Perhaps we here at TPOL wrongly take for granted that most Americans – especially Libertarians – understand the evil of political dynasties, especially in republics.

It has been a problem in these States since the founding of the Republic, and even more so since the fall of the Republic and the gradual corruption into a “democracy” as it continues to decay.

A political dynasty? Where one (or more) members of a politician – especially an official is succeeded by another member of the same family. Either immediately or at some remove. We’ll look at some examples in a moment.

But first, why talk about this now? It is in the headlines.

Most readers will recognize Shiela Jackson Lee, a Democrat in the US Congress representing a district in Houston, Texas. And may recall that she had an unenviable reputation for her wokeness, racism, and ability to ask really strange questions. If you have not heard, she died last month.

So we find this bit of clickbait today: Her family wants her daughter to be appointed to her now-vacant seat. Texas is holding a special election – oddly enough, on the same day (5th of November) as the general election – to replace the dead Congresswoman. Her daughter, Erica Lee Carter, is running to fill that seat for about two months. (And presumably, to keep the seat in the next Congress, Ms. Carter will be on the ballot twice.)

But perhaps this is a bold attempt to push the idea that political dynasties are not only good but to be encouraged and even required. It appears that her family and many of the constituents in that congressional district insist that the daughter deserves the seat. that only she can “finish” her mother’s term.

This is nothing new. That is how kingdoms and principalities work: the son (or daughter) replaces their dead parent. Elizabeth II is replaced by her son Charles III. Not because he was qualified by training and experience, or because he was elected to do so, but because he is her son. (Not that he wasn’t literally groomed from birth for the job.)

It is not uncommon – just a bit different – here in the States. An appointment or an election is required first. But the advantage in both appointment and election for an “heir” is often nearly as great as incumbency.

We are very fortunate that few of the Founding Fathers had heirs: George Washington, for example. Or even Thomas Jefferson. Some did: John Adams being the best example: his son John Quincy Adams becoming POTUS a few decades later. Another was “Lighthorse” Harry Lee whose son Robert E Lee followed in his father’s military footsteps but had no (known) political ambitions. In the first century or so of the Federal Union, there were others: the Harrisons, for example (Willliam Henry and then Benjamin).

But as the American political system decayed, that changed. While the two Roosevelts hardly can be considered a dynasty, the Tafts of the same era certainly were. And not just on the federal level. Consider the Fergusons of Texas, where “Ma” replaced her husband as governor.

Especially in the last hundred years, these have become more common. And the problems with such arrangements more obvious. Most readers will certainly recognize the Bush dynasty (not the current Cori Bush, of course). And of course, the Kennedy clan and dynasty. But there are many more, on federal, state, and local levels. The Udalls, the Romneys, the Browns of California, and many more.

Many AmerInd tribes see the same situation: tribal presidencies and chairmanships remaining in the same family for generations: the House family of Ute Mountain Utes, for example.

The Kennedys are of great fascination to many people – and not just because of “Camelot” and elevating the “First Family” to de-facto royal status. Many believe that Joseph Kennedy Senior – that Boston Irish bootlegger and politico – had a plan to make all four of his sons, one at a time, American Presidents: Joseph, John, Robert, and Theodore: Joe Jr., Jack, Bobby, and Teddy. No doubt to be followed by their sons and daughters.

But all of these games smell and sound like the sort of nonsense that destroyed the Roman Republic. And brought the fall of Egypt time and time again. To say nothing of Babylonia, Israel, and Judah – and don’t get started on the Herods of Judea!

Dynasties, we are told, produce stability and continuity. But even more, they produce conflict and corruption. Stability often becomes nothing more than stagnation. But their worst feature is the entrenched power and wealth that subjects people to a form of slavery. And ultimately results in collapse: on the scale of Bourbon France or Czarist Russia, or many dynasties of China.

We see the same thing in business: but business (for the most part) does not have the tools of government (“legal” and accepted initiation of force and tolerated use of violence) so a dynasty like the Rockefellers or Krupps is not so great a threat to liberty and peace. At least not until they team up with government. (That is what we call fascism, right?)

Hopefully, the family of Shiela Jackson Lee will be rebuffed at the polls both now and later. But it will not be the last effort here in the States to build and expand political dynasties. It is important to observe and orient ourselves to prevent such things. A ruling class is bad enough: a truly hereditary ruling class is very often deadly.