According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, the term divine right is defined as, “the right of a sovereign to rule as set forth by the theory of government that holds that a monarch receives the right to rule directly from God and not from the people.” While this is obviously not the definition of American government, democracy, some may argue that with certain families in American history, for example the Bush and Kennedy families, divine right is a term than can be loosely used to define them.
The most recent example of the Kennedy family’s “divine right of rule” would be Caroline Kennedy and her seat in the Senate in 2008. “Caroline Kennedy opened a new stage in the evolution of the Kennedy Cult when she announced that she wants to be appointed U.S. senator from New York to fill out Hillary Clinton’s term. For 48 years, the Kennedys have treated American politics as family property, like a castle European aristocrats pass on from one clan member to another. Caroline, as John F. Kennedy’s daughter, believes she’s entitled. Kennedys think that Kennedys should have whatever they desire.” The author of this article from the National Post is clearly opposed to the Kennedy “dynasty”.
Moving on from the Kennedys, though, we approach the Bush family. In an article titled, “King George: George Bush, Divine Right, and Majority Rule,” Linda Ford stated that, President Bush II is very reminiscent of Nixon and Reagan in his cerrtitude that he alone is somehow meant to be President at this time.” Our Founding Fathers designed the American government so that the three branches would balance each other out, creating the system of checks and balances; however, Bush, in many people’s eyes, took the American government and treated it as looking up to him.
So, the underlying question is: Did George W. Bush treat his presidency like it was his right and duty to be there instead of being elected by the American population?