The hiring of Jenna Bush Hager by NBC's "Today" show to be an education correspondent smacks of non-meritocratic promotion, and has Salon's Glenn Greenwald suitably fired up. Tongue planted firmly in cheek, Greenwald imagines this scenario:
They should convene a panel for the next Meet the Press with Jenna Bush Hager, Luke Russert, Liz Cheney, Megan McCain and Jonah Goldberg, and they should have Chris Wallace moderate it. They can all bash affirmative action and talk about how vitally important it is that the U.S. remain a Great Meritocracy because it's really unfair for anything other than merit to determine position and employment. They can interview Lisa Murkowski, Evan Bayh, Jeb Bush, Bob Casey, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Dan Lipinksi, and Harold Ford, Jr. about personal responsibility and the virtues of self-sufficiency. Bill Kristol, Tucker Carlson and John Podhoretz can provide moving commentary on how America is so special because all that matters is merit, not who you know or where you come from. There's a virtually endless list of politically well-placed guests equally qualified to talk on such matters.
I can't speak to the state of nepotism in the media; so far as I know, beyond anecdotal evidence, no statistics have ever been compiled to track this phenomenon. But when Greenwald cites U.S. senators--and as he wrote in a related, earlier post that, "Family succession is hardly unheard of in U.S. political history, but what was once quite rare has now become pervasive"--he's simply not right, or at least as concerns the U.S. Senate. The fact is that nepotism in the Senate is today at historical lows in American history.
The figure printed above was part of an unpublished paper fellow political scientist Geoffrey Vaughan and I wrote earlier this decade about whether a "natural aristocracy" has emerged in the Senate along the lines envisioned by Thomas Jefferson or John Adams. Vaughan is a political theorist, and carried that part of the argument, so please don't ask me to explain colonial-era American political thought. My contribution to the paper was to analyze the biographies of senators, using this IPSCR dataset to determine how much lower-office experience senators brought with them to the Senate.
One of the preliminary analyses we decided to conduct for the paper was to simply compute the share of U.S. senators in each Congress (through the 104th) with a relative who had served in Congress (House or Senate). As the figure above shows, the share of Senators with relatives who were serving or had served in Congress has been steadily shrinking. The passage of the 17th Amendment certainly accelerated this trend, but the downward trend predates even that significant event. As a point of reference when looking at the figure, the 64th Congress was the first in which senators--or at least the third from seats elected that year--were elected rather than appointed; by the 66th, the entire Senate had thus stood for election. (Our paper was about the Senate; we didn't conduct a similar analysis for the House and so I can't speak to that.)
Personally, and despite if not because of nepotism-beneficiary Adam Bellow's justifications, I find nepotism for the most part galling. The insult added to the injury is provided by those people, many but not all of whom are white, who oppose affirmative action yet are themselves beneficiaries of a family- and/or legacy-style affirmative action that at some or several points along their career path helped them gain admissions to college, internships, jobs and promotions. Most annoying, in my experience, is how so many people associate the term "affirmative action" solely and exclusively with race-based preferences when, to take just one prominent example, college admission practices typically involve preferences granted not only to racial minorities but people of special talent (be they oboists or cornerbacks); the sons & daughters of alumni; and even to people based on region. (On this last, one can easily and rightly understand why state legislators would hesitate to approve funding for state universities if their constituents' children could not gain a reasonable number of admissions; but, given the disparities in SAT by region or county within states, this reality implies and in practice compels regional quotas, a form of affirmative action that often admits rural whites with otherwise non-competitive SAT scores into college. One can only hope that such whites arrive on campus as strong advocates of affirmative action.)
Of course, family names are still powerful, as the recent passing of Ted Kennedy testifies. Greenwald is certainly right to sniff familial advantage in the election of, say, Mark Pryor or Lisa Murkowski. But the fact is that familial hookups in the Senate just ain't what they used to be.
50 comments
Is there any corresponding data for people running for office? In other words, how much of this decline is for lack of trying and how much is for losing to "non-related" candidates?
What's the definition of 'relative' used here? Just curious. I mean, I think I have a several-greats uncle who once served in the British Parliament, but if I were to move to Britain, become a citizen and run, I don't think that would count as nepotism.
A good example of failed nepotism: Caroline Kennedy. One hundred or so years ago, would the daughter (more likely son) of an esteemed politician have been likely to fail to be appointed to the Senate?
