Political Dynasties
Joel Heilbrunn (Opinion, March 22) seriously overstates the meaning and consequences of Rep. Joe Kennedy’s decision to retire from the House of Representatives.
The Kennedy dynasty, as it were, is alive and well with Patrick Kennedy and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend still in office; there are new political dynasties being created (e.g., the Jacksons--Jesse, not Michael); and old ones still giving (e.g., the Bush family to name but one).
But if the era of governance by familial dynasties--by the Tylers, Lodges, Longs, Stevensons, as well as the families Adams, Roosevelt and Kennedy--was coming to a close, there would be no good reason for lament.
The well-being of representative democracy in the United States is not in theory or practice dependent upon a patrician class devoted to public service. Quite the opposite. The principles of republican governance supporting the U.S. Constitution encourage a commitment to public service by the many, not the few, and are deeply suspicious of dynastic rule.
Al Gore is hardly the last patrician standing in America. We need not lament Gore’s lonely perch, but should fear for the future of the republic if Heilbrunn persuades anyone to long for the good old days of benevolent aristocratic rulers.
MARK P. PETRACCA
Irvine
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
