NationStates Jolt Archive

In the US, after the Kennedy family, we have Bush sr. and Bush jr., Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
In France, the Sarko-Cécilia affaire and the Hollande-Royal affaire (Hollande-leader of the PS, his wife Royal PS candidate to the Presidency).
On a smaller scale, in Italy, Enrico Letta has succeeded his uncle Gianni Letta as Under-Secretary to the Presidency of the Ministers' Council (Gianni held the same position under the Berlusconi cabinet, while Enrico works for Prodi).
Now, after the Peron family saga, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner is going to become the next President of Argentina while her husband Nestor Kirchner is the current President.

Is it a general trend of families turning into dinasties? What do you think?

In the US, after the Kennedy family, we have Bush sr. and Bush jr., Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
In France, the Sarko-Cécilia affaire and the Hollande-Royal affaire (Hollande-leader of the PS, his wife Royal PS candidate to the Presidency).
On a smaller scale, in Italy, Enrico Letta has succeeded his uncle Gianni Letta as Under-Secretary to the Presidency of the Ministers' Council (Gianni held the same position under the Berlusconi cabinet, while Enrico works for Prodi).
Now, after the Peron family saga, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner is going to become the next President of Argentina while her husband Nestor Kirchner is the current President.

Is it a general trend of families turning into dinasties? What do you think?
Well, most families are kind of dynasties -- inherently -- whether the family business is politics or plumbing fixtures. Except for exceptions like my family, in which one member going into a business pretty much guarantees that no other member of the family would be caught dead going into the same business.

I'm not sure how I feel about political families. If talents are partially genetic, and a talent for politics runs in a family, I suppose it is to be expected that you'll get a family full of politicians. Whether this is good or bad depends entirely on the people in the family, doesn't it? I guess that alone is enough to make me suspicious of them. I confess I find the Kennedys, the Clintons and the Bushes all distasteful and disturbing to my American sensibilities. I only oppose the views/actions of the Bushes, but I do wish the Kennedys and the Clintons would take a break once in while because they creep me out.

(Though do the Clintons really count? I mean, Hillary is only a Clinton by marriage, after all. How many blood Clintons or Rodhams have been in politics, I wonder?)

Is it a general trend of families turning into dinasties? What do you think?
In my country, family dynasties are the norm. You'd rarely win an election unless you are well-connected to political family. And it sucks, really.

(Though do the Clintons really count? I mean, Hillary is only a Clinton by marriage, after all. How many blood Clintons or Rodhams have been in politics, I wonder?)

I was thinking of families including not only blood relationships, but also marriages.

I was thinking of families including not only blood relationships, but also marriages.
Because marriage is a good way to get into the political scene. You'd be associated or at the very least, get known, via your political spouse.

I was thinking of families including not only blood relationships, but also marriages.
OK, but still. How many Clintons have been in politics, I wonder. I'm not sure that two amounts to a dynasty. We'll have to see what business Chelsea goes into. Not like those Kennedys and Bushes, who have been in the game for nearly a century.

OK, but still. How many Clintons have been in politics, I wonder. I'm not sure that two amounts to a dynasty. We'll have to see what business Chelsea goes into. Not like those Kennedys and Bushes, who have been in the game for nearly a century.

Ok, the Clintons are yet on a smaller scale if compared with the Shrubs and the Kennedys. Anyway, we can see a trend here, can't we?

I blame Pitt the Elder

Ok, the Clintons are yet on a smaller scale if compared with the Shrubs and the Kennedys. Anyway, we can see a trend here, can't we?
Well, as I said at first, it is the general trend of families in keeping with their nature. Since families tend to form dynasties (whether great or small), it is no surprise that families with a political bent, would tend to form political dynasties. Indeed, family dynasties in politics have been the norm for most of history, so this "trend" is hardly new.

What we may be seeing is a resurgence of the old tradition against the (historically) recent trend of politics away from dynasties (since the Age of Enlightenment and the social changes of the Industrial Revolution).

I am not sure that is actually happening. What I mean is, I am not sure there really was an interruption in the tradition of political dynasties, as opposed to merely an additional influx of politicians from non-dynasty families as well as a lot of theory and philosophy denouncing dynasties (as revolutionary theory typically does).

So, are we seeing a new trend towards dynasties, or are we seeing the birth of new dynasties, but in keeping with an old way of doing things?

Also, I wonder just how new some of these dynasties are. I recommend The Cousins War by Keven Phillips for some intriguing information about just how long the same names can keep popping up in history (pretty thick reading and that's not really the main point of the book). Also, there's a new book -- sorry, forgot the title atm; I'm waiting for my mom to finish reading it so I can borrow her copy -- that is about a rather odd and very, very old American belief concerning our political involvement in the Middle East, which mentions the Bush family being involved in US mid-east policy-making way, way before the birth of either Bush I or Bush II.