Well, if they are freely and fairly elected under the same rules as all other representatives, why should I not be able to vote for Jeb Bush (or Chelsea Clinton or Maria Shriver or cetera) for President? I do not remember any such requirement in the Constitution.
The article was sparked, not by Mrs. Hager's admission to the senate, but by her receiving a sought-after, undemanding and well-paid job she might not be seen as qualified for. Is it possible that the decrease in nepotism in the senate corresponds to a decrease in the relative benefits of being a Senator? Maybe more rich white kids are being made contractors, or partners, or even governors (Jeb Bush looms unfortunately large in my mind).
I was going to mention the Caroline Kennedy fiasco, but I see I've already been beaten to it.
I'm just curious, though - I'd like to see the turnover in incumbents from the first 104 Congresses. I suspect that part of the reason that nepotism has decreased is because representatives and senators are staying in longer. You have fast flips, to be sure, but the Senate especially confers an incumbency advantage. (Again, see Ted Stevens. Who nearly got re-elected last year. Four days after being convicted of a felony. Think about that.)
how much of this chart is the result of population growth? In a country of 500,000 a lot more people are related.
Tom,
It feels like there should be a negative correlation between US population and instances of nepatism that might also lead to a similar trend. Can we look at some similar graph and determine the size of _family influence_ rather than the number of instances of nepotism with no attempt to account for a change in scale of the US.
I have no opinion on the answer, but population seem important.
It seems to me that the "nepotism" would decrease naturally as a result of the expansion of the United States and the western frontier (and population growth as noted in the previous comments). As more people moved out west and more states were admitted into the Union, the number of powerful families in Congress would naturally be diluted. It would probably be more informative to examine this trend on a state by state basis, or at least to group the states into different categories.
The reason so many people don't associate "affirmative action" with people of special talent or families of alumni is that those examples aren't affirmative action; the term specifically refers to policies designed to compensate for the effects of past discrimination.
Tom,
Greewald's point extended past appearances in Congress that your study analyzed... he was also commenting on the practice of the politically or socially connected to obtain jobs for their kin in areas like the media or policy forming agencies outside of congress.
That remains a larger and still valid point.
Who cares.
The economy is turning around.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_09/019736.php
This kind of topuc always fascinates me. Do we complain when say a son whose dad is a doctor also becomes a doctor? It seems reasonably natural to go into a method of employment that you know something about. Does anyone think only nepotism helped Peyton Manning or Luke Walton or Barry Bonds become sports stars? It may possibly have helped them get to a certain level, but then you have to rely on your own skills.
I think what may well be true is that having a parent/relative in a particular occupation helps you get an innate sense of the skills of the job. I think its also true that it gives you a sense of the less good parts of the job, so may discourage you from directly follwoing that occupation.
Just a quick note to say that while some schools do use the kind of geographic quotas you referenced, many do not.
I worked in admissions at a top-15 undergraduate institution, and I can tell you that we never used a student's state of origin as a factor in reading an application.
I will say, however, that being from a small state does correlate with a greater likelihood that you were the state champion in a particular field or had some relatively extraordinary success. While it might have been easier for you to achieve that kind of success in a rural environment, who am I, as an admission officer, to assume that you would not also have been state champion in New York, California or any other of the 50 states.
At any rate, I digress. The point is that lower scores may result not because schools are looking for a lower academic standard to fill a quota, but because many schools use a comprehensive review process that goes beyond test scores and looks heavily at achievements outside of the classroom. While every student needs to have a high level of achievement in the classroom, high achievement outside means that you might have somewhat lower scores and still be admitted.
As a final note (in what I'll grant is a long note), I am white and from a rural community. And I do believe in affirmative action.
Your commentary on geographical preferences was spot-on, and fascinating. Interestingly enough, I have personal experience seeing how a mixture of geographical and racial quotas can have wierd effects on the admissions process. In the state of Virginia, both racial and regional quotas are in play at state schools like University of Virginia and Virginia Tech. Because the southeastern region of the state has a much, much higher ratio of African Americans, these areas make it much more difficult for high achieving white students to get into schools. The schools choose to meet both racial and regional quotas simultaneously. My personal experience was my best friend, a black male from a wealthy (and wonderful) family, was admitted and I was wait listed, despite better grades and test scores, and coming from a family with less than half the income of his. We are both doing well now, but it is systems like these which foster bigotry in too many. Affirmative action should be based on income, not race. Since minorities are disproportianately affected by poverty, they would benefit, but not at the expense of impoverished whites.
