CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the concept of political dynasties needs to be rid of. In retrospect, political
dynasties should not be allowed because political dynasties lead to corruption and
deceit among the candidates that are running for office. According to hess in his book
American Political Dynasties, “America was founded in rebellion against nobility and
inherited status. Yet from the start, dynastic families have been conspicuous in national
politics. The adamses. The Lodges. The Tafts. The Roosevelts. The Kennedys. And
today the Bushes and the Clintons” (Hess). It is as if the United States rejected said
ideology of inherited status and nobility, but nevertheless continued to put their own
individual political spin on it by imbedding presidential candidates to lead for
generations. Their previous mentors and leaders paved the path of politics for them. No
matter what familial values or beliefs were instilled within were permanently terminated
upon entering the world of politics, hence continuing an ineffective legacy that ultimately
lead to nothing and nowhere. These politicians, due to their lack of their own
fundamentals and inability to implement new ideas results in their personal rhetoric
losing credibility and efficiency. However, if the ideology of the political candidates that
are derived from a dynasty is efficient for the good of the public in progressive places
around the world, it can be beneficial. It’s important to remember that if the country is in
pursuit of a democracy, part of that democracy is the ability to have the right to vote and
have a voice in relation to who is going to be the proceeding governing head or leader.
Political dynasties can hinder this process, but if the majority of the public is competent
and puts their needs ahead of everything else, this concept cannot be held accountable
for poor politics. In the end, the people will decide who is going to have the power.