Posted by Dan Ewert : 6/21/2002 12:14:00 AM (Archive Link)
Just read an article on TheNation.com complaining about the potential or actualized dynasties that are arising in America. The Bush dynasty, for example, or the Gores or the Rockefellers, etc. What I find interesting is that while he’s railing against them, he never does much to demonstrate why they’re such a bad thing. It’s like complaining about shrubbery… it’s just there… I have rather neutral feelings about the venerable shrub. So, tell me, why is it bad? I suppose he tries addressing this point by constantly complaining about the divide between the wealthy and the not-so-wealthy and that money is being transmitted along family lines. Again, what’s the problem? He speaks as if it’s a given that we must agree with the negativity of the trend he’s pointing out. He’s preaching to the choir but I’m just some guy who waddled in and sat down in a pew.

He also has parts that I think are downright funny. Check out this sentence: “The menace of economic and political dynastization is that it flies under the radar of the Americans who grew up believing that the democratic values of World War II and Franklin D. Roosevelt, carried by another leadership generation into the 1960s, would last forever.” Why do I find it so amusing? Well, let’s look at it… FDR (whom the author references relentlessly), you may recall, was the cousin of Theodore Roosevelt. I’d call that a strong enough link for a dynasty. You’ll also note how he coyly avoids applying a name to that “leadership generation” in the 1960’s. The people who carried that torch, of course, were the Kennedy’s, the biggest and greatest political dynasty in modern American history if not all of it. We can also look at the Daley’s in Chicago if we wish, but let’s move on.

He ends his piece thus, “As for economic and political dynastization, the United States is not the first republic to tilt in this direction. Rome did, and in the eighteenth century even the once proudly middle-class Dutch Republic let many of its offices become hereditary. Let's hope Americans do not also allow political and economic inheritance to displace democracy.” It never fails. If somebody wants to give the impression America is on the verge of becoming a totalitarian state, then they bring up allusions to Nazi Germany… Stalinist Russia if you’re lucky. And if they want to give the impression America is on the cusp of utter corruption, then the late Roman Empire is invoked. The first comparison is almost always irresponsible at best and disgustingly insulting at worst and the second comparison is no better. Rome didn’t just tilt in the direction of hereditary office, it flipped over when the Caesars established imperial rule. And while I’m not at all advocating a dictatorship/monarchy, most people don’t realize that Rome flourished and expanded under the Empire. The downside, of course, was a few nutty emperors. Anyway, I get annoyed with a comparison that doesn’t possibly work when critically examined. Ancient Romans are not modern Americans. The Roman Republic is not the American Republic and Roman culture is not American culture. There seems to be this notion that all humanity throughout space and time has been basically the same. While there are certainly many common qualities and characteristics, there’s far too much variation to say we all act the same given certain trends. Pretend that humans are dogs and that different cultures and societies correspond to the different breeds. All dogs share the same basic behaviors but the breeds impart them with varying levels of affection, hostility, protectiveness, etc. It shapes their personalities. So let’s not get Great Danes mixed up with Cocker Spaniels, shall we? (As an aside, did you know that Cocker Spaniels are responsible for 22% of dog-caused human injuries? Who knew? Maybe my sister-in-law, the animal control officer… any comment, Sam?)

Enough of Rome, though, and let’s go back to the quote. Specifically, the last sentence. I don’t know how this phenomenon will manage to replace democracy. Any “dynasty” isn’t perfect. Some fail, some fade away, some are left to children who have no such interests. Some suffer tragedies, e.g. the Kennedy’s (although I’m not including Teddy’s bad driving in this category). The author himself speaks of rampant dynasty building in the early 19th century and again in the early 20th. Since I just voted in the primaries a few months ago, I can only assume that the country managed to preserve democracy without dissolving into a corrupt, totalitarian Roman-Nazi state ruled by a guy called “der Caesar.” The horrible consequences he’s portending don’t seem to have much threat of becoming reality since they haven’t in the past. Also, when he says that he hopes America will not allow the dynasties, explain how we must disallow them? Forbid policians’ relatives from running for office? Have the government take away all family wealth over $1 million when somebody dies? How positively un-American. Poor old FDR would never even have gotten a shot at the White House and then who would the writer have quoted?