wavePod

From Here We Go Again with Kal Penn: Is the Dynasty Dead? with Alexis Coe - Murder on the Towpath with Soledad O’Brien | Wave AI Podcast Notes

Back to Murder on the Towpath with Soledad O’Brien

From Here We Go Again with Kal Penn: Is the Dynasty Dead? with Alexis Coe

Murder on the Towpath with Soledad O’Brien

Wed Jan 28 2026

Summary

Podcast Summary

Podcast: Here We Go Again

Episode: Is the Dynasty Dead?
Date: January 28, 2026
Host: Kal Penn
Guest: Alexis Coe (Presidential Historian and Author)

Overview

In this episode, host Kal Penn and presidential historian Alexis Coe explore the persistent power of political dynasties in the United States, from the early days of the republic to the Trumps and Kennedys of today. As America approaches its 250th anniversary, the pair analyze why dynasties endure in a nation whose very identity is bound up in anti-monarchic sentiment and self-made meritocracy. Along the way, they dissect the myth, authenticity, and spectacle that propel—and sometimes curse—these famous families.

Main Themes & Insights

1. America’s Paradoxical Fascination with Dynasties

Americans love to think of themselves as anti-dynastic, meritocratic, and “against monarchy,” but the repeated prominence of political families suggests otherwise.
Despite the revolution against monarchy, Americans were never truly “over” royalty—or the trappings thereof.
Alexis Coe: “We love to think of ourselves as people who don't like dynasties. ... We're a meritocracy. ... But going back to the founding era for a second, there were still portraits of King George.” (06:56)

2. Origins and Evolution of Political Dynasties

Early dynasties: The Harrisons (William Henry and Benjamin Harrison) and the Adams family.
The Adamses set a tone of exceptionalism, with John Quincy Adams as a rare “good” presidential son: “He is the only male, with the exception of, I would say Beau Biden, ... who was exceptional and good and like really good. And the rest are just ne’er do wells across the board.” (12:20)

3. The Camelot Effect: Kennedys and Myth-Making

The Kennedy family built a unique mix of service, media savvy, and style.
JFK himself had to overcome a controversial family name and put in years of public service and evolution to become president.
Alexis Coe on JFK’s path: “He spent 11 years in Congress ... two New York Times best selling books ... a Purple Heart ... So that is what I think really built the Kennedy legacy. ... It was based on the person and it was based on his own evolution over time.” (14:09)
The family’s myth endures, but not all Kennedys are automatically “real power players.”

4. 20th and 21st Century: Bushes, Clintons, Trump

Bushes: A dynasty marked by their adaptability, authenticity, and shifting public personas—the transition from Planned Parenthood fundraisers to evangelicalism illustrates both the malleability and limitations of dynasty.
- “They are authentic in ... everyone knows they're rich, the same way with the Kennedys, but they offer this elite continuity dressed in like Texas populism.” (22:05)
Clintons: Confronted the limits of dynasty—Bill’s charisma vs. Hillary’s challenges with public “authenticity.”
- Hillary’s struggle stemmed from both gender and discomfort with the “performance” of politics: “She gave off elite ... She's uncomfortable in front of the camera. She would have done great, aside from the whole woman part, in the 18th or 19th century ...” (27:27)

5. Modern Dynasties: Trump’s Inheritance and the Rise of Branding

The Trump family represents a shift from service-based legacy to pure branding, entertainment, and spectacle.
“Now we have dynasty by inheritance, not service.” (28:18)
Trump’s transparency and shamelessness fundamentally change the game: “No one has ever benefited off the presidency in this way. ... The presidency has never come with a merch table.” (30:22)
Notable quote: “The Trump dynasty isn't built on public service. And so it's built specifically on spectacle, grievance, and I need a third, of course, omnipresence. Right. You can't get rid of them. You can't escape them.” (30:57)
Alexis is openly concerned about Trump leveraging the 250th anniversary as a rebranding for the nation: “Trump has complete control over this. ... he can align the Trump name with the 250th and make it synonymous with America—what frightens me the most. So it may be the dynasty to end all dynasties, or it may be a real moment.” (32:44)

