As time goes on, the model of a congress elected to do 'our' bidding seems flawed by design. The minute the elected get to Washington, the force that rules their lives is not their constituents, but the climate of Washington. Yes, they have to get elected again, and yes, they can be recalled (when does that happen?), but other than that, they have 2-4-6 years free.

Once in, money plays a role in getting re-elected (as it does the first time around), and with a demoblized populace (and that is what we are folks...) they can stay in office for years - or forever. And then their name gets stuck on baby, and the cycle repeats itself.

The most democratic institution I have ever been in is a union, which has meetings every month, and votes on everything. Contrast that with a corporation, which has one annual meeting, all scripted, and votes with its money. Or a workplace, which is ruled by benevolent or not so benevolent dictators. The U.S. needs institutions that make democracy live more than once every 4 years. Councils, in neighborhoods, towns, companies or office parks, would give democracy real meat. Which it is sadly lacking in this society, and which is being reduced every day.

Can I suggest a little reading of middle and late Roman republic history, which is where Machiavelli started. The parallels are terrifying. They had the Juliai and the Claudii, etc. We have the Kennedys and Bushes and Roosevelts and Gores.

The US is a democracy built on 18th century political thought, and has kinda time-warped into the future. For example, we tolerate extreme gerrymandering without discussion, as no other country would. As Tyrannity Watcher pointed out upthread.

A little Thucydides reading would be good too, on constitutional tampering and the endless war between the aristoi and the demos, and how destructive that can get when one gets the upper hand.

A republic has always been about the virtual disenfranchisment of the people, about relying on name brand recognition, about loyalty over interest. This isn't new, a couple of thousand years ago, it all played out pretty much the way it is now.

There are basic human forces of psychology that lead to nepotism and the establishment of aristocracy: the (natural) desire of parents to help their children as much as possible, the ease with which family connections allow succeeding generations to climb the ladder, and the "brand name" phenomenon which allows political families to remain popular long after their brightest lights have left the stage.

I attended a relatively prestigious college and it was explained to me that, among the 100+ freshmen on my floor, exactly one had any chance to be elected to Congress and for him it was a lock. Because he was a Kennedy. Sure enough, when he graduated from college (after moving to Rhode Island), he was set up in a very safe district which is giving him a job for life.

What is disturbing about this is that there were at least 10 others on my freshman floor who were considerably brighter and more talented than this current representative, but the possibility that any of them could run for office without family connections was dismissed as ludicrous.

And no, this kind of nepotism isn't widespread in other industries, and that fact highlights the realization that the vast majority of elected politicians are simply placeholders, not subject to real evolutionary pressures that test their merit.

The example of Hollywood was cited, but even a super-powerful producer like Aaron Spelling can only get his daughter jobs, and cannot make her acting abilities lucrative.

My conclusion from this observation is that the industries where nepotism is the worse are those industries where failure is tolerated the most. Meritocracy only works where failure is punished by the evolutionary pressures of whatever arena is in question. In political punditry, there is virtually no evolutionary pressure, as pundits who espouse ludicrously stupid ideas are never held accountable for their stupidity. Either that, or they are simply empty talking heads.

I don't know if the aristocracy is growing or not. After all, we've had the Tafts, the Cabots, the Lodges, etc. for quite a long time. But I do wish there would be a little less family name worship.