Its sort of interesting when you see people today who don't get what the big deal was with Clinton getting a blow job in office. It really shows our decline in morality over the past 25 years.
With all due respect, I think this is a bit naive.
The polity's willingness to elect a sexual predator in Trump is far less indicative to a growing tolerance for sexual misconduct and infidelity as much as it's a product of tribalist partisan politics which were initiated by the GOP during the Clinton administration, and well effected the political handling of the Lewinsky scandal.
While you were seeing Trump supporters excusing his remarks as "locker room talk," I firmly disbelieve that these were genuine reflections of their position on them, and were instead just ways to excuse the fact that their illogical vitriol for Hillary, which had been nurtured over years and years of Republican and news media hyperbole and disinformation, far overcame their objections to Trump's crassness.
The Clintons, policywise, are economic royalists. As was Obama. Just like the Bush Family, and pretty much most presidents dating back to FDR's predecessor.
What does this even mean? It seems like you're trying to say two different things at once.
If "economic royalist" is meant to be policy-based, the domination of neoliberal economic policy really only dates back to the Nixon-Carter-Reagan era and certainly doesn't encompass Hoover, FDR, Truman, or Eisenhower.
If it is meant to refer to political pedigree, most of those presidents, Obama certainly included, did not come from political dynasties. Carter, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton.
GHW, GW, and FDR are really the only "royalists" of that span of time.
It's actually kind of ironic that FDR, certainly the most royalist-y of all the presidents, had by far the most populist and anti-elitist agenda.
