Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
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.
I agree. I'd like to see this, too. I've looked for conclusive empirical data on this before and haven't been able to find it. It could probably be pieced together with a lot of labor if nobody has ever done it before, but my inability to find anything that comprehensive led me to rely on what seems like pretty persuasive anecdotal evidence of trends.
Trends aside, it is -- as you point out -- a notable state of affairs even if it hasn't become appreciably worse in recent years.
The short answer for Democrats is easy: the end justifies the means.
Look back at the past 35 years or so. From Roe v Wade forward, the left has been using the courts--the least democratic of the 3 branches of government, to accomplish its ends. And the reason they pursued this course is because they knew that the democratic approach--where the majority would make the decision, would not work. Quite simply, when it comes to a vote where the majority wins, liberal notions generally do not do well.
And once you get on that anti-democratic road, you are guided by the end-justifies-the-means principle in other contexts as well. And since powerful political families are easier to elect in the sound-bite world we live in (name recognition) and because they can achieve the end being sought as well as or better than unknowns, they get support from the political powers that be.
Of course, there are other reasons that political families do well, including some positive ones. The Kennedys and Clintons are a good example--when smart people marry other smart people and then raise a family of other smart people--with a bit of initiative all of those smart people may pursue politics in order to accomplish their goals. That can be a good thing for the country.
By the way, in states that have term limits, these political family dynasties are widespread. I have seen one legislative seat in my state go from husband to wife to son and seen others move from spouse to spouse when the first spouse moved to the Senate from the House.
Evan Bayh, son of Birch.
It's about the voters being comfortable with a brand they already know. People don't eat at McDonald's because the food is good; they eat there because they know what they're getting.
Obama's mantra notwithstanding, people really don't like change. What they like is the same old thing.
One of the sadder things about using the family and social connections to obtain higher office is that oftentimes incompetents get positions they really shouldn't have.
Let's consider my Senator, Bob Casey. Here's a guy whose father was former governor of PA: before ascending to the Senate (thanks to a coronation by PA Governor Rendell and NY senator Charles Schumer), Bob Junior was the treasurer for PA and later the auditor general. Yet he voted for the paulson bailout, which any numbnuts with a high school diploma could see wouldn't work. now, casey's office expresses surprise that predictable abuses happened.
in short, family connections and wealth often lead to extraordinarily unqualified people holding positions of power.
Your conclusion, that we are ruled by people who would be Kings, from Versailles on the Potomac, is the stongest reason that Bush must be impeached.
Bush's list of crimes is extensive. One can argue that many other countries engage in torture, spying on their citizens, and illegal detention. The difference in Bush's case is that we in the Western world gave up the idea that the monarchy would be able to impose its will on the people, and that the King would be above the law. When King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215 at Runnymeade, civilization took a giant step towards making all men equal. Bush has reversed almost 800 years of histroy, and progress.
If Bush is not impeached, the next fearless leader will have the powers of a monarch. How many of us want to be subject to the whims of one man in charge of the nation?
For the sake of humanity, and the advancement of society, Impeach Bush. Do it now!
Our Congress has become our own House of Lords. Those who don't claim hereditary rights ease into the mode of elitist benefaction just the same. Hence the Cunninghams, Stevens and others who view their position as a plum spot for exploitation and personal gain.(compare second son, Church of England, 19th Century)
Then there are the Larry Craig's waving their Senatorial business cards at arresting officers.
Hello. We're back in England, just after the Revolution. Who needs the history of the Churchills, or the Barchester Chronicles. All the same stories unfold daily on Capitol Hill. I just wish the costuming was authentic.
Excellent article Glenn. Obama is indeed an exceptional politician in that he has risen to the Presidency because of his merits and not because of his blood, as it should be. It is truly disgusting and disturbing that despite all of this country's democratic rhetoric bloodlines are still the easiest way to wealth and power. Such a dynastic element has forever existed when it comes to who will rule and though the U.S. supposedly stands for something different it is clear not that much has changed over all these centuries.
I would like to bring up something that is perhaps less important than your main point but seems similar to me. That being the strange phenomenon of American women who perceive and describe themselves as Princesses. I find this disturbing because the U.S. is NOT a monarchy and thusly should be devoid of royalty, however the fantasy of royalty is evidently still alive and well. Sure this may be harmless but I cannot help but wonder how it can be that such a entitled, royal notion still lingers. I guess this whole Princess thing makes me think that our Democracy is little more than lip-service, for the people still adore the notion of the powerful, beautiful, elite few and will gladly cast off Democratic principles if it means being elevated into royalty. This, to me, speaks to a deep, hard to eliminate pathology that forever thwarts true equality. And I find this form of self-aggrandizement hollow and delusional.
Thoughts anyone?
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
