Legacy Candidates: The Electoral Preference for the Silver Spoon

In an increasingly competitive college application process, candidates fight tooth and nail for ever-more-coveted spots at their preferred institutions. Beyond the realm of SAT scores, extracurricular achievements and teacher recommendations, the advantage conveyed by legacy garners the most consistent controversy. An accident of birth — like so many other head starts in life — the extent of its influence has been largely speculative, as colleges tend not to release figures. However, more recent transparency from top schools has revealed the advantages conferred by genetic affiliation with an alumnus. While this practice is criticized as unfair, it is a policy that can be seen clearly in the most telling test of all: American elections.

Nepotism has long been a part of our political system, and it is highly unlikely that this will change anytime soon. The favoritism inherent in political arenas ruled by appointments, such as the lobbying industry and the executive branch, is both widespread and deeply entrenched. It cuts across party lines and transcends partisan ideology. President George W. Bush appointed Elizabeth Cheney, Eugene Scalia, and Janet Rehnquist (whose last names are not coincidental) to posts within his government. On the other side of the aisle, the strong correlation between political donors and ambassadorships in President Obama’s administration has been duly noted, with hardly a hint of disapproval in the accompanying media coverage.

Politicians, even more so in a post-Citizens United world, will always reward their backers. Powerful parents will attempt to see that bootstraps are not the only thing their children pull themselves up by. But while the public doesn’t have to play along with this game, they continually give deference to these political dynasties and families. Just speaking of presidential candidates, voters have remained consistently entranced with the Adamses, Roosevelts, Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons and Romneys. If the net is cast a little wider, we can see that family ties wield an even more considerable influence in the minds of voters. In 2006, for example, 53 members of Congress (Senate and House) were the sons, daughters, siblings, spouses, or grandchildren of governors, senators and U.S. representatives. To put this number in context, of the 535 members in Congress, roughly one in ten had a close family member who also held congressional or statewide office. Countless more assuredly had family members who were mayors, state legislators and Lieutenant Governors. Indeed, the number of family-tied members of Congress has increased in recent years, almost doubling since 1986. This increase has taken place in spite of Congressional approval considerably declining over the same period of time. The juxtaposition seems counterintuitive: one would expect the electoral success of political kin to decrease as the desire for fresh ideas and change grows stronger. However, despite these barriers to nepotism, it is quite clear that voters are extremely willing to keep electing the relatives of politicians. Why are they so willing to do so?

When trying to discern the reasoning behind their voting habits, it’s necessary to split our conception of the voter. On the one hand we have homo politicus — the reasonable and well-informed citizen, who is perhaps not absolutely rational but is nonetheless thoughtful. This is the conception that carefully weighs the vices and virtues of candidates before arriving at a considered conclusion. On the other hand we have the unthinking and unconscious voter, who is affected by the efficacy of attack ads and the sharp cut of a candidate’s suit. They are swayed not so much by the content of the stump speech as the sonorous timbre of the speaker’s voice. The electorate, and indeed each voter, is a composite of these two approximations.

First we look to homo politicus. Why might a reasonable person favor a candidate from a political family? Since this voter is informed and thoughtful, the question effectively asks whether and why candidates from political families might be better representatives or senators. The familiarity with politics one develops when office-holders sit at the Thanksgiving table could be a valuable asset to a representative. In the world of politics it is soft skills, such as deal making and persuasiveness, which are often the most crucial. A background in the political arts developed by familial or spousal connections could be reason enough for an informed observer to vote for a legacy candidate. Furthermore, the connections garnered from such a background would make the representative’s job much easier. For example, if someone newly elected to a legislative post in Washington was related to an established, powerful figure, more experienced legislators might be more willing to assist that new representative in their post — either because of positive previous dealings with that established relative, or in the hopes of currying good favor with them in the future. Consequently, the legislator could more easily do the job they were elected to do: represent the interests of their district or state. There are strong examples throughout the nation’s history, such as the Kennedy family, whose younger brothers, Robert and Teddy, pursued electoral office in the wake of name recognition and a political operation already built by and for their older brother, John. As they made the most of these legacy advantages, both proved to be able public servants. Teddy represented Massachusetts in the Senate until his death in 2009, and Robert post-humously gave his name to the Department of Justice he ran so well during President Kennedy’s administration.

Now a glance to the unconscious voter. Psychologists have given us possible explanations for unconscious voter’s preference for the legacy candidate. Familiarity, as laid out in Zajonc’s ‘mere exposure’ hypothesis and verified in a more recent and specific study by two Vanderbilt professors, breeds affection rather than contempt. The name recognition that comes with being related to someone who has held federal or gubernatorial office gives a candidate a significant advantage in a race. The two Vanderbilt professors also found that voters tend more towards supporting the legacy candidate because the familiarity of the name makes them seem more likely to win. As such, whether it is to jump on the bandwagon or simply out of a sense of inevitability, people are keener to vote for that candidate, effectively creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts in which the contender perceived as most viable actually becomes more viable because of that perception. Just as there are elected figures who have been successful and passed on the benefits of their nominal advantages to those they represent, there are politicians who act as cautionary tales against legacy preference. For every RFK, there’s a Ben Quayle.

Regardless, the point remains that the progeny of political families are consistently given preference by America’s electorate, for reasons both conscious and unconscious. Questions of whether they should be preferred will most likely go unanswered, though we would do well to be mindful of the creeping influence of elitism inherent in family-oriented politics, just as we are wary of legacy candidates taking spots in institutions of higher education. In the end, however, we may not be able to choose whether we wish to vote for legacy candidates or not — it is quite possible 2016 will see us puzzling over putting a check in the box next to Clinton, or the box next to Bush.