By Ellen Ratner
Events this week offered columnists a "target rich opportunity" for subjects – what with the elections in Iraq and disclosures of President Bush's secret wiretapping and eavesdropping on American citizens (Gee, why is this liberal not surprised?). But I'm going to forego these current topics in favor of some bigger concerns, ones that actually go beyond the usual Left vs. Right conversation.

The issue is one of political dynasties and the problems they pose to both parties in governing America. I have two dynasties in mind – one already made (the Bushes) and one in the process of being made (the Clintons). Consider this: If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency in 2008 and serves a full two terms until 2016, that means that only two families will have controlled the American executive branch for 26 years. It's not just about the confusion that already circulates around Bush-I and Bush-II (as if we're numbering our presidents the way the English did their kings) or the inevitable jokes that will swirl around a Hillary presidency, such as a "Mr. First Gentleman" or whatever the designation may be for former president Bill Clinton. It really has to do with the republic's dire need for fresh faces and fresh policies. Consider the number of Americans who believe that Bush-II overthrew Saddam because of Bush-I: He wanted to either finish the job Daddy started, or, get even with Saddam for the attempted assassination of Dad in 1993. I don't know the extent to which either reason played a role in Bush-II's decision to invade Iraq. I do suspect, however, that it played a larger role than it should have. The republic deserves better than the sacrifice of its citizens for personal vendettas – it also deserves to have a public policy without any reference to personal hang-ups. This is not simply a "Bush" problem. The Clintons left office with a fair amount of, to put it gently, "unfinished business." There were the little matters of Republican tactics over perjury investigation, Clinton's impeachment, the failed Mideast negotiations, the last-minute pardons, continuing speculation about what Clinton did or didn't do about al-Qaida, North Korea, Iran, and so on. Dollars to donuts, everything that a Hillary administration would do regarding the Middle East, terrorism, pardons, relations with her husband's former Republican adversaries (many still in positions of power), would be prejudiced by suspicions that she was still working on Bill's issues, not the nation's. And it's not just people whose last names are Bush or Clinton who trouble me. As every student of the American presidency knows, running for office requires the creation of vast numbers of friends, advisers, loyalists, worker bees and contributors. Once elected, this network, resonant of the old "Spoils System," demands payback. Fair enough – one expects to see qualified loyalists fill White House staff and executive positions. Indeed, every newly elected president probably considers his "FOBs" (Friends of Bill or Friends of Bush, take your pick) to be the smartest pack of players since the guys who wrote the Constitution. But there's a problem – they're never as smart as the guys who wrote the Constitution, and, for dynastic administrations like the Bushes and potentially, the Clintons, they're also likely to be retreads. Rumsfeld, Powell, Cheney, James Baker, etc., etc., needed no introduction when Bush-II appointed them, campaigned with them or hired them to win the 2000 election. Why? Because they were already known quantities from the Bush-I administration. Was anyone surprised when Bush-II used this aging set of family loyalists to turn Gulf War-I into Gulf War-II? Don't' get me wrong here – I don't question the sincerity of "Bush's people" (sounds like servants who belong to a plantation), but was it the right set of guys to figure out how to respond to 9-11? And does anyone doubt that a Hillary Clinton presidency will bring in some awfully familiar faces, raising some awfully familiar (bad) memories, and always leaving her suspect to being influenced by "dynastic considerations" (i.e., Bill's input based on his uncompleted agenda)? I think so. And I think the republic deserves better. When Abraham Lincoln sent his famous 1862 Annual Message to Congress, he included some of his most memorable words. "As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country." Today, no one fears a rebel army marching on Washington, but we do have concerns about terrorist attacks, Americans with no health insurance, rebuilding the Gulf Coast, and so on. Our case is surely new, and, given the magnitude of the problems we're confronting, we had better think anew and act anew – and I sometimes think that what we must disenthrall ourselves from in order to save the country are the same old faces and names and the same by now old and tired approaches to things. This issue will not be addressed by electing as president somebody we've all heard of before. As the politicians love to say, "It's time for a change!"