Read other letters about this article

• Wednesday, December 3, 2008 08:40 AM

  Comparison to merit-based profession?

  While I certainly agree that nepotism (and I'm defining the term to mean ascension through family ties rather than merit)is a bad/damaging political practice, I'm not sure it's fair to dismiss every politician with the same surname as a predecessor as a beneficiary of nepotism. At least, I don't think it's fair to label them as unworthy office holders or even office winners. There has to be some accounting for genetics or even environmental influences being responsible for family members entering and succeeding in politics. Is it not conceivable that some office holders have inherited the same capabilities and qualities that made their ancestors attractive to the voting public? I know that W. -- and most likely his father -- wouldn't have had a shot at being president without their surnames and societal standing, but it's not fair to others to assume that voters considered only their names when casting votes.

  It would be interesting to compare politics to another profession, such as athletics, where ascension is almost 100% a result of merit. I would bet that at least a dozen or so current major league baseball players have blood ties to former players. Where there is so much money at stake based on team success, baseball can hardly be accused of nepotism. It shouldn't be a shock to consider that the offspring of a player would be endowed with a favorable genetic makeup for baseball, as well as being raised in an environment that would further draw out those natural attributes. I know baseball and politics are completely different professions, but is it a stretch to apply some of the same reasoning to suggest that at least a small percentage of political dynasties are based -- to some degree -- on merit?

  —Cultural Amnesia Read Cultural Amnesia's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel