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 »
LOTS OF STRINGERS
Inside the AP’s Election Operation
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
THE QUESTION
What’s the Average Household Income of a Trump Voter?
4 hours ago
THE ANSWER

Seventy-two thousand dollars, according to FiveThirtyEight. That's higher than the national average, as well as the average Clinton or Sanders voter, but lower than the average Kasich voter.

Source:
VERY FEW DEMS NOW REPRESENT MINING COMMUNITIES
How Coal Country Went from Blue to Red
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
STAFF PICKS
History Already Being Less Kind to Hastert’s Leadership
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

In light of his recent confessions, the speakership of Dennis Hastert is being judged far more harshly. The New York Times' Carl Hulse notes that in hindsight, Hastert now "fares poorly" on a number of fronts, from his handling of the Mark Foley page scandal to "an explosion" of earmarks to the weakening of committee chairmen. "Even his namesake Hastert rule—the informal standard that no legislation should be brought to a vote without the support of a majority of the majority — has come to be seen as a structural barrier to compromise."

Source:
‘STARTING FROM ZERO’
Trump Ill Prepared for General Election
9 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Even if "[t]he Republican presidential nomination may be in his sights ... Trump has so far ignored vital preparations needed for a quick and effective transition to the general election. The New York businessman has collected little information about tens of millions of voters he needs to turn out in the fall. He's sent few people to battleground states compared with likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, accumulated little if any research on her, and taken no steps to build a network capable of raising the roughly $1 billion needed to run a modern-day general election campaign."

Source:
×