What Hillary Clinton Gets Wrong About Political Dynasties

Power begets power — not necessarily ambition.

Bill and Hillary Clinton take a break in between campaign stops on February 16, 1992.
National Journal
Emma Roller
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Emma Roller
July 8, 2014, 7:03 p.m.

Hil­lary Clin­ton is an am­bi­val­ent mem­ber of a polit­ic­al dyn­asty — at least when she’s talk­ing to re­port­ers.

In an in­ter­view with the Ger­man news­pa­per Der Spiegel, Clin­ton in­sisted for the ump­teenth time that she hasn’t made up her mind about run­ning for pres­id­ent. But more in­ter­est­ing was this ques­tion posed to Clin­ton, which framed her po­ten­tial run as evid­ence of the quasi-ar­is­to­crat­ic nature of the pres­id­ency [em­phas­is mine]:

SPIEGEL: For the past 25 years, there were two fam­il­ies that were very prom­in­ent in polit­ics, your fam­ily and the Bush fam­ily. First George Bush was pres­id­ent for four years, then your hus­band led the coun­try for eight years, and then George W. Bush was pres­id­ent for eight years. If either you or Jeb Bush were to win the elec­tion in 2016, once again a mem­ber of these two fam­il­ies would be­come pres­id­ent. Will the Amer­ic­an demo­cracy turn in­to a mon­archy?

Clin­ton: We had two Roosevelts. We had two Adams. It may be that cer­tain fam­il­ies just have a sense of com­mit­ment or even a pre­dis­pos­i­tion to want to be in polit­ics. I ran for pres­id­ent, as you re­mem­ber. I lost to some­body named Barack Obama, so I don’t think there is any guar­an­tee in Amer­ic­an polit­ics. My last name did not help me in the end. Our sys­tem is open to every­one. It is not a mon­archy in which I wake up in the morn­ing and ab­dic­ate in fa­vor of my son.

Clin­ton’s right — we do not live in a mon­archy. But it might seem like it, sur­vey­ing the field of pop­u­lar Demo­crats who want to run in 2016 whose ini­tials are not HRC (cue crick­ets).

Which raises the ques­tion: Do dyn­ast­ic fam­il­ies have more of a ge­net­ic com­mit­ment to pub­lic ser­vice, as Clin­ton sug­gests, or is it just the fam­ily busi­ness? Blake Car­ring­ton would nev­er claim to “just have a sense of com­mit­ment or even a pre­dis­pos­i­tion to be­ing an oil ty­coon.”

Still, one re­cent study found that in­her­ited polit­ic­al power is more about nur­ture than nature.

Re­search­ers at Brown Uni­versity found that polit­ic­al power in Con­gress is self-per­petu­at­ing, and that the longer a politi­cian holds of­fice, the more likely he or she is to see re­l­at­ives be­come politi­cians. They found that, from 1789 to 1996, 8.7 per­cent of mem­bers had re­l­at­ives who pre­vi­ously served in Con­gress.

The au­thors of the study con­cede that “un­ob­served fam­ily char­ac­ter­ist­ics” could con­trib­ute to politi­cians’ dyn­ast­ic powers. They also found that chil­dren of politi­cians aren’t ne­ces­sar­ily more likely to be­come mini­ature ver­sions of their par­ents — nor does hav­ing polit­ic­al par­ents give them a pre­dis­pos­i­tion for pub­lic ser­vice. But if these polit­ic­al off­spring do de­cide to go in­to polit­ics, they’ll have a leg up on the com­pet­i­tion:

We find that dyn­ast­ic politi­cians are less likely to start their ca­reer in the House, sug­gest­ing they have the abil­ity or means to enter dir­ectly through the Sen­ate, a much smal­ler and more pres­ti­gi­ous body. This dif­fer­ence can­not be at­trib­uted to a later entry in­to Con­gress: dyn­ast­ic le­gis­lat­ors enter Con­gress at about 44 years of age, just like non-dyn­ast­ic le­gis­lat­ors. Dyn­ast­ic le­gis­lat­ors are not more likely to come from a state dif­fer­ent than the one they rep­res­ent and are sig­ni­fic­antly less likely to have pre­vi­ous pub­lic ex­per­i­ence, al­though they are more likely to have a col­lege de­gree.

