US dynasties not a novelty

With Caroline Kennedy's throwing herself into contention for Hilary Clinton's soon to be vacated Senate seat, I've seen some talk in punditland about whether this is a dynastic politics unsuited to the United States. Chris Matthews asked if this was the Senate or the House of Lords. They spoke of the Bushes and the Kennedys. In fact, political dynasties have a long history in this country.

The Adams are one of the oldest. Both John Adams and his son John Quincy were presidents (albeit not terribly successful ones). JQs son, Charles Francis, Sr. served in the House during Buchanan's administration and his grandson was Hoover's Secretary of the Navy (what is it with this family and unsuccessful administrations!?!?).

President William Howard Taft was followed by a son and grandson who sat in the Senate. The former, Robert Alfonso Taft was a leading isolationist. His namesake grandson was governor of Ohio from 1999-2007.

William Henry Harrison and Benjamin Harrison are, to date, the only grandfather-grandson pair to be President. The Harrison in the middle, John, served two terms in the House.

Hamilton Fish I-IV also held political office. Number One was a senator and Secretary of State while II-IV represented a part of New York in the House for 53 of the 86 years running from 1909-95.

Thomas Kean (of 9/11 Commission fame, or notoriety, depending on taste) was governor of New Jersey from 1982-90. In addition to having a lineage going back to the Continental Congress, he also has a son who serves in the New Jersey state senate. His father served in the House for twenty years while a grandfather and great-uncle served in the Senate.

For one that came back after an interregnum, I give you the Frelinghuysens. The family went back to Dutch days in New Jersey. Frederick was one of the very first U.S. senators. His son and grandson also served there. You have to skip a few generations to a great-grandson, Peter, Jr., who served in the House from 1953-75. His son, Robert, has been there since 1995.

Such families aren't an innovation in American public life. Reasons? Children of office-holders grow up in that culture and develop a taste for it themselves; growing up in the "family business" gives them connections. Families that are prominent enough to get one office holder in can, in some cases, do so for a few generations.

If I were truly a glutton for punishment, I would want to look at the correlation between percentage of Congressman who had fathers, uncles, etc. in the same business and the extent of the voting franchise. Do such "dynasties" correlate with the extent of the franchise? Also, does the same percentage in the Senate change once you go from selection by state legislatures to elections by the people?

Apropos of Chris Matthew's allusion to the House of Lords, reforms undertaken during Tony Blair's time as PM have created a chamber that is overwhelmingly composed of life peers.