Family Political Dynasties in US

Black Swan

There may be others in the US, but two family political dynasties standout, the Bush and Kennedy families, one Republican, the other Democrat, both going back many decades reaching all the way to the presidency. But why do US voters create family political dynasties, when today they have over 300 million people to chose from, many qualified for office?

The Bush and Kennedy families have money, connections, and name-brand recognition. Their wealth buys the best family conditions to further political aspirations (e.g., education, exclusive social clubs, political consultants like Karl Rove, etc.). They have politically savvy former and present family office holders to shepherd family candidates through all the political hoops, and party, lobby, PAC, and donor connections, along with a history of favours exchanged between powerful people, and a large following of adoring voter supporters.

Although the US Americans threw out the monarchy over two centuries ago during their war for independence, does it seem that they are allowing it to evolve overtime with these political family dynasties, if not in theory, approximating it to some extent in practice?

Amerika

They still need to get elected... although I hear much talk of a Hillary Clinton coronation.

I think the people in the US think highly of families who go on from humble beginnings to make their fortune, and then go into public service as a way of paying back society after they’ve “made it.” The Kennedy’s and Bush’s fall into that category. I don’t believe any other current family fits that criteria, but that could change in the future with the Romney’s. The Clinton’s don’t count, as they made their fortune by taking advantage of their postions in public service (and I think Hillary's only saving grace is being married to Bill). The recent brood of Kennedy’s has been lacking in elected positions and public life, but the Bush’s look promising. Also, money and connections is important in getting elected, which these families have.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

They still need to get elected... although I hear much talk of a Hillary Clinton coronation.

I think the people in the US think highly of families who go on from humble beginnings to make their fortune, and then go into public service as a way of paying back society after they’ve “made it.” The Kennedy’s and Bush’s fall into that category. I don’t believe any other current family fits that criteria, but that could change in the future with the Romney’s. The Clinton’s don’t count, as they made their fortune by taking advantage of their postions in public service (and I think Hillary's only saving grace is being married to Bill). The recent brood of Kennedy’s has been lacking in elected positions and public life, but the Bush’s look promising. Also, money and connections is important in getting elected, which these families have.

I thought the Bush family were old, old money. Going back to President Taft. Am I wrong?

Manach

To paraphrase Jon Stewart, it is not too late to admit one's mistake over the revolution and rejoin Britain. On another more on topic note, political clans were a feature of US life since the Tammery Hall days. An interesting but rather dated book on the subject,Boss by Mike Royko , gave an an account of the Daly fiefdom that was established in Chicago. This is likely the most prominent example of common practices elsewhere.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

I thought the Bush family were old, old money. Going back to President Taft. Am I wrong?

Taft wasn't all that long ago when you look at how old George HW Bush is. George HW Bush was Prescott S. Bush’s son. And John F Kennedy was Joseph P Kennedy Sr's son. Both first time family US presidents who's fathers made the wealth. (And looks like the Bush family is kicking the Kennedy family's a$$ in legacies.)

Here’s some reading on Bush if you’re interested.

http://www.michaelkranish.com/Michael_Kranish/Bush_Family_History.html

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

They still need to get elected... although I hear much talk of a Hillary Clinton coronation.

Bill and Hilliary are a couple, not a family dynasty going back and into future generations of politicians.

I do not believe that family political dynasties favour democracy in US America, or allow non-dynastic candidates an equal chance for election. They are up against the unfair advantages that the dynasties have in terms of established power and influence, connections, historic exchange of favours between the powerful, long established donor relationships, and a huge block of family-name-brand adoring fans/voters. To use the track metaphor, its like the new kid runner beginning behind the starting line in a 400m race, competing against a Bush or Kennedy kid that begins his race only 20m from the finish line. The Bush or Kennedy kid can walk, even be drunk, and stumble across the line way before the new kid can finish no matter how hard he trains or fast he runs.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Bill and Hilliary are a couple, not a family dynasty going back and into future generations of politicians.

I do not believe that family political dynasties favour democracy in US America, or allow non-dynastic candidates an equal chance for election. They are up against the unfair advantages that the dynasties have in terms of established power and influence, connections, historic exchange of favours between the powerful, long established donor relationships, and a huge block of family-name-brand adoring fans/voters. To use the track metaphor, its like the new kid runner beginning behind the starting line in a 400m race, competing against a Bush or Kennedy kid that begins his race only 20m from the finish line. The Bush or Kennedy kid can walk, even be drunk, and stumble across the line way before the new kid can finish no matter how hard he trains or fast he runs.

I remember the 1979 primary when Ted Kennedy lost to a flawed Jimmy Carter -- who had little chance of being reelected. Carter only got 49 EC votes to Reagan’s 489. The name, money, power and influence and even a severely flawed adversary in Carter didn’t help Ted very much. I believe it’s more the character of the man (or woman) than the name or dynasty. Unless we’re talking Hillary, then osmosis somehow factors into the equation.

Manic Moran

One of Joe Biden's sons just had his very short military career terminated for cocaine use. If it was part of a plan for political aspiration in the future (Military service is usually a positive), he's just blown that one...

Hold the Cheez Whiz

Amerika wrote: »

They still need to get elected... although I hear much talk of a Hillary Clinton coronation.

I think the people in the US think highly of families who go on from humble beginnings to make their fortune, and then go into public service as a way of paying back society after they’ve “made it.” The Kennedy’s and Bush’s fall into that category. I don’t believe any other current family fits that criteria, but that could change in the future with the Romney’s. The Clinton’s don’t count, as they made their fortune by taking advantage of their postions in public service (and I think Hillary's only saving grace is being married to Bill). The recent brood of Kennedy’s has been lacking in elected positions and public life, but the Bush’s look promising. Also, money and connections is important in getting elected, which these families have.

Bill Clinton's "Hope, Arkansas to the White House"(and Georgetown and a Rhodes Scholarship along the way) is a pretty compelling American narrative. And the Bush Family has not been "humble" in over a century: four generations of Yale graduates, three generations of serving both in the Senate and the White House, inter-generational asset transfers in the millions, and summering in Maine could not be any more WASP-y. That said, I agree that the key advantage of being born into a politically powerful family is that name recognition, money and connections matter in elections (but as the current crop of Kennedys suggest, you still have to do some kind of legwork, rather than just expecting to be coronated).

donaghs

Don't forget John Adams (2nd Prez), son John Quincy becoming 6th president.

Black Swan

The Udall political family goes back several generations and spans across the political sphere.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

The Udall political family goes back several generations and spans across the political sphere.

A month ago I would have sworn Mark Udall’s U.S. Senate seat was secure. Looking at the polls recently, and with less than two weeks to go in the election, it now appears the incumbent Udall (D) is a political dead man walking.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

A month ago I would have sworn Mark Udall’s U.S. Senate seat was secure. Looking at the polls recently, and with less than two weeks to go in the election, it now appears the incumbent Udall (D) is a political dead man walking.

Republican George HW Bush lost the 1992 presidential election to Democrat Bill Clinton, making him a 1-term president like Jimmy Carter. Of course the recession during his administration, breaking his 1988 campaign promise ("Read my lips: no new taxes" pledge), and signing Congressional bills for more taxes had something to do with George HW Bush losing his reelection attempt. So the Bush dynasty name could not overcome his recessionary image and mistakes as president.

Although some may label it a coincidence, both conservative Republican Bush presidential administrations (father and son) occurred during recessions, the latter being called the Great Recession (2008) for its severity. Makes you wonder...