Amer­ic­ans gen­er­ally have a love-hate re­la­tion­ship with polit­ic­al dyn­asties — we say we don’t want the same fam­il­ies to con­tin­ue hold­ing of­fice, but as soon as names are named, we flock to their corner. In a re­cent sur­vey on dyn­asties, a ma­jor­ity of re­spond­ents said they hope the Bushes and the Clin­tons of the world don’t dom­in­ate the 2016 pres­id­en­tial race. Iron­ic­ally, most re­spond­ents also re­por­ted fa­vor­able views of the Clin­ton and Bush fam­il­ies.

Lik­ing a polit­ic­al fam­ily is, of course, dif­fer­ent from vot­ing one’s mem­bers in­to of­fice cycle after cycle. But data presents a start­ling dis­con­nect between how voters want demo­cracy to work in the­ory and in prac­tice.

Wheth­er or not hav­ing a house­hold name helps your elec­tion chances, be­long­ing to a polit­ic­al dyn­asty cer­tainly con­veys some priv­ileges that no-name can­did­ates don’t have. Prac­tic­ally, it’s easi­er to raise money and or­gan­ize sup­port­ers as a can­did­ate when you are (or your fam­ily is) a known com­mod­ity, po­ten­tially with a ready-made sup­port net­work already at your ser­vice. And psy­cho­lo­gic­ally, the power of in­cum­bency can­not be un­der­es­tim­ated, as polit­ic­al repu­ta­tions trickle down from pat­ri­arch or mat­ri­arch to fam­ily mem­bers.

Of course, this ef­fect could also back­fire for politi­cians whose names bear neg­at­ive as­so­ci­ations. Jeb Bush pub­licly ac­know­ledged earli­er this year that his name was “an is­sue.” Then again, it ap­pears that time can heal many wounds — George W. Bush is more pop­u­lar today than he was dur­ing his last three years in of­fice.

Are polit­ic­al dyn­asties dif­fer­ent from oth­er types of dyn­asties? In U.S. cul­ture, the first fam­ily takes on de facto roy­alty status in a way that oth­er fam­ily em­pires rarely do — un­less your last name hap­pens to be Kar­dashi­an. But un­like in a mon­archy, what Amer­ica’s roy­alty does with the power con­ferred upon them is com­pletely up to them.

What We're Following See More »
Obama: Michelle Will Never Run for Office
12 minutes ago
North Dakota Pipeline Protests Turn Violent
2 hours ago

The protest over the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline turned violent overnight as the police and National Guard sought to remove the protesters, surrounding them with assault vehicles and officers in riot gear. The law enforcement officers used pepper spray and fired bean bags for more than six hours. In response, the protesters "lit debris on fire and threw Molotov cocktails in retreat." One woman pulled out a gun and fired at officers, narrowly missing before being arrested. The protesters claim the pipeline would be constructed on land belonging to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.

House Leadership Elections Slated for Nov. 15
2 hours ago

The House has scheduled leadership votes for Nov. 15, the day after members return from their election recess. "Since mid-September, members of the House Freedom Caucus have weighed whether they should ask leadership to push back the elections so they can see how House Speaker Paul Ryan performs at the end of the year," but leaders don't seem inclined to grant their request.

Feds Announce Rapid GDP Growth in Q3
2 hours ago

Gross domestic product "expanded at a 2.9% annual clip from July through September. That’s a marked improvement from the first half of the year when the U.S. grew just barely over 1%." The robust numbers make it more likely that the Federal Reserve hikes interest rates at its next meeting.

Oregon Militiamen Found Not Guilty
2 hours ago

"A federal jury on Thursday found Ammon Bundy, his brother Ryan Bundy and five co-defendants not guilty of conspiring to prevent federal employees from doing their jobs through intimidation, threat or force during the 41-day occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The Bundy brothers and occupiers Jeff Banta and David Fry also were found not guilty of having guns in a federal facility." In a strange "coda" to the decision, Bundy's attorney Marcus Mumford was tackled and tasered by marshals in the courtroom as he argued that Bundy should be free to go.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.