Presidents of a feather stick together

[dps]

Nearly all of my ancestral lines go quiet once they get back to Europe or maybe one generation prior to that.  I suspect the reason is related to church records being destroyed, yes.  For example, my direct paternal line originates from Bad Kreuznach in the Rhineland-Palatinate, and the French decided to completely destroy the town in like 1698 or something as my ancestors were fleeing it.

My mom has a cousin who traced my grandmother's family line back to England.  He managed to get back to the mid-15th century IIRC but was stymied from going any further back by the fact that the most distant ancestor he managed to find was apparantly also the first person the family to use a surname (Pleasants), which was derived from the town in France in which either he or his parents had lived before moving to England.  Commoners back before then simply didn't usually have family names.

[Slargos]

I am a bit surprised this does not happen in other countries frankly.  Somebody raised in a political family who knows whats what and so forth has a big advantage in so many ways.  Why is it peculiar they would pop up from time to time?

Well it's not time to time.  You add in the Bushes and, arguably the Clintons, and all of those families have had someone in relatively high office in the last 20 years.  If you look at the Presidency I think 2008's the first election since the 70s without a Bush, Clinton or Dole somewhere on the ticket; and even then we almost had a Clinton.

I mean obviously we have a monarchy and some hereditary peers so there's no judgement.  But the democratic part of our system doesn't have many dynasties.  I can think of the Churchills and the Benns, arguably Morrison-Mandelson - but you could be right it could be something unusual about our system that we don't have these families.  Off the top of my head I know the Greeks, Indians, Irish, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Japanese have them too.  I don't know about other countries.

During the 20th century, social democrats in Sweden were more or less groomed for the position of prime minister and it's not, I think, entirely unfair to talk about a political dynasty where successors are more or less hand picked far from any public purview.

So at risk of sounding too the more social structures change, the more they stay the same.

[Norgy]

Norway definitely has dynasties. The Labour Party and to a degree the Conservatives are family businesses.

Career politicians marry each others, their children go through youth organisations etc, etc. The main difference now and 20 years ago is that politics is far less attractive as a career path than corporate business, so after a quick rise to fame, the younger generation is ushered into careers as advisors in "communication".

[Razgovory]

Clinton didn't come from a political family, it's hard to call his wife running a part of a dynasty as she's not actually related to him.  Bob Dole didn't come from a political family either, his wife ran for office, but again she's not descended from him.  Al Gore and George W. Bush are scions of politicians.  John McCain's father was a respected military man, but not a political guy.

[Slargos]

I guess what I'm getting at is whether any democracy in the true sense of the word is possible? Whether the rulers are called monarchs, presidents, dictators or comrades, there still remains the more or less permanent upper class, nobility or core political cadre from which persons of power are drawn. And while the amount of freedoms a commoner enjoys differs between the systems in the end he's nothing but chattel for the elite.

[Sheilbh]

Norway definitely has dynasties. The Labour Party and to a degree the Conservatives are family businesses.

Career politicians marry each others, their children go through youth organisations etc, etc. The main difference now and 20 years ago is that politics is far less attractive as a career path than corporate business, so after a quick rise to fame, the younger generation is ushered into careers as advisors in "communication".

To be fair there are two brothers in the Labour party - the Milibands and the Cooper-Balls axis.  So maybe it's on the increase here too

[Valmy]

Well it's not time to time.  You add in the Bushes and, arguably the Clintons, and all of those families have had someone in relatively high office in the last 20 years.  If you look at the Presidency I think 2008's the first election since the 70s without a Bush, Clinton or Dole somewhere on the ticket; and even then we almost had a Clinton.

There are two Bushes, one Dole, and one Clinton.  That is hardly a 40 year run of constant dynastic politics.

Of course, even with the Connecticut Texan Bushes around I do not see this dynamic in Texas at all except in that one singular case.  I mean there are thousands of politicians.  The vast vast majority are not sons and daughters of other politicians.

[Razgovory]

Norway definitely has dynasties. The Labour Party and to a degree the Conservatives are family businesses.

