Political Dynasties in the United States

While it is true that the United States, unlike many Latin American countries, does not suffer from nepotism, it does, nonetheless, suffer from the burden of political dynasties. In fact, with the launch of Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign, the dynasty he represents (which sides with the Republicans) could effectively end up competing with the Clinton dynasty, given that Hillary Clinton appears to be the overwhelming favorite within the Democratic Party.

If this occurs, it would contradict one of the most well-known and wise reflections by Thomas Jefferson, when, in a historic letter sent to George Washington in 1786, he claimed, “[A] hereditary aristocracy … will change the form of our governments from the best to the worst in the world.”

It would be helpful to provide the reasons for this dynastic phenomenon in U.S. politics. First, there is the unjustified belief that an individual from a politically privileged background is better equipped than someone who is new to the scene.

A second reason could be voter apathy, an important factor in U.S. politics. Only 36.4 percent of eligible voters participated in the 2014 midterm elections, a clear sign of political apathy. To this [reason], one must add the general lack of political knowledge among citizens. Only 23 percent of Americans regularly read the news, and only 28 percent of them read a book once a year.

It is worth emphasizing that some dynasties, such as the Roosevelt and the Kennedy dynasties, made significant contributions to the country. But there are also cases in which such dynasties made few to no contributions to political thought in the United States, as was the case with the Adams and the Harrisons.

Despite all this, these families keep generating enormous interest among American voters. In part, this is because last names, like brand names, quickly define political visions and respective creeds, simplifying on a theoretical level the work that voters must perform to make their choices.

Dynasties also exist in different U.S. states, such as the Nunns and the Perdues in Georgia, the Pryors in Arkansas, and the Landrieus in Louisiana, among others. Family elitism seems to have invaded even the most diverse levels of the American political landscape, which makes it difficult for new candidates to climb onto the political stage.

It is necessary to point out a major difference between nepotism and political dynasties. In the United States, dynastic candidates slowly acquire experience and wisdom through their appointments to diverse public and political posts. They submit to popular will, and this will, in turn, accepts or rejects them. It is a phenomenon that differs greatly from the discreetness with which many of the leaders of our region operate. In Latin America, the political appointment of relatives to public office is a very common practice. Many of these relatives lack even a minimum level of experience and yet are appointed to key executive posts. Others pop up all of a sudden as the frontrunners to electoral offices, without having ever shown whether they have the ability to do the job.

On the other hand, it doesn’t occur to anyone that some people in the United States, by virtue of having a famous last name, can aspire to appointments far beyond what their character and individual abilities would allow them to accept.