Our dynastic politics

Under monarchies, the throne is kept in the family, with subsidiary power passed on through powerful aristocratic families.  Under our democratic republic, a good many of our presidential contenders so far are the scions of political families:  Clinton, Bush, Romney, Paul.

Columnist Dana Milbank has some interesting things to say about this phenomenon.

From Dana Milbank, No freshness in our 2016 presidential contest – The Washington Post:

This will be the seventh presidential campaign I’ve covered in some form, starting with a bit role in 1992. If the field develops the way it appears to be going, this will be my fourth Clinton campaign, fourth Bush campaign, third Romney campaign, third Paul campaign, second Huckabee campaign and second Santorum campaign. This isn’t an election — it’s a rerun.

The likely slate of candidates will include the son of a governor and presidential candidate, the son of a congressman and presidential candidate, the wife of a president and the brother of a president, son of a president and grandson of a senator. Nearly 2½ centuries after rebelling against the monarchy, our presidential contest has all the freshness of the House of Lords.

[Keep reading. . .]

Are these American political dynasties some atavistic reversion to a more primitive approach to government?  Or are there other reasons?   See Mr. Milbank’s theories.  Might there be any good reasons for this?