There have been two presidents named Adams, father and son, and two Roosevelts (more distantly related) but American presidential politics have not really had a tradition of being dominated by family dynasties. Our experience with dictatorships is different, Cuba, N Korea and Syria have each experienced recent in-the-family successions, not to mention cerain other not-so-constitutional monarchies; but is the USA immune to this disturbing pattern?

Our current president is the son of a former chief of state, but one example does not a trend make. However, recent history suggests the American public may be ready to embrace this peculiar form of politics. John Kennedy's brother Robert ran for president, prior to his assasination, and brother Ted was known to have presidential ambitions until his disgrace at Chappaquidick. Today, Florida Governor Jeb Bush is certainly being groomed for the Presidency, in spite of his public vocal protestations, and no one can deny that former First Lady Hillary Clinton has similar ambitions. As an aside, why hasn't there been public comment about Bill Clinton's support for another Democrat for that office? Family schism? Strategic maneuver?

There's nothing particularly sinister about this phenomenon, I'm just surprised there hasn't been more public comment and concern about these potential successions. Internationally, there has been no criticism concerning an alleged Bush
dynasty, but if Hillary wins in '08, someone's bound to bring it up. I find it all very disturbing, not necessarily because of any problems with Bush or Clinton, but simply because it establishes a precedent I would rather not see. I've always suspected that feudalism has a deep subconscious appeal in times of stress, and the idea of a strong, p(m)aternalistic family firmly in charge and bringing back the good old days can be very seductive.