The Democrat Terry McAuliffe has worn many political hats over the years: mega-fundraiser, top campaign hand for President Bill Clinton’s 1996 run, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, the 72nd governor of Virginia. Now he is soliciting campaign donations for his wife, Dorothy, who is running for Congress in what will be a Democrat-friendly House seat if Virginia voters approve a redistricting plan this month. Looking for a boost in the crowded primary, Ms. McAuliffe’s campaign is blasting out emails from Terry with the theme: I’ve been a party player for more than four decades, so please help my wife!
I wish Ms. McAuliffe well. But I’m rooting for her path to take her somewhere other than Congress.
Sure, she is plenty qualified. A former State Department official, Virginia’s former first lady has more experience in government and politics than many other first-time House candidates. I also have no reason to doubt she is a delightful person. But as the Democratic Party tries to shed its reputation as the defender of a self-serving political elite, I do think its candidates should avoid trumpeting their status as the beneficiaries of rank nepotism.
Better still, sitting Democratic officials might stop encouraging nepo candidates. Americans are in a salty, anti-establishment state of mind. Public confidence in the federal government and in political parties is in the basement. The results of early primary elections in North Carolina and Texas last month suggested an anti-incumbent mood. Younger Democratic voters and elected officials are agitating for generational change. Polling shows people disgusted with the political status quo. Voters are sending strong signals that they want fresh faces and fresh ideas. Yet Nancy Pelosi, the formidable speaker emerita, has already endorsed Ms. McAuliffe.
Nepo candidates are an enduring, nonpartisan reality of U.S. politics. But the Democratic Party risks more than just one House race by embracing them at this moment.
The American electorate has long had an awkward relationship with dynastic politics. In theory, voters hate the idea of inherited power. In practice, they are frequently drawn to familiar names and pedigrees. In many cases, the political torch gets passed from one generation to the next. (See the Kennedys, Bushes, Cheneys, Daleys, Romneys, Gores, Caseys, Sununus, Cuomos. …) In others, it moves sideways, between spouses (Dole, Dingell, Clinton, Matsui, Bono, Letlow …).
There have been plenty of stellar political scions who reinforced the idea that certain families have a real taste and talent for public service. But there is a dark side as well. Americans’ enduring obsession with the Kennedy clan felt unhealthy long before it saddled us with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. atop the public health system.
On occasion, voters get fed up with a specific dynasty. (Poor Jeb Bush!) And Americans’ predilection for nepo candidates doesn’t necessarily hold during periods of anti-establishment frustration. In some circumstances, a well-known familial brand can wind up hurting more than helping.
On this point, the McAuliffe brand isn’t exactly an inspirational, future-forward one. Mr. McAuliffe’s fame and fortune were bolstered by his close ties to the Clintons, and for many of the voters familiar with him, he is a relic of that era, which has refused to gracefully fade away. He is also the guy who, after finishing a term as governor in 2018, popped up to run again in 2021 — a rare occurrence in Virginia, which prohibits governors from pursuing consecutive terms — and got stomped by a Republican, Glenn Youngkin.
This isn’t to single out one family. Consider the disastrous attempt by Tammy Murphy, the wife of Phil Murphy, then the governor of New Jersey, to snag herself a U.S. Senate seat in 2024. Jumping into the Democratic primary in late 2023, Ms. Murphy was the darling of the state party machine. She quickly racked up endorsements from county officials who, under the state’s since-dismantled “county line” system, determined which candidates received the prime spot on the ballot. Friendly with big donors, she initially outraised her chief competitor, Andy Kim, then a representative.
Thankfully, voters were having none of it. Democrats preferred Mr. Kim’s upstart campaign and his pledge to take on the party machine. Ms. Murphy was decried as the pick of a sclerotic, reform-resistant establishment. Her poll numbers languished, and the backlash against her grew fierce enough that she bowed out of the race that March. Mr. Kim went on to win the June primary and then the general election.
At least Mr. McAuliffe is a former governor. Mr. Murphy was still in office when his wife ran; there was no way to separate his power from his wife’s candidacy.
The more political nepotism looks like a tool for manipulating the playing field, the more noxious it becomes — even when a revered political figure is involved. Earlier this year, as Representative Jim Clyburn noodled whether to run for an 18th term, he told The Washington Post that, whenever he retired, he would love to see his House seat go to his daughter, Jennifer. “You’re a daughter,” the South Carolina Democrat reasoned to a Post reporter. “What would you think of your dad if you decided to do something and your dad didn’t support you?”
No doubt, many grateful voters in his district would be happy to help Mr. Clyburn cement his legacy by backing his child. But when elected officials grease the path to power for family members, no matter how gently, that sends a negative message about their party’s principles and about the sense of entitlement among its leaders. Manipulation doesn’t become virtuous because the manipulators are otherwise respectable.
Too many elected officials see their posts as possessions to do with as they please. Just last month, Senator Steve Daines, Republican of Montana, waited to withdraw his name from this year’s primary election until just three minutes before the state’s filing deadline and didn’t post his announcement video until two minutes after the deadline, ensuring that his preferred successor — who had filed five minutes before Mr. Daines’s withdrawal — would have minimal competition. How’s that for slippery? Democrats and even some Republicans expressed dismay. Last year, Representative Chuy García, an Illinois Democrat, pulled a similar stunt. He got formally reprimanded by the House, thanks to a resolution introduced by a fellow Democrat, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, of Washington. So far, Senate Republicans have shown less enthusiasm for condemning Mr. Daines’s machinations.
Political players’ seeking to manipulate the game with cronyism or nepotism is no way to regain the public trust. No matter how any individual race plays out, the stench clings to much of the team.
Democrats appear on track to do well in this year’s midterm elections, propelled by growing anti-Trump sentiment. But they still have much rebuilding and rebranding ahead. They need to get serious about showing that they get what Americans want from them.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
The post Enough With the Nepo Candidates, Democrats appeared first on New York Times.