By the way, am I the only one on here who thinks Mika Brezinksi on Morning Joe has to be the biggest nepotistic beneficiary EVER? She can't ever hold her own with Joe in any argument, and never has any backbone or facts. She is terrible at her job, although I'm sure she's a nice person. Sorry, but its true.
She can't ever hold her own with Joe in any argument, and never has any backbone or facts. She is terrible at her job, although I'm sure she's a nice person.
That second sentence presumes that her job is to appear competent, thwarting and exposing Joe's babbling for what it is.
Playing the Straight Man/Setup Man isn't the glory position that makes you look good but it is a position.
@JP Kab,
I agree that aff action ought to be based on money rather than race... students in tiny rurals schools are essentially shortchanged by lack of resources. There aren't enough students to warrant teaching high level math and science, or foreign language. These kids are mostly White, though increasingly Hispanic.
While various quotas and regulations are anti-meritocratic, we have to ask ourselves--- should entry to colleges, jobs, etc. always be purely meritocratic? For instance, at a job, you might have better qualifications than the next guy, but if management thinks he would get along better than you, they hire the other guy. That is, job qualifications are only one piece of the hiring puzzle.
Likewise with colleges... they're not just diploma factories, they're little worlds with an image and a culture all their own. Student "qualifications" are thus only one factor in admissions--- essays, possible graduation rates, interviews, and non-academic factors (athletic ability, family prestige, race, socioeconomic status) also play a role. Considering how unreliable most observers consider test scores and the like, is this truly a bad thing overall?
If it befits the college's image to have all its students from the wealthy elite families who can put their name on a building, then some poorer but more "qualified" students will lose out. Likewise, if a college wants its student body to be a melting pot, then some "more qualified" students will lose out.
Affirmative action, nepotism, and other anti-meritocratic institutions are things that are often fair to society, but unfair to individuals. In that sense, it's like the military draft, which is the fairest way to figure out who fights, but is unfair to the individuals who get picked while their neighbors stay home. The question then is: Are individuals more important than society?
This is an odd comparison, and an odd use of the word "nepotism."
The media people were hired for those jobs. U.S. senators do not hire their children or anyone else to the Senate. Of course the name recognition of having a Senator in the family may help, but it's not exactly "nepotism." They still have to get elected like anyone else.
A few things came to mind while reading this article and some of the comments here.
In particular, I think that in an era where Senators are democratically elected, it is folly to consider any Senator with a relation to another current or previous Senator a case of nepotism. It may certainly be a vaild criticism in cases such as Lisa Murkowski's, where the Senator is originally selected through means other than election. However, in cases where the Senator is originally elected, they are simply the beneficiaries of name recognition in a field where this is highly advantageous (politics). So, for an example from my home state, if Robin Carnahan were to win election in 2010, I would not consider her a beneficiary of nepotism (her mother once served--an actual nepotism appointment upon the death of Robin's father). This is especially true given her previous experience in elected office. (A case might still be made for Ted Kennedy to be considered a beneficiary of nepotism, as he held no previous electoral office, and may have won the election based on name alone.)
Secondly, with regard to basing affirmative action on family income, this would cause at least as many problems as it would solve. In particular, a family's income tends to be far more susceptible to manipulation than one's race, gender, or other protected status. I'm sure people have used all sorts of fantastic accounting measures to influence the finanacial aid process at Universities, and suddenly this possibility for manipulation could be inserted into the admission process as well. Furthermore, using income level as a basis for affirmative action would not solve any of the problems associated with using other categories. As a proxy for the availability of educational opportunities, it may be more or less successful. Many poor students attend great private schools on scholarship, and others benefit from quality public schools as well. At least with the current basis of affirmative action we can attempt to rectify the wrongs perpetrated by a long history of descriminatory practices, in addition to the possibly addressing concerns of an 'unlevel playing field.'
For the record: I am a white male from a relatively poor rural family. I attended a top 10 university and am currently enrolled in an Ivy League law school. I support affirmative action in its current form.
R.M., absolutely correct. Other than the rare Senatorial appointment, the chart and discussion have nothing to do with nepotism. It was probably much more likely back when Senators were selected by the state legislatures.
And most importantly, the actual point of Greenwald's article was excised.. which was that the same media, rife with examples of actual nepotism, was complicit in the excoriation of nominee Sotomayor for her supposed 'unfair advantages' in life.
