I think dynasticism is something you have to be against in principle. But I also think everyone is. Then you get down to cases. I can't remember whose analogy this was originally, and maybe it was even mine, but the family name is a kind of brand: Bush is Coke, say. Now, here's the thing: If you launch a product under the Bush brand, it is indeed going to get a lot of initial attention on account of the brand. There is simply no denying this fact; in politics, no doubt, it's a huge leg up. For starters, it's name recognition. Plus the positive association (in business terms, "goodwill") that goes with it. But, but, but . . . Is the new product Diet Coke, a runaway success, or New Coke, a disaster? That depends on what people think of the new product — whether it lives up to the positive association of the brand — not on the brand itself.

 
Oh, and another thing: Have you ever noticed that morticians tend to be the children of morticians? Why should we be surprised about the children of politicians going into politics? As for a certain HRC, sure, she got into the game because of her husband. But 1) this was no guarantee of success; she had to make it work, and she did. And 2) it's not obvious to me, anyway, that she couldn't have gotten to the United States Senate by any other route than the one she took. We'll never know, but she might well have done it on her own under different circumstances. She's good at politics.