Mediaboss Marketing

The potential presidential candidacies of Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have generated a lot of discussion about political dynasties in America. Thats understandable. After all, in a democratic republic, the prospect of dynasties should make everyone at least a little uncomfortable.

In America, where leaders have to run for office, a more useful way to think about dynasties might be to view them as brand names. In chaotic and confusing marketplaces, brand names are a useful shortcut. People buy stuff from Apple because they think they know what theyll get from Apple. The same goes for Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons and, these days, Pauls.

So lets look at the very real differences in the Bush and Clinton brands.

Fairly or unfairly, the Bush brand is tarnished. Among the rank and file of the GOP particularly among tea party types no one wants to see another Bush on the ballot. Its not unimaginable that a Bush nomination would spark a significant third-party movement on the right.

Things are very different for Hillary Clinton. At least within her party, the name Clinton is nothing but an asset. She benefits not only from her husbands successes but also from the sympathy for her generated by his personal failures.

More intriguingly, shes aided by many of Barack Obamas failures, too. After two terms of partisan gridlock and anemic economic growth, Clinton the technocrat is palatable, particularly given the burning desire to elect a female president.

The dynamic would likely change dramatically in a general election. As the Democratic nominee, Clinton would instantly confront a problem from Obamas failures, particularly on foreign policy and health care. And the Clinton brand name becomes at best a mixed bag, given that it wouldnt take long for the GOP to remind Washington-weary voters of the sordidness of the Clinton presidency. Hillary Clinton is a much worse campaigner than her husband, and given her omnipresence in American life for more than two decades, its hard to see how she could sell herself as a fresh start.

Its less clear how well Bush would do as a nominee. Assuming he could keep the tea party right from bolting (a big assumption that might require putting Ted Cruz or Rand Paul on the ticket), Bush would have a lot of appeal to independents and a significant number of Latinos. Ironically, running against Clinton would make things easier for him because only in comparison to her (or Joe Biden) would yet another Bush seem like a fresh start.

Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and editor-at-large of National Review Online. He may be contacted at goldbergcolumn@gmail.com.

More here:

Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton and political dynasties