Michigan Representative John Dingell is retiring at the end of this term after six decades in Congress. Allahpundit notes that Dingell inherited his seat from his father and might pass it on to his wife:
The guy who held Dingell’s seat before he was first elected to the House in 1955 was … John Dingell Sr. And Dingell Sr wasn’t a newcomer: He took his seat on March 3, 1933, the day before FDR was sworn in as president for his first term. The Dingells have been represented in Congress since before the New Deal. And at age 60, Debbie’s got a fair shot at a long run herself. If she can serve 19 years, it’ll be a full century of Dingellmania in the House for Michigan. And if she can’t serve 19 years, no worries. Christopher Dingell, John’s son, was elected to the state senate at the tender age of 30 and now serves as a judge. He’s a few years younger than Debbie and is right in line behind her. Who knows? Maybe we’ll get lucky and have a Dingell-versus-Dingell primary for the old man’s seat. That would be a fittingly grotesque end to having one family dominate its district for more than 80 years.
Philip Klein sees both Dingell’s dynastic succession and his long Congressional career as anti-democratic:
He was re-elected over and over again due to the way congressional districts are drawn up and because incumbents have such a huge money and influence advantage that it creates a barrier to entry for any potential challengers.
The United States was created by a revolution against a monarchy, and yet Americans have had an unhealthy obsession with political dynasties. As if the working assumption that Hillary Clinton will be the next Democratic presidential nominee isn’t enough, Jeb Bush is increasingly being talked about as one of the leading Republican candidates. And seriously, does anybody believe that Caroline Kennedy is the most qualified person in the country to serve as the ambassador to Japan?
Jonathan Bernstein responds:
The good news about dynastic politics is that the practice appears to be decreasing over time, despite the current Republican string of nominating dynastic candidates for president (depending on whether one wants to count John McCain, the only non-dynastic nominee the party has had since 1984 was Bob Dole in 1996, and Dole’s wife wound up serving in the cabinet and the Senate). But yes, I think a polity set up so that families perpetuate themselves in political office is less of a democracy than one in which dynastic politics is rare.
The Dish 