If you look back to the very beginning of the republic, the same surnames pop up again and again in the lists of Congressmen, top Executive officers, Federal judges, etc. Is it truly the case that this is more common now than it has ever been?

...we're just going to have to get you (and your spouse) invited to more of the Washington glitterati's soirees. Then, you too can be co-opted, and then you won't see that there is any problem whatsoever with any of what you wrote above. Instead, you will recognize it as the natural order of the universe, and harmony will be restored.

You are describing a situation that reminds one of "the ruling class" in a monarchy or a third world banana republic.

Come to think of it, this "democracy" has not really paid attention to the "will of the people" in a long, long time. We can elect "anti-war" candidates all we want, but the wars will continue.

There was John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams. It would be interesting to know whether the American hatred of hereditary rule arose during the presidential election Quincy won.

In Florida, Mel Martinez's announcement that he won't seek re-election in 2010 immediately led to reports that the current President's brother, Jeb, might run for that seat.

Weren't there one or two other guys named "Bush" in public life whose collective family fortune and combined political and financial network enabled a complete and utter waste of DNA to become President in the first place?

If you look back to the very beginning of the republic, the same surnames pop up again and again in the lists of Congressmen, top Executive officers, Federal judges, etc.

People can have the same surnames without being related, certainly without being closely related. The smaller and more homogenous a society is (18th Century America as compared to now), the more likely that is to be true.

I'm not aware of any comprehensive studies making this comparison, but I provided what I think is some pretty compelling evidence that it is far more common now than it was then (though, as I made clear, it was never completely unheard of, and the Time article mentions the Adams and the Harrisons as examples of that, while making the point that it is the exception, not a common feature of our political culture).

If you're aware of evidence that suggests otherwise (and what you said doesn't qualify), I'd be interested in seeing it.

Leaving aside the Adamses, Harrisons, and Roosevelts, consider a single woman--still alive at this writing--Bethine Clark Church. Her husband, father, uncle, and cousin were all at one time or another Governor of or Senator from Idaho, and if her older son hadn't decided to finish his seminary studies (as he tells in his recent memoir) he might have been a Congressman from Nebraska. Gore Vidal says somewhere that before he was injudicious enough to publish The City and the Pillar, the wires were being pulled for him to follow his grandfather into Congress.

Still, I admit that one thing that persuaded me to support Obama was the grim notion of an unbroken 24 or 28 year period when the names of the President were Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. That's no way to run a republic.

Aren't you forgetting someone? Weren't there ne or two other guys named "Bush" in public life whose collective family fortune and combined political and financial network enabled a complete and utter waste of DNA to become President in the first place?

From the post: "And, of course, the current President on his way out was the son of a former President and grandson of a former U.S. Senator."

Adopt some relatively unknown yet deserving voice and turn them into an influential blogger.

Glenn--I agree with your premise, but I believe this syndrome is also the result of an electorate that makes very little effort to understand who candidates are and what they believe in. Clearly, a familiar last name is a big advantage at the ballot box, as shown in many communities where candidates with the same name are elected, even when they're in no way related to previous office holders. The fact is, an "informed electorate" is still largely absent from the American political scene, and voting for a familiar name is often the path of least resistance and greatest comfort. Politicians trade on "brand" familiarity because it works.

The same thing happens in the entertainment industry (especially in movies/TV). I expect the dynamics are similar.

Dynastic family pyramids

Ensure

Powerful positions...

It would be interesting to see the percentage of nepotism in the Senate over the years. You said that 18 current Senators are related to former politicians. How many Senators were like that 100 years ago?

Hard numbers should always be more compelling evidence than a set of anecdotes. Although I must also say that the practice is troubling regardless of it's difference in how often it happens from the past.

1. People from political families have probably grown up with an interest in politics from a very young age.

2. People from political families often have inherited wealth, so don't need to work in regular jobs to earn a living, make car payments etc.

3. People from political families will often have social contacts with wealthy people who can raise funds for their political careers when the time comes.

4. Name recognition alone is a big factor in these days of political advertising on TV and "branding". Don't forget that the primary process is supposed to start in small states so as to give candidates who don't have widespread name recognition a chance to become known on the national stage. Hence, an early Florida primary would have been a huge advantage for a branded political product like H. Clinton versus the "black guy".

... I suspect this trend toward the election of political relatives reflects America's infatuation with brand names. Seriously. We've had it beaten into our bony little heads that brands matter, so is it any wonder, then, that we select a Bush or a Biden or a Jackson or a Kennedy? Nevermind that W is the Bud Lite of political family brands.