American Dynasties-Real and Imagined

[Michael E Johnson]

The Bush presidency is disturbing on many levels but one of the most disturbing aspects of it is rarely mentioned- the fact that in a nation of nearly 300 million people the current president is the son of the man who was president only 12 years ago To me this really puts to rest the notion that America is a classless society and honestly its kind of surprising this "incestual" presidential tradition hasnt happened more often.

The Real examples.

John Adams (F) 1797-1801
John Quincy Adams (NR) 1825-1829


William Henry Harrison (W) 1841
Benjamin Harrison (R) 1893-1897


Theodore Roosevelt (R) 1901-1909
Franklin Roosevelt (D) 1933-1945


George HW Bush (R) 1989-1993
George W Bush (R) 2001-2005-hopefuly


But here are the Imagined examples-how and in which sort of tl's did they happen? What were the accomplishments and failures of the presidents who had presidential relations?


Abraham Lincoln (R) 1861-1865
Robert Lincoln (R) 1893-1901


Harry Truman (D) 1945-1953
Margaret Truman (D) 1973-1981



John F Kennedy (D) 1961-1963
Robert F Kennedy (D) 1969-1977
Theodore Kennedy (D) 1985-1993



Dwight Eisenhower (R) 1953-1961
Richard Nixon (R) 1969-1977
Julie Nixon-Eisenhower (R) 1997-



Jimmy Carter (D) 1977-1985
Rosalyn Carter (D) 1993-2001


Ronald Reagan (R) 1981-1985
Ron Reagan Jr (D) 1997-2001


Any I Missed ?

[zoomar]

How about Clinton (Bill) and Clinton (Hillary)?

Gores (senator father and son - almost president?)

There are also other Roosevelts which could be added, such as Theodore Jr, Elanore, etc (but of course the Roosevelts are actually two fairly distinct families)

And how about the Rockefellers (none ever became President, but several could have and still could)

[Dave Howery]

I think you find it disturbing only because the Bushes are Republicans. In any event, such 'dynasties' among US presidents are rare. Is it all that unique among democracies? IIRC, India had two in a row that were related (mother/son?).... any other cases in other democracies?

[NapoleonXIV]

Its disturbing only in the sense that dynasties of actors/actresses are disturbing. IE it indicates that neither one of these professions are all that hard to do but can be accomplished readily by anyone, so who gets the brass rings here really is just a matter of luck and/or connections.

OTOH the Gores, whom you mention, might be a good argument against that. As a political dynasty they go all the way back to the 1840's I believe,( but I forget who was the first). They have never had a President, however.

Does anyone know of any dynasty/family that is still prominent that goes back to the Founding Fathers?

[zoomar]

Originally Posted by NapoleonXIV

Its disturbing only in the sense that dynasties of actors/actresses are disturbing. IE it indicates that neither one of these professions are all that hard to do but can be accomplished readily by anyone, so who gets the brass rings here really is just a matter of luck and/or connections.

OTOH the Gores, whom you mention, might be a good argument against that. As a political dynasty they go all the way back to the 1840's I believe,( but I forget who was the first). They have never had a President, however.

Does anyone know of any dynasty/family that is still prominent that goes back to the Founding Fathers?

Alhtough I basically agree with you, the point about just "luck or connections" is perhaps a bit disingenous. I suspect one of Michael's points is that all those people are rich, powerful, white, families....So I'll add others...The Jacksons and Kings represent developing dynasties of a sort in the Democratic party (Jackson) and Civil Rights (King)movements.

[Beck Reilly]

Originally Posted by Michael E Johnson

John F Kennedy (D) 1961-1963
Robert F Kennedy (D) 1969-1977
Theodore Kennedy (D) 1985-1993

Who is "Theodore Kennedy"?

Do you mean Edward Kennedy, the Senator from Massachusetts?

[David S Poepoe]

Why don't you mention Joseph Kennedy Sr.? He's the founder of the "Kennedy Dynasty" and his children were his pawns. Also I would look at the Adams alot more closely I think you missed two or three. There was Charles Adams who was US Minister to Britain during the Civil War.

The Rockefellers may qualify, at least via Nelson Rockefeller.

Of course there is Sonny Bono also and the Dalys of Chicago.

[Nicole]

I'm guessing he meant Ted Kennedy, whose first name is actuall Edward :P And wasnt Ted involved in some sort of incident where there was a death involved? That makes it unlikely he could get a presidency...

[Aedh Rua]

Originally Posted by Dave Howery

I think you find it disturbing only because the Bushes are Republicans. In any event, such 'dynasties' among US presidents are rare. Is it all that unique among democracies? IIRC, India had two in a row that were related (mother/son?).... any other cases in other democracies?

Hmmm, not sure you can say all or even most presidential dynasties were Republican. The Kennedys certainly aren't, nor were the Adamses, and both the Roosevelts and Harrisons had more than one party. I suspect that the Clintons are tending that way, and they are anything but Republicans. The Bushes are just more visible now, because Dubya happens to be the current President.

Given forty-some presidents, I'm not sure that five dynasties with two Presidents each are exactly rare. That's above 10%. And it doesn't count those Presidents who had children, relatives, or descendents who were major political figures, but not Presidential contenders. In that case, we would have to add at least the Tafts and Stevensons, among others.

In short, this is a very significant statistical fact, and it goes back to the founding of the Republic. It really does indicate that much of American rags to riches mythology is highly questionable, along with the notion of "government by and for the people".

A number of Europeans I know have commented on the fact that European nations often have titled nobilities that have lost most or all of their wealth and power, but America has an untitled nobility, who have no formal privileges, but as much or more informal power than most European nobilities. Just look at Bush and Kerry: they went to the same school, were members of the same fraternity, at the same time, and have been colleagues, rivals, and members of the same social circles for about twenty years. They are members of the same interest groups and social clubs.