Memorable Quotes & Moments

On American anti-dynastic delusion:
“I don't think Americans dislike the monarchy. ... I think they're ensorceled by this Camelot vision and that is why it is so effective.” – Alexis Coe (06:56)
On the failure of some dynasties:
“Jeb Bush ... was not only humiliated, but he took the humiliation and he sort of retreated with it. And I don't know what would have happened if any of them ... just owned their liabilities, but was like, 'you're the liability.'” – Alexis Coe (45:19)
On authenticity as the new ‘dynasty’ currency:
“Authenticity is ... the most important thing. ... So someone who just really refuses to leave the room, well, maybe the last one standing will win.” – Alexis Coe (41:33, 45:19)
On RFK Jr. and the cannibalization of the Kennedy brand:
“They have all said he should not hold the position that he holds. ... Trump is jealous of every president ever ... there’s no one who's a greater challenge to him than the Kennedys. But to sort of degrade the Kennedy name ... nothing gives him greater pleasure.” – Alexis Coe (36:33)

Notable Segments & Timestamps

Intro & Kal Penn’s framing of dynastic politics: (00:00–01:49)
Alexis Coe’s path to presidential history: (02:38–04:49)
Why dynasties persist / Early dynasties: (06:56–12:00)
JFK's unique rise and the Kennedy mythos: (14:09–18:10)
Bush, Clinton, ‘authenticity’, and the modern presidential brand: (22:05–28:18)
Trump’s dynasty—inheritance, branding, omnipresence: (28:18–32:44)
RFK Jr., family black sheep, and political cannibalization: (36:24–41:11)
Future of dynasties: authenticity, stamina, endurance: (41:11–46:16)

Takeaways & Final Thoughts

Political dynasties remain a constant—even as the definition shifts. The means by which they attract loyalty has changed, from hard-won service and myth-making (Kennedys) to authenticity and relentless branding (Trumps).
Authenticity now trumps (pun intended) service, but endurance may be the ultimate asset.
As Alexis puts it: “Endurance. ... Life is an endurance challenge.” (45:19)
Anxieties about the future: The Trump family’s merging of spectacle, branding, and political power is seen as a potentially unprecedented moment—a dynasty both consolidated and fragile.

For Listeners

If you want to learn more about presidential history, myth, and power, follow Alexis Coe’s work, including You’ll Never Forget Your First and the upcoming Young Jack. This episode is essential for anyone interested in the roots and realities of American dynasties as we approach 250 years since the Revolution.

Loading summary...

Transcript

Kalpen (Host) (0:00)

We've been hearing about the Kennedys for, well, for decades, but recently there's one guy that's been on our TVs and newspapers and all over social media a lot. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. You know him currently as the US Secretary of Health and Human Services. He is also a former presidential candidate. And of course, he's the son of Senator and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. He's also, as you may have guessed from the name, if you didn't already, the nephew of President John F. Kennedy. So his lineage to the White House runs pretty deep. We're approaching In America the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution. That was the pivotal moment that we, like, openly revolted against the Brits, against the monarchy. So given that that's the case, and we're coming up on 250, why do we continue to fuel political dynasty families?

Alexis Kohler (Presidential Historian) (1:01)

We love to think of ourselves as people who don't like dynasties. We don't embrace dynasty. We're a meritocracy. You pull yourself up by your bootstraps. And if we could just go back to the founding era for a second, there were still portraits of King George. Those did not automatically come down because the grift had worked.

Kalpen (Host) (1:25)

My guest today is author and presidential historian Alexis Kohler. Alexis and I will talk about the historic, famous families that have served America and what their political lineage reveals about power, myth, and the idea of authenticity in our democracy today.

Alexis Kohler (Presidential Historian) (1:44)

Here we Go Again. Again, again, again.

Kalpen (Host) (1:49)

Hey, I'm Kalpen, and this is Here We Go Again, a show that takes today's trends and headlines and asks again, why does history keep repeating itself?

Alexis Kohler (Presidential Historian) (1:58)

Here we go. This is an iHeart podcast, Guaranteed Human.

