Sociologists refer to connectedness as social capital — that component of relationships that is created between people in families, labor markets and other important institutions that makes it possible to achieve goals.
We all use social capital to get jobs, to get our children into good schools and to get "deals" on the things that we purchase. And most of us will use whatever power we have, within limits, to help our loved ones. In fact, anthropologists have shown us that kinship ties are powerful in all societies and that they often override reason, rationality and good judgment.
So much of the recent inflammation over the Clinton pardons stems from charges that the former president used his executive pardoning power to benefit his family, which should come as no surprise. Specifically, former President Clinton pardoned his brother Roger's drug convictions and cleaned the slate for two men who paid $400,000 in legal fees to his brother-in-law, Hugh Rodham.
There are also suspicions that the president commuted the sentences of several convicted grifters as payback for their support for the senatorial campaign of his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Finally, the former president pardoned white-collar fugitive Marc Rich, a well-connected financier whose ex-wife is a major contributor to the Democratic Party and whose lawyer served as Clinton's White House counsel. In short, the former president is being accused of nepotism — the granting of favors to relatives or friends by a high officeholder.
Nepotism is nothing new in American politics. Unfortunately, we should view nepotism as business as usual rather than evidence that Bill Clinton is uniquely immoral or shamelessly self-interested. In politics, as in all other profit industries, it's not what you know but who you know. Social connectedness matters: Being "connected" may be the single best resource a person can have, and family connections may be the most effective shortcut of all.
We've seen this time and again in American politics. Family and politics do not mix well. Our Founding Fathers knew this. Thomas Jefferson once said of nepotism that "the public will never be made to believe that an appointment of a relative is made on the ground of merit alone, uninfluenced by family views; nor can they ever see with approbation offices, the disposed of which they entrust to their president for public purposes, divided out as family property."
According to Jefferson, the relatives of public officials should not themselves take public office because of the conflict of interest it would represent. This advice has rarely been heeded.
Having family in high places is often abused. Northwestern University sociologist John Hagan argues that social capital facilitates all goal achievement, including criminal goals. Crooks, swindlers and dishonest brothers-in-law also need social capital. The probability of political corruption and misdeeds is further increased when power is concentrated in families. Like all families, political families such as the Kennedys, the Clintons and the Bushes exert considerable energy attending to the interests of their relatives. Politicians send their relatives business, they give them jobs, they make deals to get them votes and they bail them out of trouble when necessary.
Powerful families also break rules and violate the law at a greater rate because the opportunity and motivation for corruption and dishonesty multiplies when politics is the family business. Relatives are also helpful in covering up misconduct and in keeping secrets. Crooked politicians are likely to give favors to relatives who, in turn, are more likely to keep quiet about it.
Did President Clinton give favors to those who garnered support for his wife's senatorial campaign? It would not be surprising if he did. Husbands help their wives. Former President Bush has been accused of using his influence to stimulate the 1980s federal bailouts that benefited his sons, Neil and Jeb. Fathers help their sons. It's also reasonable to suspect that Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida was something more than a disinterested observer during the Florida recounts. Brothers help brothers.
Families are not supposed to have a monopoly on political power. Part of the reason that power becomes concentrated in families is that campaigns are financed through a payback system. Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush both undoubtedly received funding from those who somehow profited from their association with former Presidents Clinton and Bush. Based on their political experience and personal attributes alone, it is unlikely that either Hillary or George W. would have ascended to their current offices without the help of their political families.
As voters, we should fight the concentration of power by opposing candidates whose main accomplishment is being born or marrying into a political family. On the other hand, we should expect corruption when we help to build political families by voting for a candidate because they are a Kennedy, Clinton or Bush. Concentrating power in families is contrary to democratic ideals and is asking for corruption.
Thomas Vander Ven is an assistant professor of sociology at Hofstra University.