What should we infer about the health of our democracy if the major party nominees in 2016 are Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton? Here are several possibilities:
1. Nothing, they’re just the most qualified candidates.
2. Nothing, family dynasties are no different from the other kinds of political dynasties (relationships of mentorship and support, party hierarchies up which one moves, etc.) democracies have had since time immemorial.
3. An indirect worry: when the only viable presidential candidates are close family members of prior presidents, this is strong evidence that access to positions of power is not genuinely open to all citizens.
4. A direct worry: family dynasties are just flat-out inconsistent with democratic values.
I am personally torn between views #2 and #3, but a case could be made for all of them.
Posted by Paul Gowder on January 13, 2015 at 03:21 PM
Comments
I wonder if you are constraining this to too narrow a time window? Haven’t we always had family dynasties in this democracy? The Adams and Kennedys spring to mind (with the latter being stopped more by assassins than by lack of dynasty).
Also, remember that almost all our presidents (save one) are related to King John of England. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2183858/All-presidents-bar-directly-descended-medieval-English-king.html
Posted by: anonandoff | Jan 14, 2015 5:42:11 PM
Re: #3, “when the only viable presidential candidates are close family members of prior presidents …” — Even if Clinton and Bush are nominated, that hardly implies that they were “the only viable presidential candidates.”
Posted by: Gordon Danning | Jan 13, 2015 7:21:13 PM
Like you, I believe it’s between 2 and 3, although I think I’m much closer to 2. Mike’s idea about heuristics seems right to me, as well.
In terms of dynasties, though, I wonder if we should think about Bush and Clinton in the same way. The Clintons are not a family dynasty–they are a married couple in which both partners went into politics with some success. And as Chelsea Clinton does not appear inclined to run for public office, the dynasty ends here. Jeb Bush, on the other hand, is a third-generation national politician whose father and brother both served as President. Both are certainly helped by their last names. But if the concern is that we are recreating or perpetuating monarchies or aristocracies, the Clintons stand on very different footing from the Bushes.
Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Jan 13, 2015 5:56:49 PM
I look at from an information perspective. Perhaps political families are like political parties: they provide a useful heuristic for voters to make decisions without too much effort.
Posted by: Mike Weiksner | Jan 13, 2015 3:40:23 PM