Nepotism is defined by Merriam-Webster as “the unfair practice, by a powerful person, of giving jobs and other favors to relatives.” Yet members of the political families in our history — Adams, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Bush, Clinton, and others — did (and do) actually have to be elected in their own right. So it’s not correct to call it nepotism. Political dynasty may be more accurate, but I prefer the term “political family.”
There are many people in the US who are uncomfortable with the existence of political families. I have heard people say it is why they could not support Jeb Bush (“we’ve already had two Bushes as President”) and why they are uneasy about Hillary. And yet, no one seems bothered when the child or children of doctors become doctors themselves. Or sons and daughters of lawyers become lawyers. Or those of farmers take up fishing. Or children of fishermen...you get the point. (Actually, my dad who was born in 1911 often commented sadly that he was the first in 12 generation not to make his living from the sea).
Yes, having a parent in a particular field may open some doors. But I think it is more a matter of having absorbed a vast body of knowledge, over time, of how a job works. The unique language, the culture and relationships among peers, the expectations and the sheer possibilities. If Chelsea Clinton decides to enter politics someday it will not be because she thinks she can coast into an office by virtue of her name. Instead, I believe it will be from a desire for public service that she learned from her parents, and an internal realization that the worst parts of the job — the scrutiny, the late nights, the chicken dinners and boring speeches — can be handled.
I believe that Hillary Clinton did a great job last night in helping the world to understand that she is eminently qualified. And I believe the fact that she was once First Lady should not make any difference to people — any more than it would make a difference to them if their dermatologist was married to another dermatologist.