Matt Yglesias

37 Responses to “Dynastic Politics”

1. dan Says:
   December 4th, 2008 at 8:40 am

   Not a knock on Beau’s qualifications to be AG, but don’t you think his name probably helped him to get that gig too?

2. Rich in PA Says:
   December 4th, 2008 at 8:43 am

   You’re only incrementally right, Matt. Biden III is attorney general of Delaware in large part because of his dad’s reputation and power–I’ll take the liberty of assuming that. If so, then it’s fair to say that Biden III now has some relevant experience towards the US Senate, but it’s not fair to discount the dynastic aspect.

   This is especially annoying because so many of us take it as the most natural thing in the world that we can’t do some things we might otherwise want to do, because of what someone else in our family does. That’s part of life. But for some reason, too many Democratic politicians’ family members seem immune to this very minimal bit of self-denial in favor of the integrity of the political process.

3. DCreader Says:
   December 4th, 2008 at 9:10 am

   A more important point is that Delaware, with a population of 850,000, does not deserve the same number of U.S. Senators as California, population 36,000,000. If Delaware deserves 2 senators then California deserves 80.

4. El Cid Says:
   December 4th, 2008 at 9:12 am

   But for some reason, too many Democratic politicians’ family members seem immune to this very minimal bit of self-denial in favor of the integrity of the political process.

   Uh huh. “Democrats?” This is the country which had 2 Republican presidents named Bush, and not by coincidence, but by nuclear family?

5. kforceone Says:
   December 4th, 2008 at 9:18 am

   Dan, that was the exact point I was going to make.

   If politics is basketball or business and you do indeed need talent for your team (Delaware or Democrats) to be successful shouldn’t they (Senior Delaware officials) be looking for the best prospect, especially considering two years is a long time? His CoS may be the best prospect but I have a hard time believing that.

   I absolutely love Biden, but I’m a little disappointed in these shenanigans.

   k1

6. glenstein Says:
   December 4th, 2008 at 9:20 am

   Guys, Matt isn’t saying Beau Biden’s name has nothing to do with it, he’s saying that, in spite of this, Beau is actually qualified candidate for the job.

   I think a better way to respond is: yes, while Beau Biden is qualified, his current situation is preceded by some situation where where dynastic forces where this wasn’t the case, which probably allowed him to make the leap over equally (or more) qualified competitors.

   And so, even though Beau is qualified, the here-and-now fact of his being qualified is still problematic, because it is still colored by the corruption of dynastic influence.

7. J Says:
   December 4th, 2008 at 9:20 am

   Let’s not forget, Beau Biden still has to win an election.

8. Dave Weigel Says:
   December 4th, 2008 at 9:23 am

   Moreover, it’s a bit much to compare Kaufman to JFK’s college roommate. Kaufman was Biden’s chief of staff in the Senate for 19 years, a period that included the Bork and Thomas confirmations. Being a congressional CoS is pretty good experience for being in Congress – that’s how Rep. Mark Souder of Indiana got there, and Rep. Phil Hare of Indiana, and a few people I’m forgetting.

9. Dungheap Says:
   December 4th, 2008 at 9:23 am

   I have no problem with the placeholder. In two years Delaware Democrats can decide who is the best prospect to run for the seat rather than having Minner give one of several prospect a leg up through appointment.

   It’s not as though Beau Biden automatically gets the seat in two years. There are plenty of folks in Delaware on both sides of the aisle that have been waiting for Biden to retire. Now they can all fight it out.

10. joe from Lowell Says:
    December 4th, 2008 at 9:26 am

    El Cid,

    I think the point of singling out Democrats is that while the elitist, pseudo-monarchists who ironically call themselves by the nolble old term “republican” should be expected to behave like this, the Democrats should be above it.

11. Rich in PA Says:
    December 4th, 2008 at 9:38 am

    Thanks Joe, that’s exactly my point up in #4. Complaining that Republicans favor inherited wealth and power is like complaining about the weather. Though I will say that if you let Bush and Kennedy cancel each other out, the Democrats seem to be more into the dynastical stuff than Republicans, which is curious.

12. Aaron S. Veenstra Says:
    December 4th, 2008 at 9:40 am

    Is the CW now that Blagojovich must replace Obama with a placeholder so that Illinois voters can choose from the various qualified candidates in two years, but that Minner must replace Biden with a non-placeholder so that Beau Biden can’t run in two years? Aren’t qualified placeholders generally to be preferred to two years of free, appointed incumbency for a long-term candidate?

13. mark f Says:
    December 4th, 2008 at 9:52 am

    Aren’t qualified placeholders generally to be preferred to two years of free, appointed incumbency for a long-term candidate?

    I would even say that that’s the point of having an appointment be subject to the voters at the next election, regardless of the class schedule of the seat.

14. joe from Lowell Says:
    December 4th, 2008 at 9:59 am

    Though I will say that if you let Bush and Kennedy cancel each other out, the Democrats seem to be more into the dynastical stuff than Republicans, which is curious.

