Can we choose our leaders, or do we have to inherit them?

John Fund raises the question because of the announcement by Jeb Bush this week. John thinks Jeb's announcement may inspire Democrats to take a close look at their own dynasty:

The discomfort Americans feel with that image won’t affect Jeb Bush alone. And if Republicans end up rejecting him in favor of a more self-made candidate—a Scott Walker, say—won’t that put ideas in many Democrats’ heads that they too can choose their leaders rather than inherit them?

Then there is the personal-finances question:

Since leaving the presidency, Bill and Hillary Clinton have been paid a combined total of more than $100 million, mostly for speeches delivered to audiences in the United States and abroad. Hillary Clinton credits these earnings to hard work. And yes, it must be wearying to travel around the planet to perform before audiences. But let’s not be naive. What’s being sold here is the prestige of the presidency and access to a potential future president, on an unprecedented scale. The whole Clinton enterprise is an institutional conflict of interest. Bill Clinton collected fees as his wife served in the Senate, able to affect legislation. He collected fees as his wife prepared to run for the presidency. He collected fees—often from international audiences—as his wife directed the foreign policy of the United States. They have both collected fees on the expectation they may return to the White House. As Democrats prepare their opposition research on Bush’s business dealings, they may begin to wonder: Maybe we could use this stuff more effectively if we chose a candidate who hadn’t done much, much, much worse?

There is also the financial-crisis question:

The worst financial crisis in U.S. history erupted under President George W. Bush. Democrats won’t let voters forget that. But the key decisions that enabled the crisis were made during the Clinton years.

Fund details those key decisions and more here.