In Further Defense of Political Dynasty

When the chatter heads in Washington are uptight about something, you can usually bet it’s good.

The recent brouhaha amongst the political class was sparked by a Washington Post column trollishly titled “In Defense of Political Dynasties.” Written by George Washington University professor Matthew Dalek, the piece purposefully employs a kind of shock therapy to turn all the DCites into raging balls of fury. Dalek gives us the truth: America is home to a number of political dynasties. Talk of equality and opportunity don’t negate our history. Since the Adams father and son held the highest office in the land, we’ve had ancestral lines playing a significant role in politics. And here’s the kicker: a lineage-based ruling class is not a bad thing. “Dynastic experience brings wisdom and governing sophistication to an unwieldy democracy that badly needs them,” Dalek writes. “Noblesse oblige can serve the national interest.”

How does he figure?

The American story, we’re told, is a nation built upon meritocracy and rule by the people. Thomas Paine’s radical individualism is infused in the country’s genetic code. Americans see themselves as both together and separate; members of two worlds essentially. We romanticize the idea of a pauper turned president. We look fondly upon humble beginnings and the opportunity to rise from nothing and take the oath of office. The country sees hard work as the great stepping stone to success and achievement. And we lionize those who use their personal abilities to get ahead.

That narrative sounds good on paper (and makes for good cinema as well). But it’s hardly how political systems operate, including America’s uniquely democratic republic. Horse-trading is how politics is accomplished. Rarely does consequential policy become reality based on its merits. Rather, laws are a mix of compromise and finagling. Only certain individuals can excel at the balance. And they aren’t always upstanding citizens.

That’s where the political division of labor comes in. The occupation of public servant (though it feels like “master” nowadays) is just another form of specialization. It’s a skill; and one that only the most dubious individuals can learn. The worst get on top, as Hayek said.

That brings us to the benefits of dynastic public office. The notion of a presidential bloodline does sound nettlesome to American ears. But it’s not necessarily a bad thing. Contrary to Thomas Jefferson who once wrote, “the boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave,” there are benefits to political stability. Democracy is naturally short-sighted. Pols moving in and out of public office have little incentive to push for long-term measures. They’re in the get-rich-quick game, except they pocket the public dime.

That’s why it’s important to have incentives that diminish myopic thinking. Here’s where dynasties come in. Similar to monarchy, a family name in politics ensures a degree of temperance while in the seat of power. A political leader doesn’t want to spoil the opportunity for his progeny. His governing style will tend to reflect a future vision.

In his classic work Democracy: The God that Failed, libertarian theorist and economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe controversially defended the idea of hereditary dominance within the state. Monarchy, Hoppe contends, is similar to private property, in that the crown maintains control of the kingdom. There is an inborn incentive for maintaining its capital value – similar to the passing of an estate to heirs.

A public government, on the other hand, does not come with the same built-in motivators. As Hoppe writes, “the control over the government apparatus lies in the hands of a trustee, or caretaker. The caretaker may use the apparatus to his personal advantage, but he does not own it.” Democratically-elected politicians have every motive to rob the joint and abandon ship. Good governance comes second to pocketing pork. Government “of the people, by the people, for the people” sounds nice, but it often fails the test of keeping the books balanced.

In America, there is also the issue of competency in holding office. Even as a libertarian, I’m willing to admit being president is not a job for the faint of heart. The role of commander-in-chief carries with it an obscene amount of stress. It’s not meant for everybody – high school civics fantasizing notwithstanding. The truth is that many of us would buckle under the weight of national responsibility. Few men make for great leaders. And even fewer can lead while juggling an infinite number of responsibilities.

The American presidency, for better or worse, is an institution responsible for policing the world. In many ways, the president is the figurehead for societal order both domestic and abroad. He’s not called “leader of the free world” for nothing. Hence, someone of certain rectitude should hold the position.

A counter-argument should be mentioned. The idea of long-term thinking working its way across political dynasties makes sense logically. But how does it hold up against real life instances? President George H.W. Bush raised taxes and subsequently lost reelection. He betrayed basic conservative principles, and didn’t exactly shine a great light on his son who ran for the same office 8 years later. The same bad judgement followed W. Bush who led the failed war in Iraq and left office amidst economic collapse. Brother Jeb is now embroiled in a fight to both divorce his name from the legacy of his kin, while also leveraging the famosity of his surname to make it to the Oval Office. The balance is becoming tougher as time goes on.

The same can be said of Mrs. Hillary Clinton. While her husband is still fairly popular with the electorate, scandal is synonymous with the family. Bill did his best to leave his wife with the best possible chance back to the White House. Sordid misdeeds may prove fatal to her nascent 2016 campaign, however.

All of that goes to show that while meritocracy is a firmly American ideal, politics often subverts it in the form of favoritism and connections. And though dynasties make sense when it comes to having someone competent steering the nation’s proverbial wheel, humanity’s penchant for mistakes doesn’t disappear once in the throne. Accidents happen. Nobody can’t predict the future. At best, political figures stumble along in the hope that their actions make a lasting difference. Just maybe they leave a legacy their children can enjoy, or even continue in their place.