    The last time a Kennedy tried to run for anything in Massachusetts, he got laughed on the stage.

15. right Says:
    December 4th, 2008 at 10:16 am

    Mark f, Veenstra, Dungheap, and J have it. There’s no “dynasticism” going on here.

    Minner’s decision just means Delaware voters have an open field in 2010 — it’s up to the voters to decide how much they care about the dynasty aspect. I think it’s good practice for Senate appointments and hope Blagojevich and Paterson do similarly (though I’m not optimistic, particularly in the latter case).

16. alkali Says:
    December 4th, 2008 at 10:43 am

    [T]he Democrats seem to be more into the dynastical stuff than Republicans, which is curious.

    I don’t think it’s a matter of being “into the dynastical stuff” so much as basic economics.

    Speaking very roughly, what you need to run for office is either (A) a small base of rich donors or (B) a large network of low-dollar donors and campaign volunteers. (Or both, if you’re lucky.)

    A lot of successful business people (relatively speaking) satisfy (A): they know a few dozen people they could call upon for money if they were to run for office.

    By contrast, it’s very hard to build a Rolodex that satisfies criterion (B), and if you have one, you’re likely not going to give it to anyone except a family member.

17. TKD Says:
    December 4th, 2008 at 11:36 am

    The people arguing against family connections in politics seem to be people without such connections, which makes me wonder how much of their argument is based on high-minded concern for the most perfectly fair process, and how much is based on direct self-interest.

    There are plenty of examples of people with family connections who failed to win office, or who held a minor office, did poorly, and never got elected again — Maureen Reagan, Franklin Roosevelt Jr., Barry Goldwater Jr., etc. Being an heir has advantages, but also disadvantages. In the end, voters usually figure out whether the person is worthwhile, on their own merits.

18. Lawrence Fechtenberger Says:
    December 4th, 2008 at 12:43 pm

    I am deeply puzzled by Rich in PA’s claim that “so many of us take it as the most natural thing in the world that we can’t do some things we might otherwise want to do, because of what someone else in our family does.” In the context here–of one person possibly taking a job his father held–I would argue that “the most natural thing in the world” is the exact opposite of what Rich identifies. It is extremely common for children to follow in the professions of their parents. I do not think I have ever heard or read of someone being prohibited from becoming a lawyer, or a doctor, or a baker or a furniture dealer or whatever, because that it what one of his parents was.

    In my own case, I note that my mother was a school teacher, as were several of her sisters; all of my sisters are school teachers; one of my nephews is a high school coach (and he has married a teacher); I myself worked a short while as a substitute teacher after college.

    And I note that Matthew Yglesias comes from a family of writers.

    Only in politics does anyone think it unseemly for a person to enter the family business.

19. joe from Lowell Says:
    December 4th, 2008 at 1:22 pm

    Huh? Ted Kennedy got reelected in 2006.

    Ted’s an incumbent, and an extremely experienced and respected one.

    I’m talking about his nephew (Michael was it?) who was dabbling with running for governor a few years ago.

20. joe from Lowell Says:
    December 4th, 2008 at 1:25 pm

    The people arguing against family connections in politics seem to be people without such connections

    Ahem. I’ll have you know that my father was Town Moderator. He would often preside over town meetings involving hundreds of people.

    Not to mention the FinCom appointments. Yeah, that’s right: he got to appoint people to FinCom. THAT FinCom.

21. washerdreyer Says:
    December 4th, 2008 at 6:17 pm

    Moreover, it’s a bit much to compare Kaufman to JFK’s college roommate.

    That’s correct, but I’m not sure it goes far enough, in that it might not be fair to compare JFK’s college roommate to JFK’s college roommate. The Benjamin A. Smith II wikipedia article describes the claim that he was a placeholder for Ted as a critic’s charge, and while it makes sense that’s in fact true, I’m not sure what source people are citing for it.

22. Mike Says:
    December 5th, 2008 at 4:41 am

    Dynasties are just a reality on the ground at the state level, esp. small states. People like familiarity (at least enough people to swing the outcome. It’s human nature. Where it gets dangerous is at the level of a country the size of the U.S.

    Why should a particular family continue to appeal to so many people in such disparate places over time? It shouldn’t, which is why we should be leery of presidential dynasties in a way that individual state electorates aren’t. Not that anyone formally qualified (35, natural-born) shouldn’t run. It’s just the reality is that they will (to varying degrees), and I think should face special skepticism from the broad U.S. electorate who rightfully distrust seeming dynasties that they don’t intimately understand.

    This is a great country.

23. viagra Says:
    March 1st, 2009 at 5:53 am

    viagra
    Great site. Good info

24. cialis Says:
    March 1st, 2009 at 6:50 pm

    cialis
    Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

25. viagra Says:
    March 11th, 2009 at 4:47 am

    Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.

26. tramadol Says:
    March 17th, 2009 at 2:30 am

    It is the coolest site,keep so!
    tramadol

27. cheap viagra Says:
    April 9th, 2009 at 6:37 am

    I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!! viagra