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
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 »
DONATING TO FOOD BANKS
Government Buying $20 Million in Cheese
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Thanks to competition from Europe, America's cheese stockpiles are at a 30-year high. Enter the U.S. government, which announced it's buying 11 million pounds of the stuff (about $20 million). The cheese will be donated to food banks.

Source:
BIG CHANGE FROM WHEN HE SELF-FINANCED
Trump Enriching His Businesses with Donor Money
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Donald Trump "nearly quintupled the monthly rent his presidential campaign pays for its headquarters at Trump Tower to $169,758 in July, when he was raising funds from donors, compared with March, when he was self-funding his campaign." A campaign spokesman "said the increased office space was needed to accommodate an anticipated increase in employees," but the campaign's paid staff has actually dipped by about 25 since March. The campaign has also paid his golf courses and restaurants about $260,000 since mid-May.

Source:
QUESTIONS OVER IMMIGRATION POLICY
Trump Cancels Rallies
1 days ago
THE LATEST

Donald Trump probably isn't taking seriously John Oliver's suggestion that he quit the race. But he has canceled or rescheduled rallies amid questions over his stance on immigration. Trump rescheduled a speech on the topic that he was set to give later this week. Plus, he's also nixed planned rallies in Oregon and Las Vegas this month.

Source:
‘STRATEGY AND MESSAGING’
Sean Hannity Is Also Advising Trump
2 days ago
THE LATEST

Donald Trump's Fox News brain trust keeps growing. After it was revealed that former Fox chief Roger Ailes is informally advising Trump on debate preparation, host Sean Hannity admitted over the weekend that he's also advising Trump on "strategy and messaging." He told the New York Times: “I’m not hiding the fact that I want Donald Trump to be the next president of the United States. I never claimed to be a journalist.”

Source:
THE SHAKE-UP CONTINUES
RNC’s Spicer to Work from Trump HQ
2 days ago
THE LATEST

"Donald Trump's campaign and the Republican party will coordinate more closely going forward, with the GOP's top communicator and chief strategist Sean Spicer increasingly working out of Trump campaign headquarters, the campaign confirmed Sunday."

Source:
×