Kalpen (Host) (2:19)

Alexis Koh is the author of youf Never Forget yout First, a Biography of George Washington, as well as the forthcoming Young Jack, a biography of Of John F. Kennedy, 1917-1957. She is a New York Times bestselling writer and an expert on American dynasties. Welcome, Alexis.

Alexis Kohler (Presidential Historian) (2:38)

Thank you for having me.

Kalpen (Host) (2:40)

Thanks for being here. And I want to start with you. You're a presidential historian. Can you just tell us a little bit about your career? What got you interested in these very specific 45 dudes?

Alexis Kohler (Presidential Historian) (6:56)

You know, we, we love to think of ourselves as people who don't like dynasties. We don't embrace dynasty. We're a meritocracy. You pull yourself up by your bootstraps. It doesn't matter what class or, or, you know, any of these things that we know actually aren't really true. And going back to, if we could just go back to the founding era for a second, there were still portraits of King George. Throughout the very long, almost decades long American Revolution, those did not automatically come down because the grift had worked that. Now we have. We see you go into the DMV and you see Trump's chosen photo for his portrait. And that was true as far as paintings, wherever you went in early America. And also, you know, the, the colonies were isolated from each other purposefully. They even had their own currency so that they wouldn't do exactly what they ended up doing. You just keep them all isolated and uninformed. But, you know, lo and behold, people just love freedom. That was this sort of shared experience that they all had, even if they were angry at him in, in a very paternalistic way. And then I started to think about that when everyone got up so early to watch Will and Kate get married, all my friends were like, I get up really early anyway to work and they asked and I was like, no, I was far more patriotic. I think at the time I was working on my Washington book. But my point is, I don't think Americans dislike the monarchy. I don't think they can envision themselves as answering to some sort of monarchy. But I do think that they are ensorceled by a certain degree, not of opulence, which is, I think, what certain presidents might get wrong, but I think they're ensorceled by this Camelot vision and that is why it is so effective. This was not the case, however, before technology changed, like the AP wire was not a threat to Lincoln, who at the time people were like, that is the weirdest looking man I've ever seen. But I think that it is when you start to see pictures, when there were portraits in, you know, actual daguerreotypes, not just paintings, which people were not going to see in the pub, when someone held up the periodical they had purchased when they went to town and, you know, most people couldn't read, it just was not so people didn't have a visual necessarily for who was the president. And also 19th century presidents, 20th century presidents, they were weirdos who would not do well in this climate, in this media climate. So I think this has changed over time. But I think what's interesting is we have some forgotten dynasties.

Alexis Kohler (Presidential Historian) (14:09)

Right, Absolutely. I think it's interesting though, because the Kennedys now would win on name. Caroline Kennedy, who we don't really talk about enough, I think is notice when I talked about the ne' er do well sons of the founders and of all presidents, with these few exceptions, she's one of the great ones of the daughters and she has carried on a lot of this. But Kennedy was not a sure thing. Kennedy's dad was the ambassador to the Court of St. James and that was a big deal. Joe Sr. Joe Kennedy, he was a very successful businessman. He's the kind of guy who for some reason knew to sell high six months before the Great Depression. He was just always there, right time, right place. But what that always suggests as well, and we see this a lot now as sort of tech leaders, is that there is a shrewdness that doesn't always go well with politics. But I think what's really interesting about the Kennedys is you have Joe Kennedy. He is appointed at the most pivotal moment. You have World War I, World War II, and Joe Sr. Had not served and was not a big fan of World War I. But when Joe Senior was at the Court of St. James, it was as World War II was very obviously going to happen. Hitler is invading this country and that country. And Kennedy actually goes, he takes a year off from college and he goes and he does research for his thesis. He goes to Israel. It's so amazing. He writes a letter, he's like, I don't know, like maybe a two state solution. He's like just throwing, you know, just spitballing here. And he is 20, 21. He's really seeing a lot of these things on the ground. And in fact there is a boat. He has to go some work for his dad as far as helping people who've been attacked by Germans. And he comes back and he writes a book which is his thesis and it's, it's pretty good. It's certainly, I think, better than the one that won him a Pulitzer later. But I'm sort of I'm, I'm going slowly because I'm showing that at this time that he is publishing his college thesis that becomes a New York Times bestseller While England slept. His father is forced to resign by FDR because he basically said it was basically like, I don't know, let's see who wins. Like, are we really going to get involved in the whole morality thing? You have to remember that at this point, Joe Sr. As the ambassador, he knows what's going on. He knows about concentration camps. He does not care. Kennedy starts to break away during this time and this is, I think, what makes the legacy, because when he starts to get into politics, this period, this name is not helping him, it's hurting him. But what Kennedy does is he sets out and he makes a name for himself as a war hero. He, over time evolved and he put in the time. So people think, oh, Kennedy, his family money bought the presidency and he became president. It wasn't that quick. He spent 11 years in Congress and we're talking about, we've already named two New York Times best selling books. He's going to win a Pulitzer in 1957. He's received a Purple Heart for a very, very impressive show of bravery. So that is what I think really built the Kennedy legacy. And then of course, I think his funeral, his procession, all of these things really worked. But it was based on the person and it was based on his own evolution over time. I don't think that, however, works for everyone because we've had some Kennedys who have not been appointed. Let's, let's make sure that we make that clear. They have not been appointed. They have won elections, they have served, but they have not been real power players. And Lincoln's son tried to run for office and that was a disaster.

