George P. Bush, son of former Governor of Florida Jeb Bush, has filed papers to run for state wide office in Texas. Considering that his uncle and grandfather were president, he will surely get quite a lot of attention. Some are sure to say that we have had enough Bushes in government. As for me, I say we have had enough nepotism in government in general.
I would not vote for another Clinton, Bush, or Obama for that matter. That includes Hillary, Chelsea, Jeb, and even Sasha and Malia. I am not a fan of hereditary rule or nepotism. I would never vote for someone as president who had an immediate family member as president. And yes, this means that even if the best and most qualified person for president had an immediate family member as president I would not vote for them.
The presidency is symbolic as much as it is a practical job. The institution and the American public would benefit from having a variety of persons and families in this post. It would merely depress the American people to see the presidency traded around a few families. It also hurts our image abroad when we try to act as a beacon of democracy yet our list of presidents merely looks like hereditary rule. Also, fresh names bring new ideas without the burden of an extra legacy to worry about besides your own.
At the state level I have no issue with letting a family dominate as the Bushes clearly dominate Texas. But state office is much different than the presidency in terms of power and resonance. A family could enable itself to become entrenched in the presidency, making it an uphill battle for anyone else seeking the honor. The presidency should be something that children think they can be when they grow up no matter what their last name is.
Nepotism is bad for business, and I don't see why it wouldn't be bad for government as well. While there is a comfort in voting for a candidate who's family we are already familiar with it could lead us to never trying out new candidates and ideas. In a nation of more than 300 million people I find it highly unlikely that a Clinton and a Bush are what we need to lead us time and time again.