Nepotism in American Business and Politics
During the November 2000 presidential elections, two children tried to make daddy proud. First there was Albert Gore Jr. – the son of a powerful and respected senator of Tennessee – who was no stranger to politics and privilege. As a child he attended the prestigious St. Alban’s School and while growing up, it was common to see then Vice President Richard Nixon as a guest at the family dinner table. Then there was George W. Bush – a third-generation politician, with his grandfather a former senator, his brother the governor of Florida, and his father being former president. The November 2000 presidential elections would become the battle of dynastic supremacy. Whose silver spoon was shiniest? In the end, Bush’s spoon was voted most polished (at least by the electoral standards, certainly not by the popular) and was given the presidential seat. The election had many Americans frustrated, echoing columnist Lars-Erik Nelson’s protest, “Bush’s spectacular career rebuts the notion that America has become a meritocracy, in which we are all born equal and then judged upon our intelligence, talent, creativity, and aggressiveness” (qtd. in Maass 10).
But was this blatant act of dynastic succession an unfortunate chapter in democracy? Adam Bellow, author of In Praise of Nepotism: A Natural History, would venture to say no and that in fact the November 2000 presidential election was evidence of a growing cultural and societal acceptance of familial enterprise and kinship. Nepotism, Bellow argues, is inevitable, natural, and healthy -- even in a democracy (25).
But what exactly is nepotism? The word derives from the Latin nepos, meaning nephew. Durin...
... middle of paper ...
...ent and Modern Concepts of Nepotism.” Weekend Edition
Sunday. National Public Radio (NPR). KJZZ, Phoenix. 7 Sept. 2003.
Bellow, Adam. In Praise of Nepotism: A Natural History. New York: Doubleday, 2003.
Gold, Philip. “Family Connections; Seeing Nepotism’s Good Over Time and From
Experience.” The Washington Times. 20 Jul. 2003: B08
Maass, Alan. “Bush’s Cabinet: Fat Cats, Bigots, and War Criminals.” International
Socialist Review 16 (2001): 10-16.
Price, Matthew. “Adam Bellow, Son of Saul, Defends the New American Nepotism.
You Got a Problem with That?” The Boston Globe. 31 Aug. 2003: D2.
Thoenes, Sander. “Taking Aim at Asia’s ‘Crony Capitalism.’” Christian Science
Monitor 90.38 (1998): 1-2.
Tolson, Jay. “Nepotism Defended.” U.S. News & World Report. 21 Jul. 2003: 54.
“Nepotism.” Def. The New Oxford American Dictionary.
“Urge the Senate to Stop the Risky Keystone XL Pipeline”. Letter. League of Conservation of Voters. Change.org. Web. 10 December 2013
In her book Marion Nestle examines many aspects of the food industry that call for regulation and closer examination. Nestle was a member of the Food Advisory Committee to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the 1990’s and therefore helps deem herself as a credible source of information to the audience. (Nestle 2003). Yet, with her wealth of knowledge and experience she narrates from a very candid and logical perspective, but her delivery of this knowled...
Rodion Raskolnikov is a murderer, a damning criminal. Yet, he also has a warm heart that no one can equal. This character of paradox, of contradictions, of irony, is the true Raskolnikov. He is the Jekyll, and he is the Hyde; the zenith and the nadir. This hallowed literature of human nature provides us with important moral lessons, and at the same time helps the reader understand Dostoevsky’s philosophy on society better. Raskolnikov is not entirely a cold-blooded murderer, since he still has a feeling of love: The love towards Sofya Marmeladov. In this paper, we will go in-depth of how Sofya has an impact on Raskolnikov, by discussing their similarities and differences.
v[vii] “The Green Papers: Election 2000 Presidential Primary Season.” The Green Papers: Election 2000. 18 Mar. 2000. Online. Internet. 18 Mar. 2000. Available: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/.
Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment incorporates the significance of murder into the novel through a multitude of levels. The act of killing is not only used to further the plot point of the novel, but also offers insight to the reader of Raskolnikov’s ideology and psyche. This is portrayed through both his initial logic and reasoning behind the plotting of the crime, as well as through his immediate and long term reactions after killing Alyona Ivanovna. The emotional and physical responses instilled in Raskolnikov after killing Alyona Ivanovna as well as his justification for doing so helps illustrate his utilitarianism by offering accurate insight into the character’s moral values. These reactions also serve to show the instability of Raskolnikov’s character due to his changing emotions from being completely justified as the ubermensch to showing a sense of great regret. By including the act of killing, Dostoevsky further develops Raskolnikov’s character, and provides another level of detail to readers concerning his ideology and beliefs prior to his actions.
Shugart, Matthew. "Elections: The American Process of Selecting a President: A Comparative Perspective." Presidential Studies, 34, 3 (September 2004): 632-656.
After the botched crime Raskolnikov is plagued his failures. "He was conscious at the time that he had forgotten something that he ought not forget, and he tortured himself." (107) After he carelessly kills both women, and allows for the evidence to be found, Raskolnikov realizes he did not commit the perfect crime. This devastates his ego, so he tries to cling to his previous self perception. He is also plagued with feelings of guilt. His guilt, combined with the mistakes he made during the crime, shatter his self perception of perfection.
