Two years ago, our presidential race, in the eyes of
some, was a battle between George II and Albert II. In
George Bush and Al Gore, the nation had a choice between
the sons of two prominent fathers who had been in
politics before them. But dynastic politics is not new
in this country. Consider our second president, John
Adams, and his son John Quincy Adams, who became our
sixth president. Then there was Benjamin Harrison,
president number 23, who was the grandson of our ninth
president, William Harrison. And there were the Tafts of
Ohio, the Browns of California, the Longs of Louisiana,
and perhaps the most dynastic, the Roosevelts and the
Kennedys.
For some, this idea of dynasties rather smacks of
entitlement based on who your people are and not
necessarily on the younger candidate's own record. But
while political dynasties have been with us from almost
the start, critics say that some of the legacy
candidates running for office, including George Bush and
Al Gore, would never have been taken seriously if they
had different last names. And, of course, it is no
guarantee of success, as Andrew Cuomo's failed attempt
at running for governor in New York state recently
showed. This hour, we're going to talk about the many
families that represent political dynasties in the US,
including those who are running in next week's midterm
elections. We'll look at what are the benefits to the
candidate and to the country and what is the downside?
Does your state have a dynastic political family, and
how do you feel about them? Do political dynasties
strengthen democracy or weaken us? Call us with your
comments and questions. Our number here in Washington is
1 (800) 989-8255. That is 1 (800) 989-TALK. The e-mail
address is totn@npr.org.
And with us here in the studio is Stephen Hess, who is
author of "America's Political Dynasties" and a senior
fellow at The Brookings Institution. Welcome...
Listen to the entire interview