Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I was always surprised about Clinton supporters who could not see the explicit danger of electing Clinton for president--that could have meant nearly three decades of family rule in the US, from Bush 1 to Clinton 1 to Bush 2 to Clinton 2. What an awful precedent to set.
I disagree however that Sarah Palin rose to her position through 'pure self-sufficiency'. I admit, I despise Palin. But the reality is that although there was no family connection, her ascendency seems to have been aided from the get-go by a machine designed to create "self-sufficient" candidates who would be able to claim just-folks roots. Much information came out in the last months that show her position on the Republican ticket to be the product of manipulation by the likes of Kristol.
Even her run for Wasila offices seems to have been aided in no small part by a Republican infrastructure, though there has been less focus on that.
There is so much of interest in this article and the comments that it is impossible to address all of it.
A couple more families in politics: The Lodges from Massachusetts, and the Stevensons from Illinois. Also, I don’t think it was mentioned that two of FDR’s sons served in the House of Representatives.
There is probably a master’s thesis that could be earned by examining this trend in politics, and determining whether it more common now than in the past.
I don’t think it is uncommon for sons or daughters to follow in their parents footsteps when the vocation is rewarding, whether financially or emotionally. You see many ministers who are sons or daughters of ministers, and of course it is a cliche that many businessmen want their children to go into the family business (you could also include organized crime in that category).
I think the reason that nepotism is so common in the entertainment field is primarily opportunity. I am not saying that acting is easy, but you can go to virtually any regional theater and see actors who are at least as good as many big stars. Children of stars have the advantage of familiarity with the business and if they have any talent at all will be given at least a chance.
I agree with others that political nepotism is about branding. If you vote for a Kennedy, you have at least some idea of what you are getting. That doesn’t really explain why people would vote for George W. Bush after rejecting George H. W. Bush only 8 years before, except that people often pick the familiar over the new, even when the new is demonstrably better. A good example of this is major league baseball, where managers will often play a mediocre veteran over taking a chance with a promising newcomer.
The topic of 'nepotism' in politics is closely related to broader questions of elite-favoring mechanisms in politics more generally. Many people use the term "nepotism" to discuss things like the aforementioned cases of direct manipulation of office to install a relative, etc., but it doesn't address the broader topic of why some people are much more likely to get involved in or succeed in political aspirations.
As a democracy, we just don't have many institutions and mechanisms to train ordinary people in the processes of running for office, outside political parties (and their limitations), nor do we have much of an organized system of public financing of elections.
If running for office is the province of the initiated, and if it's more likely to be a successful option for those who can most easily access the financing needed, then it's a system to promote a general preference for individuals with direct connections to established insiders and to sources of funding based in more concentrated wealth.
So to the extent that blogs & internet-connected activists do so, they're actually attempting to plug a huge gap in the U.S. system of democracy.
Wealth inequality in the USA, 1979-2005:
http://bp0.blogger.com/_JY-rIL8plNM/R2LwtDQkPLI/AAAAAAAAAC0/aOXk34r-YGo/s1600-h/Slide4.JPG
* * * * *
Oops I'm off-topic.
That's a chart of the increased concentration of wealth.
Totally unrelated to today's topic, the increased concentration of political power.
Good point about how elite universities have played a significant role in the nepotism business. I'm not sure to what degree this has changed in recent decades, but the examples of George W. Bush and John McCain are powerful nonetheless.
Given that admissions to those schools (Yale and the Naval Academy) have always been highly competitive, don't you wonder what prospects *weren't* admitted in order to make room for the worse-than-mediocre George and John? Sure, maybe it was just another worthless legacy case, but then again maybe it was someone who would've actually done something with the opportunity. In George's case maybe it was someone who went on to fight and die in Vietnam.
That's the real tragedy of nepotism. For the most part, we live in a zero-sum world where opportunities are not limitless. When they are denied to someone worthy, it simply isn't always the case that an equivalent will arise somewhere else for that person. So the mediocre (or worse) get promoted based on family name and the rest of society suffers for it. Look no further than the Current Occupant.
Nepotism, as defined by Merriam-Webster is “favoritism [as in appointment to a job] based on kinship.” It seems to mean favoritism BY the kin…but I may be wrong.
Nepotism seems certainly to be at work in some examples given [Stevens in Alaska and Lipinsky in Illinois, for example]; but where heirs are elected to office, even if it’s because the electorate is lazy or un [mis]-informed, they may be benefiting from having the Legacy of a certain name, but not necessarily from favoritism by a relative.
From another perspective, having a “brand” as a name can be detrimental to one's aspirations…whether one is conspicuously qualified or not. One of the first arguments I noticed against Hillary Clinton being president [seen again on this comment thread] was the supposed problem about having Bushes and Clintons in the WH for a possible 28 years, even though they would all [well, mostly all] have been duly elected by The [probably un-, possibly mis-informed] People. In this case it was her [husband’s] name that was deemed to DIS-qualify her from even being eligible for the position. As far as I know, one’s name is not a dis-qualification for the office.
I do not share GG’s “encouragement” about the supposed “pure self-sufficiency and lack of family connection behind” Obama’s success. He was practically adopted, and anointed heir, [or was at least seen by The People to be so] by one of the best known names in American politics: Kennedy.
Many people voted FOR nepotism-or rather "the return of Camelot".
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