America is ruled by a real aristocracy with no legal privileges but as much as informal power as, say, the patricians of ancient Rome. For the most part, American elections for the highest offices consist of choosing among representatives of different schools of opinion within that aristocracy. To be sure, the American aristocracy is better about accepting talented newcomers into their ranks than most, and has done a good job of running the country, for the most part. But that it exists is undeniable, as is the fallacy of much, though not all, of America's "Land of Opportunity" mythology.

[zoomar]

Aedh, I beg to differ somewhat. True, a certain degree of wealth and influence is necessary to be elected to governmental leadership - as well as unfortunately a certian complexion - but I'd call the Bush-Kerry thing atypical of the last 50 years or so. I don't believe Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Truman, or Carter came from the moneyed elite class. As you yourself stated the American "aristocracy" is remarkably open and I have a hard time believing that the elected leadership of most other democratic nations are not also fairly affluent people who had a number of advantages which got them in position to become national leaders. I'd suspect that the "leadership class" of most nations reflects a small percentage of the most educated, most gifted, and most influential families.

[Leo Caesius]

Originally Posted by Imajin

I'm guessing he meant Ted Kennedy, whose first name is actuall Edward :P And wasnt Ted involved in some sort of incident where there was a death involved? That makes it unlikely he could get a presidency...

Yep, he was driving to his hotel in Edgartown with one of his staffers in the car (an attractive young woman by the name of Mary Jo Kopechne) and he crashed into a pond near Chappaquiddick, MA. Apparently he walked (and swam) back to his hotel, and phoned the police in the morning. Questions abound about the whole incident (Was Kennedy drunk? Why did he wait until the morning?).

Kennedy also suffers from a rare disorder known as John Travolta's Disease, which has caused his head to expand to the size of a Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade balloon. It's not pretty.

[Leo Caesius]

It's a little known fact that Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon were distant cousins.
James Madison and Zachary Taylor were second cousins.
Clinton was apparently related to Andrew Jackson on his mother's side.

[Michael E Johnson]

Originally Posted by Beck Reilly

Who is "Theodore Kennedy"?

Do you mean Edward Kennedy, the Senator from Massachusetts?

Yes Imeant Edward-once I realized it was too late to correct. I had listed Jacqueline B Kennedy there first.

[Michael E Johnson]

Originally Posted by Aedh Rua

Hmmm, not sure you can say all or even most presidential dynasties were Republican. The Kennedys certainly aren't, nor were the Adamses, and both the Roosevelts and Harrisons had more than one party. I suspect that the Clintons are tending that way, and they are anything but Republicans. The Bushes are just more visible now, because Dubya happens to be the current President.

Given forty-some presidents, I'm not sure that five dynasties with two Presidents each are exactly rare. That's above 10%. And it doesn't count those Presidents who had children, relatives, or descendents who were major political figures, but not Presidential contenders. In that case, we would have to add at least the Tafts and Stevensons, among others.

In short, this is a very significant statistical fact, and it goes back to the founding of the Republic. It really does indicate that much of American rags to riches mythology is highly questionable, along with the notion of "government by and for the people".

A number of Europeans I know have commented on the fact that European nations often have titled nobilities that have lost most or all of their wealth and power, but America has an untitled nobility, who have no formal privileges, but as much or more informal power than most European nobilities. Just look at Bush and Kerry: they went to the same school, were members of the same fraternity, at the same time, and have been colleagues, rivals, and members of the same social circles for about twenty years. They are members of the same interest groups and social clubs.

America is ruled by a real aristocracy with no legal privileges but as much as informal power as, say, the patricians of ancient Rome. For the most part, American elections for the highest offices consist of choosing among representatives of different schools of opinion within that aristocracy. To be sure, the American aristocracy is better about accepting talented newcomers into their ranks than most, and has done a good job of running the country, for the most part. But that it exists is undeniable, as is the fallacy of much, though not all, of America's "Land of Opportunity" mythology.

I couldnt agree with you more. It's really maddening how blind most Americans are to this particular reality.One of the few things thats even more outrageous is the notion that the land of opportunity always provides a "level playing field" for all citizens despite race,sex,income etc.The reality is that the original American affirmative action program ( ie white skin preference)is alive and well in the presidency,congress,judicial branch,coporations,churches ,professional and college sports coaching,hollywood,neighorhoods,schools etc etc etc. Even the most intergrated institution in the US-the military-still has a long way to go.The "patriots" amongest us however can always be counted upon to belittle and /or ignore anything- like these two uncomfortable realities- that makes America look less like the disingenious "city on the hill" image that Ronald Reagan loved to talk about.

[Dave Howery]

it's amazing how fast this went from a discussion of political dynasties to "whites are bad"....

[Michael E Johnson]

But here are the Imagined examples-how and in which sort of tl's did they happen? What were the accomplishments and failures of the presidents who had presidential relations?


Abraham Lincoln (R) 1861-1865
Robert Lincoln (R) 1893-1901


Harry Truman (D) 1945-1953
Margaret Truman (D) 1973-1981



John F Kennedy (D) 1961-1963
Robert F Kennedy (D) 1969-1977
Edward Kennedy (D) 1985-1993



Dwight Eisenhower (R) 1953-1961
Richard Nixon (R) 1969-1977
Julie Nixon-Eisenhower (R) 1997-



Jimmy Carter (D) 1977-1985
Rosalyn Carter (D) 1993-2001


Ronald Reagan (R) 1981-1985
Ron Reagan Jr (D) 1997-2001


Any I Missed ?[/QUOTE]


any ideas about these alternate presidents-including who else was elected before and after them?

[Straha]

now now MEJ this coutnry isn't so racist I mean clinton,carter and harding were black and they got elected.