To get a feel for how Lyndon Johnson came to achieve greatness, let us look at how his journey began. In 1908, Lyndon was born on a farm near Stonewall, Texas to his loving parents Samuel and Rebekah. His father was a man who had a love for politics and instilled it into his son at an early age. Lyndon would hide “under tables or stand behind doors, straining to hear every word of his father’s evening bull sessions with political friends” (Schulman, 7). His father would also take him on trips with Sam Johnson, a member of the Texas State Legislation. On such trips, he learned his father’s liberalism and also learned a strategy of Sam’s by “getting really close to someone, nose to nose, when he wanted to convince them of something” (7). These tactics and others such as Sam’s honesty in regards to not taking bribes were characteristics which helped mold him.
Often times in literature, we are presented with quintessential characters that are all placed into the conventional categories of either good or bad. In these pieces, we are usually able to differentiate the characters and discover their true intentions from reading only a few chapters. However, in some remarkable pieces of work, authors create characters that are so realistic and so complex that we are unable to distinguish them as purely good or evil. In the novel Crime and Punishment, Fyodor Dostoevsky develops the morally ambiguous characters of Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov to provide us with an interesting read and to give us a chance to evaluate each character.
In the early twentieth century, scholars gain a deeper understanding of the ideology behind those who partook in the American Revolution. People’s motivations throughout the American Revolution are a result of their desire for a new society that is not based on the old world’s standards of monarchy, privilege, and social hierarchy. Likewise, people want a society in the new world to determine one’s status based on one’s abilities, efforts, and talents and to characterize equality. A meritocracy, not monarchy become prevalent in the new world’s society, and one’s family’s reputation, wealth, and titles are no longer important. Therefore, colonists rebuke the old world system, which was questioned throughout the American Revolution. Wood explains that “republic individuals were no longer destined to be what their fathers were” (Wood 99). His explanation shows that scholars treated the American Revolution as an extension of the development America’s meritocracy and as an innovation of America’s resulting society during the early twentieth
Rick Perlstein argues over whether "Nixonland", a country at war with itself, still resides in the heart of America. The book took a in depth look at Nixon’s political career from the beginning up to the outcome of the 1972 election, as well as how America’s political scene went from perceived consensus in the LBJ era to the bitterly divided right versus left, also known as the red state/blue state split. Perlstein’s argument is that we are still living in Nixonland. “Nixonland” is a study of the consensus, it isn’t just about Nixon, he isn’t the protagonist of Nixonland although it does include his rise and fall; instead, the protagonist of Nixonland is the American voter who found themselves voting Democrat in 1964 and then Republican in 1972 for the same reasons. This book covers the American political and cultural terrain from LBJ’s liberal landslide in 1964, through Nixon’s comeback in 1968, and land...
A number of Americans fail to realize that when they vote they are not voting for the president and vice-president directly, but for electors who then cast their ballots in the Electoral College. Until the recent battle between Gov. George W. Bush and Vice-president Al Gore for the presidency, this new generation of American voters has never witnessed a controversial election. Historically, there have been problematic elections allowing voters to question this system. The Electoral College is now a process open to criticism and debate, specifically because many do not understand its origin or purpose today. On November 7, 2000, Election Day, I was excited to become an official voter. Considering myself mature, responsible, and finally of age to vote, I had mailed my registration, received my voter’s card, ready to become a participant in one of the most crucial events of the year. I was a faithful supporter of my candidate, crossing my fingers in hopes of victory. That night I watched CNN, eating my dinner and sipping a Diet Coke when the station announced Al Gore had won Florida, which held twenty-five electoral votes. Two hundred and seventy are needed to win, and presidential candidates Bush and Gore had switched leads all night.
The pluralistic scholar David Truman notes that “the proliferation of political interest groups [is] a natural and largely benign consequence of economic development” (Kernell 2000, 429). That is, as American economic development increases, in the form of industry, trade, and technology, factions are produced in order to protect special interests. Factions have a large platform on which to find support from various political parties, committees, subcommittees, and the courts, as well as federal, state, and local governments (Kernell 2000, 429).
William Domhoff’s investigation into America’s ruling class is an eye-opening and poignant reading experience, even for enlightened individuals regarding the US social class system. His book, Who Rules America, exploits the fundamental failures in America’s governing bodies to provide adequate resources for class mobility and shared power. He identifies history, corporate and social hierarchy, money-driven politics, a two-party system, and a policy-making process orchestrated by American elites amongst a vast array of causes leading to an ultimate effect of class-domination theory pervading American society. In articulating his thesis and supporting assertions, Domhoff appeals rhetorically toward an audience with prior knowledge of America’s
What is Nepotism? Nepotism comes about whenever an employee makes decisions affecting a close relative or domestic partner. Included in these decisions are those that pertain to "hiring, appointment, reappointment, classification, reclassification, evaluation, promotion, transfer, discipline, supervision, or pay increases". According to the King County Board of Ethics, nepotism is a conflict of interest based on familial relationship or domestic partnership, and is inconsistent with the basic principles of ethics (Edwards 1998).