And for clarification, when I said, "In an era where Senators are democratically elected, it is folly to consider any Senator with a relation to another current or previous Senator a case of nepotism," I meant to say "every Senator..."
Also, it occurred to me that the appointment of Jean Carnahan to Mel's seat would actually be a rare case of actual nepotism excluded by the author's definition, as Mel was elected to the seat but never served, having died in a plane crash just before the election.
I think you are onto something here. However, I think you also have to look at the total number of people in the United States. I think what we really need to determine is the nepotism per capita. There may be less relatives over all in the senate, but the pool of possible merit based candidates is much larger.
There appear to be two clear breaks in the series. The second corresponding to the 17th Amendment and the the first coinciding with the Jacksonian era.
I will point out the obvious alternative explanation for the data:
Getting a senate position is increasingly a matter of having the right business connections in addition to political connections.
As the importance of well connected relatives in business becomes more important than well-connected relatives in politics due to the rising cost of elections campaigns, it is natural to expect that the number of senators with family members in office should decline, even if nepotism is as high as ever. The nepotism simply does not separate itself along political and business lines in the way that it once tended to.
RM said
'This is an odd comparison, and an odd use of the word "nepotism."
The media people were hired for those jobs. U.S. senators do not hire their children or anyone else to the Senate. Of course the name recognition of having a Senator in the family may help, but it's not exactly "nepotism." They still have to get elected like anyone else.'
-----------------------------------
Without wishing to appear to contradict my earlier post, I would suggest that to an extent nepotism is a fair charge to an extent here. Take the fact that George HW Bush tapped up some of his friends and advisers for his son. And I am sure thats not rare. I am sure that fathers, uncles, brothers etc are not averse to contacting old donors or fundraisers or advisers for relatives.
Of course its then up to the relative to decide what to do with the advice etc he is given, but I am sure, even beyond name recognition, its a huge advantage to have a relatives contacts.
The list of non-race based preferences misses a big one: gender. While gender-based discrimination has not disappeared, gender based affirmative action has been so successful that we forget how badly it used to be needed. We've come a long way since the days when when the first female news anchor (if she can be called that) in Chicago read the news from a heart shaped bed while dressed in lingerie. Nowadays, gender equality more or less mostly happens naturally often enough that opponents to affirmative action can oh so conveniently forget that gender-based affirmative action ever took place.
The case, perhaps, for nepotism.
One of the reasons that Al Gore jr was more likely to inherit his father's trade is the same that in the days of yore the blacksmith's son was likely to become a blacksmith. The job is something that a parent is naturally inclined to talk to his/her child about.
Most of America cannot answer even the most basic of civics questions, with as much as 1/3 failing to identify the vice-president and less than 1 in 10 being able to name both of their senators, their local representative, their governor and lt governor, and the president and vice president. Far less than than can name cabinet members, or list any ACCURATE salient details about policy.
In this environment, if your parent is a politician, you have a natural interest and are much more likely to have a knowledge and understanding base than most of your fellow Americans. Those children that were weaned on politics simply comprehend it better and can play it better than the average person.
Therefore, it's not surprising that a disproportionate number of the people going into both politics and pundentry are people from political families.
(That doesn't mean that there isn't a great deal of power brokering helping out as well, but it will serve to alter the numbers).
Re nepotism and the Kennedys: You can certainly make an excellent case for Ted being a beneficiary of nepotism, and Caroline would ordinarily have never even been considered for the Senate without her pedigree. That said, the beef against them is much thinner than against the Bushes.
John was the first of his family to enter political life, and did so running as a legitimate war hero. Bobby was elevated faster because of him, to be sure, but had been active on the Washington scene for almost a decade before John won the Presidency, serving on several Senate staffs. Since then, Kennedys have won SOME offices, but not very many (given how many of them there are) and not very highly placed. Looking at the Kennedy legacy, you see no presence before 1948, and only very minor influence after 1968, with the exception of Ted.
Prescott Bush was elected to the Senate from Connecticut in 1952. Since then, the Bushes have won governorships, the Senate, and the Presidency. Bush 41 had an admirable war record but none of the others did (Prescott claimed to have received medals in WWI which he didn't -- he later claimed to have been joking about them.) Certainly their resumes are no heftier than those of the Kennedys. And one Bush pretty much wrecked a major bank and cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
So while it's not unreasonable of conservatives to bemoan the hype around Camelot, when it comes to bitching about nepotism, they are throwing stones in a glass house.
This is an excellent study, although it does not cover Senators whose fathers were governors (Gregg, Casey, formerly Sununu) or cabinet officers (Landrieu).
