| Get Jonathan Bernstein's newsletter every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. Among the flaws of U.S. democracy that Donald Trump's presidency has exposed is the strength of dynastic politics. To the extent that family connections are an important qualification for office and everyone else has to fight over the leftovers, the republic isn't as healthy as it could be. The good news? Dynastic politics, always an issue in the U.S. from the days of John Quincy Adams, seems to be gradually receding. The bad news, as Trump has shown, is that it remains a powerful force. I'll start with the presidential election. If we look at both the Democratic and Republican tickets (that is, presidential candidates and running mates), 2020 was the first election without a legacy candidate since 2008, defining "legacy" as anyone with a close relative who preceded them into elective politics or who was a high party official. (And 2008 is a borderline case, since John McCain's father and grandfather were both fairly high-profile admirals.) At any rate, before that contest, the last legacy-free election was in 1948, and before that Franklin Roosevelt had been on the ballot in five of the previous seven elections. Not all of these legacy candidates came from major dynasties like the Kennedys or the Bushes; Jimmy Carter's father served briefly in the Georgia legislature and Hubert Humphrey's was a small-town mayor. But still, it's unusual to have an election without legacy candidates. And President-elect Joe Biden's administration will be the third in a row without one — the first time that's happened in more than a century, as far as I can tell. Of course, political dynasties are hardly dead. There's a Cuomo as New York governor, just like his father; there's a Cheney in House leadership, just like her father. The speaker of the House is the daughter of a Baltimore mayor. Still, there will be no Kennedy in the next Congress. The Rockefeller family seems to have mostly faded out. The last Udall is gone from the legislature. And there's some academic work that suggests dynasties have slowly been fading from higher office. (Although the definitions are tricky: Washington Senator Maria Cantwell's father was a state legislator and held other political positions in Indiana. Does she count as a dynastic politician? It depends on what we're interested in.) At any rate, since I last wrote about this topic some 10 years ago, I decided to compare the incoming 117th Senate with the 112th Senate, which began in 2011. Using a broad definition, I counted 22 legacy senators back then, compared to either 14 or 15 in the new Senate, depending on whether Georgia Senator David Perdue wins re-election. Of the current group, I'd say only about eight (or nine) were the kind of politicians we typically think of as dynastic, including senators such as Bob Casey Jr., Rand Paul, Mitt Romney, and Shelley Moore Capito, all of whom had parents who were governors of the states they represent or presidential candidates. That may still be too many. And with Trump's daughter, son and daughter-in-law all reportedly considering runs for office of their own, it's clear that dynastic politics still has a certain appeal. My sense, however, is that we're seeing fewer legacy candidates over time. And if so, that's a good thing. 1. Sarah Binder on why the relief and stimulus deal happened. 2. Derek Muller argues that the House should dismiss the effort of Democratic candidate Rita Hart to overturn the election in Iowa's second district. 3. Rex Briggs on false accusations of fraud in Nevada. 4. Greg Sargent on the timeline of the stimulus deal. 5. Matt Yglesias on the Biden economy. 6. And a fun one from the team at the Cook Political Report about the 2020 elections. Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. Also subscribe to Bloomberg All Access and get much, much more. You'll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close. | 
Post a Comment