And so, on this political day, a political question: What do the following individuals have in common?Answer: They’re all former Alaska politicians.Croft
Sullivan
Begich
Murkowski
Parnell
Coghill
Kerttula
Egan
Foster
- Chancy Croft, former Alaska State Representative and Senator, father of candidate Eric
- George Sullivan, former Mayor of Anchorage, father of candidate Dan
- Nick Begich, former U.S. Representative for Alaska, father of U.S. Senator Mark
- Frank Murkowski, former U.S. Senator for Alaska and Alaska State Governor, father of U.S. Senator Lisa
- Pat Parnell, former Alaska State Representative, father of Lt. Gov Sean
- Bill Egan, former Alaska State Governor, father of State appointed-Senator Dennis
- Jack Coghill, former Lt. Governor, father of State Rep. John
- Jalmar Kerttula, former Alaska State Representative and Senator, father of State Rep. Beth
- Neal Foster, Member of the Alaska Territorial Senate, father of State Rep. Richard.
Throw in Ted and Ben Stevens; Eugene and Gretchen Guess; and Mike and Nick Stepovich --- and there may be others --- and I think it’s worth asking: What’s going on here?
It’s certainly not an isolated phenomenon. Younger members of the Rockefeller, Kennedy, and Udall clans all call DC home. New York has the Cuomos. Massachusetts and Michigan have the Romneys.
Nor does the practice necessarily produce bad results—John Quincy Adams was one of the best political figures the country ever had.
But, for me, it raises some questions. To start, how does Alaska’s list compare to other states’? Is politics in Alaska a family business to an unusual degree? Or does every jurisidiction tend to about this level of dynastic representation? And assuming — there’s no reason not to — that each of Alaska’s elected sons and daughters was/is genuinely the best person for his or her job, what does it say, if anything, about how knowledge, resources, and social connections are distributed in Alaska society that so many of our leaders are political progeny?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-Election Update: Sullivan takes it.
Dan will add years 16, 17 and 18 to the 15 that George M. banked.
I'm not that surprised. I think that growing up in a political family teaches you skills, values and norms that are essential for politics which most of the rest of the population does not get. It becomes the family business. I'm reminded of how the son of the emperor in the first episode of ROME speaks so politically at such a young age. In addition, the social network of a politician is one of his or her most important assets, so being born into such a network is a huge boon. In places where the population is larger, there may be more opportunities for outsiders. I'll make a prediction that you see this phenomenon in most places that are relatively isolated and have relatively small populations. So, check Hawaii for this.
ReplyDeleteI think you're probably right, although I wonder if the machine-aspect of politics in large jurisdictions (I'm thinking of the Daleys in Chicago) might actually make family connections *more* important. (It seems like the face-to-face aspect of politics in smaller places could, or should, lessen the lasting value of having a familiar family name.) But it also seems like something than could be empirically studied: do any of our social-scientist friends out there know? Are there data on this?
ReplyDelete