Ms. Greenwald is NOT "suitably fired up." I don't like nepotism, but it is how the business world operates. Even an unheard of, but fully qualified, individual relies on friend and family connections.
And a media outlet depends on big names and personalities. One may say that Jenna Bush Hager is "just" a school teacher - but shouldn't we hear more from an actual teacher than someone familiar with education on a purely academic level?
People are only worked up because her name is "Bush" - if it was a Kennedy (as some have pointed out) - nobody would be whining about nepotism.
Erm Joe, in the report Greenwald mentions the follwoing politicians
Lisa Murkowski (R), Evan Bayh (D), Jeb Bush (R), Bob Casey (D), Mark Pryor (D), Jay Rockefeller (D), Dan Lipinksi (D), and Harold Ford, Jr. (D). Note 2 Republicans and 5 Democrats. I think it has been noted several times already that Caroline Kennedy would not have been in the position she were in in January if she were not a Kennedy. So the final point you make is entirely bogus.
I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but then I don't think that many people are complaining about nepotism, simply commenting on it and trying to find explanations for it. Indeed Tom is in fact pointing out that in politics at least it is getting less prominent.
JFK was certainly not the first politician in his family. His maternal grandfather, Honey Fitz, was a well-known Boston pol, and his organization helped Jack and Jack's father, who was an Ambassador to the United Kingdom.
Elections don't preclude nepotism, they just provide a measure of checking it.
It takes connections to raise money, and many voters will assume the child has some of the same abilities as the parent (rightly or wrongly).
For a LOT of political seats, winning the nomination is tantamount to winning the election, and a primary election is much more vulnerable to a who-do-you-know phenomenon (ie, endorsements, fundraising, volunteers, media time).
I wonder if the decline in nepotism is related to the increase in families that send children to college.
frankly this post is weak. there is nothing new about nepotism nor is it an uniquely american practice
nepotism is older than the hills.
every major society for thousands of years has practised it in one form or another,
ever heard of royal families?
another thing worth mentioning is that when a family connection does not exist a prominent military record does. think napoleon or eisenhower.
only a few of american prominent politicians have had neither
truman, clinton and now obama.
clinton and obaqma represent the new order- academic stature.
Josiah:
Yep. While there may not be direct quotas for students from rural or underrepresented areas, there are certain advantages that students from small, rural high schools would have: for example, a student at a high school with 200 students could easily play football, basketball, and baseball; a student at a high school with 2000 students would be hard-pressed just to make the team in one of these sports.
The other thing that must be noted is that in almost all cases, while nepotism may get your foot in the door, so to speak, in most (if not all) cases you will have to show some merit in order to continue in that position. If you're admitted to a top college because you're a legacy, you still have to maintain grades high enough to stay in school. If your daddy was a Congressman, and you get elected to his seat in Congress after he retires, your constituents will vote you out if it's clear that you can't perform the job. Al Gore Jr. may have initially been elected to Congress because of his father's name, but he served 16 years before being elected Vice President because voters thought that he was a good Congressman on his own merits.
nominalize said...
Affirmative action, nepotism, and other anti-meritocratic institutions are things that are often fair to society, but unfair to individuals. In that sense, it's like the military draft.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Actually no, one of the many reasons the military draft will never return unless their is another world war and in that case in won't matter 'cause we'll all be dead, I digress. No, the draft will never return because unlike the '60s there would be no draft deferments for college, making it, as you say fair. Everyone will be required to serve, only exception being medical disability. And of course, if one had money and a close relation w/their family doctor back in the '60s etc. etc.
ie family name and money is a springboard to president which as mob says makes Truman, Clinton, Obama all rags to riches stories and all Dems btw, all the more remarkable as they beat the system!
but, but, but I would posit it's more important to be good looking ie the airheads on fox news, than to have a famous name. As nepotism and appearance are a slam dunk for one to succeed in society.
When it comes to hiring, superficiality counts for a lot and if one also has a famous family name or a celebrity name, America what a country.
Schwarzenegger became governor solely because of celebrity/appearance. If Jenna, Liz and Megan were not easy on the eyes ...
