More than 400 years after Shakespeare wrote “Romeo and Juliet,” a rose’s name still matters. At least in America.
In the land of egalitarianism and equality, of “best person for the job” and “judged by the content of their character,” an aristocracy still perseveres. I am not talking about the economic aristocracy — that has been long established and at least accepted, if not exactly lauded. Personal wealth is viewed as a private matter, and most people are afraid to mess too much with the system of inheritance; they all envision passing a family fortune on to their children.
But there is a more public aristocracy, one involving government. The original plan for America, of course, involved shedding the British model of inherited political power for a more merit-based system: at the time, the best man for the job. As the last two elections show, aristocratic notions don’t crumble so easily — even after more than 200 years of elected government.
Our president? The son of a president. His 2000 opponent? The son of a senator.
Of the nine newly elected senators in 2002 (not including Frank Lautenberg), Arkansas elected the son of a senator (Mark Pryor), North Carolina elected the wife of a senator (Elizabeth Dole) and New Hampshire elected the son of a president’s chief of staff (John Sununu Jr.).
Re-elected incumbents include the nephew of a vice president (Jay Rockefeller), the brother of a congressman (Carl Levin) and the cousin of two congressmen (Gordon Smith, a member of the Udall family).
This is nothing new in the Senate. It already boasts Ted Kennedy (brother of a president). And Jon Kyl (son of a congressman). And Evan Bayh, and Lincoln Chafee and Chris Dodd (all sons of senators). And who could forget the wife (likely in name only) of our most recent two-term president?
Florida elected as governor the brother of a sitting president. Maryland rejected the daughter of a senator and attorney general and the niece of president — taken by some to symbolize the end of such name-impact on voters — but this supposed movement did not stop her cousin from getting re-elected to Congress from Rhode Island.
TV analysts spent hours during the campaigns talking about the disproportionate incumbent advantage that harms the democratic process, but the gift of a political name is even more advantageous.
The rule is this: As long as you do not refuse to run on your family’s name (like Kennedy Townsend) or fail to get your own family’s endorsement or party label (like unsuccessful Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate Ed Thompson, brother of Tommy), you will not lose if you run for an office up to the level of your political relative.
In short, this country’s government continues to run much the same way as mom-and-pop stores, country farms and the Mafia — the power stays in the family.
Perhaps Don Corleone put it best in “The Godfather,” talking to his son: “I work my whole life to take care of my family … dancing on the string held by all those big shots … I thought that, when it was your time, you would be the one to hold that string. Senator Corleone. Governor Corleone …”
Michael Corleone was not going to have to work for these titles; the Don was going to make certain they would be bestowed upon him. It’s even easier for politicians; they don’t have to dance on the big shots’ string, but merely hand control of it to their relatives.
Parents and relatives naturally want what’s best for their children — or, as is more often the case, what is best for the pride of those parents and relatives. Unfortunately, this pride is not what is best for the nation.
While George Bush Sr. handing the reins to his sons, Bill Clinton to his wife and Joe Kennedy to his three sons and the three grandchildren who managed not to mess up their lives too seriously might make these patriarchs proud, it doesn’t produce the kind of representation the framers had in mind.
Our government still has its Ben Franklins, its representatives who have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. It has a lot of them. But they don’t win against candidates with name recognition.
Sen. John McCain was a self-made man, a war hero and a political moderate; he lost in the 2000 Republican primary to the son of a president. Kevin Vigilante was a self-made man, a doctor who served the underprivileged worldwide and a political moderate; he lost in the 1994 Rhode Island congressional election to a 28-year-old kid three years out of college whose name happened to be Kennedy.
The 2002 elections show we are still a nation with values closer to feudalism than meritocracy, closer to the loyalists than the American revolutionaries. We still cherish heritage over accomplishment, the well known over the deserving and putting trust in a name over putting trust in a résumé.
A rose by other any other name might smell as sweet. But not a Bush. Or a Kennedy. Or a Clinton. Or a Dole. Until voters realize this, the “family business” of politics will continue.
Matt Lynch ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in English and political science.