Alexis Kohler (Presidential Historian) (25:00)

Well, it's interesting, we think it's so conspicuous, the friendship between Michelle Obama and W. And so it's often remarked upon. But what is less obvious, but still very much there, is the relationship between the Bushes and the Clintons. Yep, they're chummy. They really like each other. And there's a, you know, I think it's a clip. It certainly played out like one in my mind often, which is Clinton says, you know, we were friends before the election and we were friends after the election. I think he might say we were friends after I beat him. And so I think there are a couple things going on. One, you have the Bushes were authentic in their connection to the land, whether it be Connecticut or Texas, because let's not forget, you know, they're also all male. And then you have the Clintons and you have Clinton who could. And Clinton was more of a centrist. He left wildly popular, though we always forget that he left with like bonkers approval ratings. But Hillary seemed, you know, when I think about that in retrospect, and I much prefer my history dead. So this is a little challenging to me. But when I think about it in retrospect, I think a lot about initial reactions to Hillary Clinton serving a role in Clinton's government, that she was working on healthcare, she was working on things, these things that have been really important to a lot of presidents. There was resistance to her almost immediately. She's a woman, she is very smart. So I think that she gave off elite for all W's ridiculous W isms. You know, how he would just mess up a sentence or say, you know, fool me once all these things. He was himself. And Bill Clinton can't not be himself. Hillary Clinton does not strike people as authentic. And I think it's just because she's. It's. She's uncomfortable. I don't. I think when, you know, oh, but her emails, when you read those emails, it was like, can we help out this young girl? Can we do this? Can we do that? But she's not. She's so uncomfortable in front of the camera. She would have done great, aside from the whole woman part. In the 18th or 19th century, when.

Alexis Kohler (Presidential Historian) (37:03)

