An Observation on Political Dynasties

When the 45th president ran in 2016, one of his campaign arguments was that he was running against political dynasties in America. This was a fair commentary–and has not changed since then. I had some thoughts on that–what better place than my blog for them.

*Political dynasties are not a new thing in America. Look back at the early presidents–notice two named Adams? From the late 1800s into the 1960s, you have the Rockefellers. Post-WW2, you have the Kennedy clan. At the state level, you could look at the Cuomos or two generations of Udalls out west and at the city-level, everything in Chicago still traces back to two Daleys as mayor.

*Political dynasties are not necessarily biological. They can come from political patronage as much as anything or from gerrymandered districts guaranteeing election for the anointed candidate.

*It is an American tradition for presidential candidates to claim to be an outsider–and then set up their own dynasties. You can see this with Lara Trump and Trump Jr. considering Congressional runs.

*When Americans like specific candidates (Trump being a ready example) and that candidate begins engineering a career for his children, those “aren’t dynasties”…they are “different”. They aren’t, but that’s the given argument.

*Political dynasties are not necessarily bad. Depending on the family, there may be a real calling to public service. I think this was the case with the Rockefellers and Bushes. I think you see it in the Kennedy boys as well (JFK, RFK, Ted) even though I dislike many of the policies they implemented or believed in. I think you see it in Bushes politically active sons (George, Jeb) but unfortunately, the following generation has individuals who see politics as a means to influence/wealth.

*Dynasties aren’t an American phenomenon. They are everywhere. The Assads of Syria, the deGaulles and LePens in France, the Yosef family in Israel, or the Larijani and Khameneis of Iran. They are everywhere.

Isn’t that the real issue–it is not that we see people running for office now from a sense of public service or a chance to give back to their community. They run because they perceive elected office as easy, a job where they pay nothing and have perks provided at taxpayer-expense (heck, in my congressional district, the US representative ran as an outsider/Trump-ite even as her HUSBAND was getting elected to be the state-level congressman!

Is it possible to restore service as a civic-duty? Would ending gerrymandered districts do this when you see so many senators and representatives get rich as lobbyists once they retire from office? What reform permits us to return to government-by-consensus and putting the public’s welfare first?–I mean, my opinion here, but why WON’T we spend money on infrastructure? Wanna drive the roads I drive regularly and explain how their status is not a problem? What about internet access for ALL schools? What about a lack of rural-oriented hospitals (because it sucks driving 90 minutes one way to go to an authorized specialist…)?

And elsewhere in the world, are we aware that the grandchildren of Nazi war criminals are officeholders and politicians within the AfD right-wing party? Does anyone outside Iran pay attention that current Iranian politicians are the children of the 1979 revolution–that 1979 may have been a revolution, but now Iran is just a regular nation with its own established political dynasties in place.