Foolish, Wicked and Improper: Hereditary Succession in the Two-Party State

Is there anything more un-American than hereditary succession in government?  One of the most disturbing aspects of the two-party state and duopoly system of government is the extent to which it has fostered the creation of a ruling political class in which hereditary succession is not only accepted but even fostered and encouraged by the parties with the approval of their deluded supporters.  From Politico:

The House of Representatives has long been seen as a playground for political dynasties, where family bloodlines play an outsize role in determining succession. Don’t expect that to change anytime soon. As they near the twilight of their political careers, nearly a dozen House members may be succeeded by one of their relatives. . . .

The newest batch of up-and-coming potential successors provides a window into the dynasty-friendly House, which has often been dotted with lawmakers who succeeded a family member. The 112th Congress includes several lawmakers who hold seats once occupied by a parent — some of whom directly inherited the seat . . . 

“It is very difficult to beat a well-known name in politics,” said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. “The children of the officeholders have enormous advantages when the parent is still in office. The parent is still casting votes on legislation. He has a full stable of contributors that can be transferred to junior. The party people feel comfortable with the name and have enduring alliances. The son or daughter has grown up in the system and often knows the key players.” [Emphasis added.] . . .

Faced with a ruling political class which more and more resembles a ruling caste, it stands to reason that we might consider reviewing the sections on "Monarchy and Hereditary Succession" from Thomas Paine's Common Sense.  Some excerpts:

Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of Heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth inquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind. . . .

As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture . . .

For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and tho' himself might deserve some decent degree of honours of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in Kings, is that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule, by giving mankind an ASS FOR A LION. . . .

it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary succession which concerns mankind. Did it ensure a race of good and wise men it would have the seal of divine authority, but as it opens a door to the FOOLISH, the WICKED, and the IMPROPER, it hath in it the nature of oppression. Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent. Selected from the rest of mankind, their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed in the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions. [Emphases added.]

Foolish, wicked and improper.  That sounds about right.