Career politicians marry each others, their children go through youth organisations etc, etc. The main difference now and 20 years ago is that politics is far less attractive as a career path than corporate business, so after a quick rise to fame, the younger generation is ushered into careers as advisors in "communication".

To be fair there are two brothers in the Labour party - the Milibands and the Cooper-Balls axis.  So maybe it's on the increase here too

I suspect if you look around at all the elected offices in the UK you'll find more familial connections.

[Razgovory]

Well it's not time to time.  You add in the Bushes and, arguably the Clintons, and all of those families have had someone in relatively high office in the last 20 years.  If you look at the Presidency I think 2008's the first election since the 70s without a Bush, Clinton or Dole somewhere on the ticket; and even then we almost had a Clinton.

There are two Bushes, one Dole, and one Clinton.  That is hardly a 40 year run of constant dynastic politics.

Of course, even with the Connecticut Texan Bushes around I do not see this dynamic in Texas at all except in that one singular case.  I mean there are thousands of politicians.  The vast vast majority are not sons and daughters of other politicians.

I would say many are related to very minor politicians.  Like Sheriffs or county commissioners, of course when you go down that low, almost everyone is related to some politician.

[Sheilbh]

I suspect if you look around at all the elected offices in the UK you'll find more familial connections.

I mean high office, so at least an MP or big city mayor.  No doubt there's lots of husband and wife parish councillors but that doesn't count.

I think the local element possibly matters.  You need everyone to know who you are quickly - especially in big elections like Governor, Senator, Mayor - and a family name's a bit like a brand. 

[DontSayBanana]

I guess what I'm getting at is whether any democracy in the true sense of the word is possible? Whether the rulers are called monarchs, presidents, dictators or comrades, there still remains the more or less permanent upper class, nobility or core political cadre from which persons of power are drawn. And while the amount of freedoms a commoner enjoys differs between the systems in the end he's nothing but chattel for the elite.

Because seventh cousins, five times removed, are a sure sign of an aristocracy. Dude, I'm more closely related to John and J. Q. Adams than some of these guys are to each other.

You gotta realize a couple things, Slarg.  The colonies were pretty metropolitan and had nice, varied populations by the time of the Revolutionary War, but between the late 1700s and the mid-1800s, the western and midwestern US had a lot of homesteading going on where the community was isolated enough that "incest" between cousins was much more likely.

[Razgovory]

I suspect if you look around at all the elected offices in the UK you'll find more familial connections.

I mean high office, so at least an MP or big city mayor.  No doubt there's lots of husband and wife parish councillors but that doesn't count.

I think the local element possibly matters.  You need everyone to know who you are quickly - especially in big elections like Governor, Senator, Mayor - and a family name's a bit like a brand.

I don't know exactly how the UK is governed at a local level.  What is your equivalent of a State Governor?  Do you even have one?


Anyway, there seems to some dynasties in your House of Lords.

[sbr]

Also worth mentioning: IIRC the only peer who actually bothered to live on his New World estates was Lord Fairfax (hence why so much crap is named for him in northern Virginia).

Also the Fairfaxes were good buddies with George Washington.  They were neighbors IIRC.  That is probably a bigger reason why so much stuff got named for them.

They were close but I don't think that is why they had stuff named after them.  I think George William Fairfax and his wife Sally had Loyalist leanings; they went to London just before the Revolution broke out and never returned to America. I could be wrong on that, the move to London may gave been unrelated to the political situation.

[Caliga]

I'm talking about Thomas Fairfax... I think he lived in Virginia for most of his life and thought he died there.  He was a Loyalist but for whatever reason the rebels left him alone, IIRC.

[dps]

Whether the rulers are called monarchs, presidents, dictators or comrades, there still remains the more or less permanent upper class, nobility or core political cadre from which persons of power are drawn.

As far as the US is concerned, all you really have to do to refute this is look at our post WWII Presidents.  Only Kennedy and the two Bushes were from politically prominent families, and hardly any of the others were from upper class families.  If you look at their childhood years, it would be a stretch to call many of their families even middle class.