Tom:
While it's true that it may be easier for someone at a small, rural schools to be on multiple sports teams, for example, than for a student at a larger urban/suburban school to make even one team, most schools' admissions officers know this and account for this when making their decisions. To the extent this is a factor, it could work against the student in the small, rural school because admissions officers may undervalue their accomplishments. For example, a school might very well select someone at the 80th percentile in a large school (especially one that has sent graduates to the school before) than the validictorian of a small school. To this extent, the small, rural student has little opportunity to show his true merit in comparison to those students at larger schools. This is why you won't see smalltown/rural students overrepresented in top-tier universities. In fact, in my experience we are severely underreprsented, rightly or wrongly.
Also, with regards to your argument that beneficiaries of nepotism at some point must show some sort of merit, I have to disagree. If admitted to a school (or given a political office) unmerited by his own accomplishments, there is really quite a minimal level of achievement required to maintain these improperly gained positions. It takes far more academic accomplishment for most people to get admitted to a top-tier school than to maintain a 2.0 average once admitted. By the same token, it's far harder to get elected (or appointed) in the first place than to get re-elected once an incumbent. Indeed, the marginal effectiveness of many Congressmen provide ample evidence that constituents will often re-elect representatives and Senators who are less than competant at their jobs.
while the literal definition of nepotism may be confined to preference given to relatives, we should probably accept that a wider understanding of the word is more appropriate. (especially since in Rome, where the "nephews" were adopted into power, they were working off of a much different definition of "family" than we are now...)
I'd be curious about:
1. The absolute numbers. (Note the drop near 1948 (IIANM), when two more states joined the union.)
2. As was already noted, a broader definition of "relative" to include governors and others.
3. A correction of some kind for increased average incumbency. (Perhaps a plot of nepotistic election winners instead of office-holders?)
I like this posting a lot so I whipped up an illustration for it and put it on my blog, www.newsartblog.com
Perhaps a parallel chart showing senate members who had relatives who were majority stockholders or executive officers of the Fortune 100 (or the 19th century equivalent)?
I'm wondering how the heck anyone in the 1st congress could be related to anyone, since there wasn't any preceding congress to be related to. So I have to assume you're looking at relationships within each congress as well. Do the relationships carry forward or only backward? In other words, if a member of the 4th congress is a relative of someone in the 1st congress does that count for both the 1st congress and the 4th or just for the member in the 4th congress?
Apart from the size of the population, the number and location of the states would also be a factor in decreasing relationships. The first congress obviously had a lot of relationships going across state lines, but such relationships tend to be regional rather than national. So with more states in the union, there are more relationships possible, but regional clustering would reduce the actual number of relationships (in proportion to the size of the membership). You might still get a senator from New York being related to one from West Virginia (say), but it's less likely to have one between New York and Arizona.
A family to consider:
The Taft's of Ohio.
- William Howard Taft, 27th President of the United States and 10th Chief Justice of the United States
- Alphonso Taft, Attorney General and Secretary of War of the United States, co-founder of Skull and Bones, great-great-great-grandson of Robert Sr, and father of President Taft
- Horace Dutton Taft, brother of the President
- Robert Taft, United States Senator from Ohio, son of the President
- Robert Taft, Jr., United States Senator from Ohio, son of the above-named Senator
- Bob Taft, former Governor of Ohio, great grandson of the President, and grandson and son (respectively) of the above two men
How many other members of the Taft family served in the House, never making it to the Senate and/or served in state or local offices in the state of Ohio, solely because of the Taft name?
Mike in Maryland
I think your analysis is flawed in that you treat nepotism as only being possible if the senator has a relative who was once a senator.
I find this definition somewhat narrow. A fairer study would also look at the number of senators who are millionaires. How many senators have relatives (or were themselves) major fund raisers for a political party or cause, how many were or are leaders in powerful industries, etc. These are all situations to which wealth and power are used to secure senate seats; where elections are based on more than simple merit.
Either family political connections (I don't thing nepotism is the correct term) in the Senate have taken a big jump since you did your study, or you are counting oranges while Greenwald is counting apples.
Greenwald interviewed Dr. Nathan Burroughs of Indiana University earlier this year, and Burroughs counted 22 family connections in the Senate before Hillary Clinton resigned.
I’m assuming that both of you are correct, based on the criteria you used. Did your study count relatives who were Governor, or President? Did you consider spouses as relatives?
Nice post, but as a former employee, I feel compelled to note that it's ICPSR (Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research) not IPSCR.
If population has almost doubled in 50 years while the number of Senators has stayed flat, then there should have been, all else being equal, a decline in nepotism. It's also likely that smaller families should have reduced the amount of related Senators since people today may have fewer siblings and cousins and uncles.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment