Home » A Bush’s home is his castle: political family dynasties and dynamics

Comments

A Bush’s home is his castle: political family dynasties and dynamics — 11 Comments

  1. The bushes are very good at appearing to be something that they’re not, i.e. dubya as a good ‘ol boy. AND I do give them credit ( prescott especially)for not spoiling their children. But ,your post clearly makes the Bushes look middle class at best, as that is clearly not the case. Prescott, who accumaulated wealth was quoted as regretting not running for Pres.. well now his son and grandson have both done it. Being discrete about their wealth and influence was definitely part of it.
    As a contrast to what you sarcastically call the family mansion in midland, How about we look at the “summer house” in kennebunkeport – http://www.port-gifts.com/BirdsEye/Pictures/WalkersPoint.htm

  2. As a psych nurse, might I suggest, Ms. Neo-neo con, that you find yourself another therapist? No one grounded in reality could possibly view this cabal through the rosy glasses you do. You do have a med back-up I presume?

    Thankfully, most of the professionals I know are a & o x 3. I certainly hope you keep your politics off the couch.

  3. By the way, I lived in Midland for a while, which is why I was planning to make this post.

  4. I have been meaning to make this post for months.

    I am adding you to Tuesday’s Carnival of Classiness.

  5. The one thing I’d like to see mentioned is the fact that the Kennedy fortune was made from bootlegging during prohibition. Yes, they are a family of criminals, as if everyone didn’t already know that.

  6. While developing a story about the numerous Bush homes in Odessa and Midland, we found a couple of other rental properties in Midland where George the Younger lived when he came back to the Tall City for a little while after school.

    The story didn’t go anywhere … they were briefly occupied, and he had to move out pretty quickly … so I don’t know if they really qualified as ‘homes.’

  7. I’m frankly not at all surprised. As I said on the previous thread the term “most extreme privilege” struck me as pure hyperbole that really didn’t mean anything. It seems to me that it would be pretty hard in general to make the argument that someone who grew up in Midland, Texas in the 1950s was living in the lap of extreme privilege. Where were the five star restuarants, and private academies, and penthouse apartments that that term implies? Certainly not in Midland. Maybe in Kennedy country, though.

    When I read that term and thought about Midland, Texas I couldn’t help thinking of the movie “Animal House”. Maybe Bush grew up in “double secret” “most extreme privilege”.

  8. Hmmm… I’m embarassed to admit this, but as a Bush-Hater For Bush, this really does change my view of him (positively) quite a bit. I’ve never resented wealth the way many liberals do, but i do resent unearned wealth in a way that would make Trostsky proud. Bush wealth suddenly seems a lot less unearned.

    I think there’s a larger point buried somewhere in the contrast between the Bushes and the Kennedys. There seems to be a notion among the children of the very wealthy that fortune is determined by luck and circumstance rather than effort. It’s not an irrational conclusion – if you grow up with privilege utterly alienated from the labors that produced it (damn, I sound like Marx), it’s natural to assume that all wealth in the world is attained this way. Once you reach this conclusion, it’s perfectly rational – indeed, I would even argue moral – to seek redistribution.

    A few years in the private sector might disabuse them of that assumption (very, very few of the executives at my rather large firm, or at any of my clients, were born wealthy), except: (1) core ideals are very, very hard to change as you grow older, and (2) once you start on the assumption that all wealth is unearned, a good-hearted person is likely to favor public sector/academic work over the private sector.

    #2 seems especially important, because it becomes mutually reinforcing. Pay in the public sector is usually on seniority rather than productivity (inherited privilege vs earned wealth), and success in academia is largely (though not primarily) determined by social contacts (this changes depending on the field; moreso in the arts, demonstrably false in engineering). The private sector is utterly merciless in this regard; you will be thrown on your arse in a nanosecond if you can’t produce, no matter what your wealth and connections (though wealth and connections influence how softly you land, and how often you can get back up).

    Ok, I’ve rambled a bit too much. Speaking of getting thown on your arse: if I don’t stop wasting bandwidth and get back to work, I’m going to get thrown on mine.

  9. So as not to cause the NeoNeo any more photo uploading consternation, here’s the photo of George and Laura’s home in Midland loaded onto my server.

    Bush Townhome

  10. Although they are certainly more self-made than the Kennedys and have a strong drive to prove their worth, family members don’t think twice about going to family and friends in their climb to the top.

    Please. This is a criticism? Is there anyone, anywhere about whom this couldn’t be said? If this is a crime then we’re all guilty.

    All people everywhere at all times, regardless of socio-economic background, rely heavily on family and friends and connections in order to make their way forward in life. In the business world, almost all deals are created through personal connections; in the academic world, jobs hinge almost entirely on one’s advisor or his friends. We’re social animals.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>