|
Nepotism: From "Gladiator" to the Clinton Clan by Steve Sailer UPI, March 1, 2001 |
|||
|
Close on the heels of revelations that Hugh Rodham received $400,000 for securing pardons from his brother-in-law Bill Clinton comes news of another ex-Presidential brother-in-law's pardon request. Over the strong objections of the Justice Department, Tony Rodham successfully lobbied for a Presidential pardon for two carnival operators to whom he has a financial tie. The well-connected Mr. Rodham, a consultant, is also the brother of New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and the son-in-law of California Senator Barbara Boxer. On the other hand, the ex-President turned down former First Half-Brother Roger Clinton's appeal for pardons for Roger's old prison pals. These stories raise once again the ancient questions revolving around nepotism and dynasties. Recent Presidents have had relatives as ne'er-do-well and troublesome as Billy Carter and Donald Nixon, as ethically challenged as savings and loan operator Neil Bush, as energetic and loyal as Attorney General Bobby Kennedy, as wise as university president Milton Eisenhower, and as powerful as Senator Prescott Bush and President George Bush. Yet, the issues raised by leaders showing favoritism toward their kin go back far into the past. For example, the plot device that sets the Academy Award frontrunner "Gladiator" in motion is a fictionalized version of an incident that the great 18th century historian Edward Gibbon saw as the beginning of what he famously called "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." From A.D. 98 to 180, the Roman world had prospered under five consecutive talented emperors. Gibbon called this era "the period in the history of the world during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous." The quality of these rulers stemmed from the custom that an aging emperor should adopt as his son and heir a younger man who had shown himself to be the most worthy successor to the throne. The most acclaimed of the five emperors may have been the last, the philosopher-king Marcus, author of a classic work of Stoic philosophy, "The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius." In "Gladiator's" imaginative scenario, in the year 180 the aged Marcus Aurelius (played by Richard Harris) intends to adopt his best general, the able yet modest Maximus (portrayed by Russell Crowe). Marcus' cruel and capricious biological son Commodus (played by Joaquin Phoenix), however, poisons his father, steals the throne, and drives Maximus into gladiatorial slavery. In reality, Marcus Aurelius "sacrificed the happiness of millions to a fond partiality for a worthless boy," in the words of Gibbon. By admitting Commodus to a share of the Imperial power when the lad was only fourteen or fifteen, the doting father made inevitable Commodus' disastrous ascension to the throne. The word "nepotism" comes from the Latin for "nephew." The urge is universal, crossing all human cultures. In fact, it is found among many species. Yet, why would an individual sacrifice his personal interests for those of his relations? In recent decades, neo-Darwinist scientists have finally quantified exactly why nepotism exists. The late Oxford biologist William D. Hamilton figured out the math in 1964. It may have taken that long because it required the odd trick of thinking about living creatures from their genes' point of view, assuming that genes could have a point of view. To a gene, an animal is a machine for making more copies of that gene. The types of human genes that exist today are the ones that best succeeded in the past at getting the human beings they were embedded in to make copies of them. The most obvious way to copy your genes is for you to have children. Yet, there are also copies of many of your genes in your relatives. Helping them survive and prosper can also contribute to making more copies of your genes. Your child carries half of the idiosyncratic genes that are in your individual genome. But, so does your brother or sister. Your nephews, nieces, and grandchildren each embody a quarter of your personal genes. Your first cousins has an eighth, and so on. Thus, when an interviewer asked British biologist J.B.S. Haldane if he'd die for his brother, he wisecracked, "No, but I'd die for two brothers or eight cousins." Nepotism toward in-laws also has a bit of a genetic basis. Bill Clinton and the Rodham brothers have no direct biological link. Yet, the ex-President shares half his individual genes with his daughter Chelsea, who shares one quarter of her genome with each of her Uncles Hugh and Tony. The same logic that shows why human beings are nepotistic also demonstrates why would-be dynasties founded by brilliant upstarts tend to decay so quickly due to untalented kin. Although a son inherits half of his genes from his father, the genes he receives are randomly chosen from among his father's two sets of genes. Thus, the son gets only one quarter of his father's dominant genes. This randomness of inheritance also explains why siblings aren't that similar, unless they are identical twins (who are genetic clones). The standard gap between brothers in important measures like income and IQ tend to be around two-thirds as large as the standard gap between two strangers. For instance, highly intelligent and organized men like Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter were burdened with ineffectual and embarrassing brothers. Donald Nixon's chain of "Nixonburger" restaurants went belly up. It allegedly had to be bailed out by a loan from Howard Hughes. Similarly, Billy Carter's "Billy Beer" brand was widely derided as swill. Billy then developed an alarming financial relationship with anti-American dictator Moammar Gadhafi of Libya. Paradoxically, the federal "Anti-Nepotism Act" of 1967, which bans Presidents from appointing close relatives to the Cabinet, was inspired not by the long list of losers who have been related to Presidents, but by the intense and capable Bobby Kennedy. His absolute devotion to his big brother awoke fears of what a gifted dynasty bound by strict family loyalty could accomplish. Historian Paul Johnson claimed that John F. Kennedy's "chief regret was that he had not made Robert head of the CIA, to bring it under close family control." Despite all the laws against it, nepotism will never die out. It's in our genes. Steve Sailer (www.iSteve.com) is a columnist for VDARE.com and the film critic for The American Conservative.
Subscribe to The American Conservative Steve Sailer's iSteve.com home page
|
Steve Sailer's iSteve.com homepage
|