little doubt that Bill Clinton will become, not in message or rhetoric, but in actual policy, the most influential man in American again. Just as in his first term, when his unelected and unaccountable wife was given control of the entire United States health care system, under a Hillary presidency it seems pretty hard to imagine Bill not taking on a huge role (whether Hillary likes it or not). The question becomes, given that it’s not a situation the founding fathers anticipated (a spouse of the President who is themselves a recent former President), what kind of accountability does Bill have? Is there any kind of operating transparency he has to hold to? If we don’t have any right to place any limits on him, what right does he have to operate without limits? As Andrew says:

The problem of political dynasticism is the least of it. American politics have been riven by dynasties from the start. What America has never dealt with is this strange and corrupting arrangement whereby voters are being asked to support two-people-as-one as president. The last two weeks have shown beyond any doubt that this is indeed what is going on. By blurring the lines of accountability, by giving a former president vague but enormous powers in what amounts to an unconstitutional third term, we are sacrificing an important democratic principle and the transparency required to stymie corruption and secret deals kept from public scrutiny by the sacred bonds of matrimony.

Read his whole post, of course. But it’s an interesting—and troubling—question. Constitutionally, we’ve already reached a place where the operating legal M.O. right now is that the Vice President is a fourth branch of government unto himself that no-one can reasonably expect any accountability or transparency from—but who has enormous powers—we’re now adding a President’s family to that list as well. If that takes hold as well, we’ve created an entire cabal of extra-governmental power-wielders with the President not as the top of a very well-defined chain of command, but as team leader of a much more shadowy and fudgy cadre of co- or sub-presidents , a team largely out-of-bounds as far as restrictions or checks and balances or transparency is concerned.

Disconcerting, to say the least. I’m not sure what the solution is, formally speaking (outside of not electing Hillary Clinton or any more Bushes), but it’s something we ought to start thinking about real soon here.

One addendum: can you imagine how troubling it’s going to be were Chelsea elected President in 20 years, with both her parents still alive and former Presidents themselves? Hell, what if one of the Bush grandkids ends up becoming President in the meantime, and they get hitched before Chelsea gets elected? That these are things that aren’t ridiculous hypotheticals, but actual possibilities (well, besides the Bush-Chelsea marriage, let’s hope), is sort of staggering.

Is there such thing as a democratic monarchy?