Via WaPo: The Roosevelts, Kennedys, and Now the Bushes

The president’s victory also establishes firmly a fact that earlier was open to dispute: The Bushes now belong in the top tier of political families in U.S. history.

[…]

By any objective measure, political scholars say, Bush is a name that belongs next to Adams, Kennedy and Roosevelt as a force whose influence spans decades.

On one level, this is all trivia/novelty–i.e, a bunch of people from the same family having political success. Although the practical element that success often begets success is also part of it.

In terms of American political dynasties, I think that really the Kennedys and Bushes are in a class by themselves. For one thing, the two Roosevelts were not part of the same nuclear family. In the case of both the Kennedys and Bushes, the direct connection of the various politicos is much closer.

One could argue that the Bush dynasty is perhaps the most impressive: the Grandfather was a US Senator, Daddy was a Congressman, Veep and President (amongst a ton of other posts of significance), and one son was a two-term governor (ok, 1.5 terms) of a major state and a two-term President while the other son was a multi-term governor of another major state.

If one is scoring on offices alone, the Bush family “wins"–for whatever that is worth.

The Kennedys have a list of intangibles, not the least of which being the fact (sad though it may be) of JFK’s assassination in office, which changed perception of him forever. Further, there is the whole “Camelot” business–the glamour that so many swoon over in re: JFK and that is clearly not present in the Dubya administration.

Ultimately this is all a somewhat silly exercise, but also interesting.

A side note, I found this paragraph curious:

Robert Dallek, author of a recent book on JFK and of other presidential biographies, is not an admirer of Bush policies but acknowledged that Bush’s victory vaults father and son to a new historical plane.

Of what relevance are Dallek’s views of Bush’s policies? Surely whether he is pro-Bush, anti-Bush or neutral on Bush the issue should be his academic abilities as a historian and author, not his political views. It is as if he would be tainted by saying the obvious (i.e., that the Bush family has been politicaly successful) unless there was a qualifier in place to note that he really doesn’t like Bush.

It reminds me of a professor who was introduced to a gathering at the Southern Political Science Association who noted that he worked for the Heritage Fondation, but “don’t worry, I’m a Democrat"–because Heaven forbid that a group of other academics might think you are a Republican.