As someone who's spent the past five or so years intermittantly immersed in political families, I have to say I don't share Michael Barone’s concerns about dynasties, and that the facts don't match up to the fears.
A family name may secure an entry level seat (ie Patrick Kennedy, and several others), but above this dynasts don't rise without serious talent, and seldom beyond their own level of competence. TR had four sons, at least one of whom, all assumed, would one day hold high office; his first son and namesake did not make the cut to be governor. FDR's children did not get past Congress, where they were soon seen as jokes. For twelve years after the murder of Robert F. Kennedy, it was widely assumed his brother could have the White House whenever he wanted. As it turned out, he ran against Carter—whose approval ratings were in the low 30's—and lost. A massive investment of publicity, money, and celebrity backing has done nothing at all for the third generation of Kennedys, most of whom embarrassed themselves while in office, and are now left with one minor and none-too-bright congressman, whom no one expects to go further. John Quincy Adams got a huge boost from his father (and without him may never have gone into politics) but he made his own way up the ladder by distinguishing himself in what was then the accepted road to the presidency, which was through the State Department and/or a great embassy. (He was a bad politician, who lost when Andrew Jackson changed the rules on him, but this is a whole other story.) Likewise, it is hard to see Jack and Bobby Kennedy—and George and Jeb Bush—as anything other than major political talents; and the main effect of their families on them was that Jack and W got to run for president a cycle before they might have otherwise done. They all had a huge advantage going in in their family fortunes and web of acquaintances (which is in itself a machine in the making), but luck in politics comes in a great many ways: Nixon and Reagan were approached by wealthy men eager to back them, and a great many people get a huge boost by being picked for vice president, which often has more to do with quixotic motives—“balance,” etc—-than merit itself.
Continuing a name does not mean more of the same: as a politician, W has nothing in common with his father (whose approach he avoided.) JFK was wholly unlike his father; Bobby was unlike him, and Ted, one imagines, makes them spin in their graves. Given all this, I am at a loss at what there is in a name that's so frightening. People so far have been amazingly competent in weeding out the weedier dynasts, and letting the solid growths stand.