On boards, you know, divorcing wives when they have cancer, that sort of thing. But they've never actually done anything. They haven't served. And then they decide, oh, I'm. I'm going to take this incredibly important position. I've never worked in a real office. I was a curator at the nypl. When I go to New America, I just steal snacks and give talks. That's it. So I would never think that I could manage people, my poor research assistants, like, God help them. But these people think, oh, yes, I should run for president. I should, you know, be in charge of incredibly influential and consequential entities within government. So I think the problem with the dynasties more than anything else is. And this, this is particular to Kennedy, though, to RFK Jr. Because the rest of them don't have this. His siblings, the whole lot of them, because they are a little army within themselves. They have all said he should not hold the position that he holds. Caroline Kennedy, who does a remarkable job of never being in the media if she doesn't have to be. She wrote a letter and that sounds like no. A letter. That's a big thing. She's come out and said he is a deeply troubled person. What I think is, if we step back. Trump loves to reward loyalty, but he also likes to demolish the competition. I've never. It's like being, you know, it's awful to be with someone and they're jealous of someone you dated in the eighth grade or something. Trump is jealous of every president ever. He's jealous of James K. Polk. He's jealous of Wilson. He's probably jealous of Hoover, who no one really thinks of as in a positive light. And so there's no one who's a greater challenge to him than the Kennedys. But to sort of degrade the Kennedy name. So you have the Rose Garden, which was a big thing. You have usaid. I would not be surprised if the Peace Corps happened soon. He wouldn't get off the plane. When Obama was awarded the Profiles and Courage Award In, I think, 2016 or 2017 by the JFK Library, Trump was so mad that his plane had landed at the same time. He didn't even want to be on the same, like, paper, the same spread. The Kennedy center used to be bipartisan. He's replaced them. Now it's just MAGA only. And people are always, you know, his sycophants, they're always sort of nominating Peace Prize and Trump Day, but now they want to change the name of the Kennedy center to the Trump Center. And I think nothing gives him greater pleasure. And so I do think, and this is me really just sort of taking a risk here, in my personal opinion, not in my professional capacity, but also a little bit in my professional capacity. I think that he is attempting to obliterate the brand because he finds it really frustrating. You know, it's a. It's, you have Camelot versus American carnage. There's no way he's going to beat them in words, in looks, in elegance. I don't know about money. I haven't done those numbers. But they certainly didn't have to work in the way that he does. They were better looking. They're in better shape. They were better, better, better. And so I think that he's, the only way he knows how to deal with them is to cannibalize them. And so that's, that's a little bit of R.F. key Jr.

Alexis Kohler (Presidential Historian) (41:33)

I think dynasty is a certain advantage, just like anything. But as we've already talked about, you have to back it up with concerted effort and action. So as much as we think of Donald Trump being woefully, really emphasis on woefully underprepared and then willfully underprepared in a lot of ways for the presidency, he's been running for office and building this brand more or less since I was a child. I first met him in home alone. And I think that that is influential in a way that, but it has to be backed up by something. So even though Trump is not well informed, because you can't be if you don't read. And General Mattis, I think, said he's functionally illiterate, which means that, you know, if you don't read, you can have information. You can, but it's just going to be really superficial. And he just does not understand a lot of things. Has absolutely no respect or understanding for American history. And so I think the move now, unfortunately is, I think authenticity is the most. We've seen this in New York. Mamdani. Right. We have a mayoral candidate who is running on platforms that absolutely terrify, slash, almost turn people on. So there's like a group that's just like, reminds me of Obama in 2008, 2007, where like every grandparent was like, ah, then you have, and then you have them getting used to it and realizing it's fine. And actually he's really centrist and all of these things. And that's not true now with we Have a candidate who is very much like a morgue. How can I explain it more? You know, this little place called New York City. I don't know if the rest of the country is aware of it, but he is basically like, aoc. If she was what everyone wants her to be. So if she was the socialist nightmare that they claim that she is. And I think that the most important thing would be authenticity and someone who is somehow informed, hopefully more than Trump. But I was thinking about it, you know, a Matthew McConaughey, who is really actually done the work, could a hundred percent sweep primaries. And the problem, I think, with a lot of celebrities or people who come from some sort of prominent background is they just think, oh, I'm out. That didn't work. I'm gonna quit. Whereas Trump, you have to be shameless. You have to really take all the hits, which is usually why, second term, they're all bitter. Yeah, they're all bitter and sensitive. No matter. Even if it looks like they had a pretty nice ride. And that, I guess, is my takeaway, is the Trumps are not forever. Because as you said, when I say Trump is getting older, let's see if he makes it. But you were talking about his stamina and his endurance, and that is what I think is most important. Dynasty would be third on that list. First would be authenticity, then stamina, and then the last Kennedy. He had his father's name. They definitely knew he was rich, he was good looking, he was single, all of these things, Purple heart. But the reason he won was probably none of those things. That man campaigned like it was his primary job and like he loved it. And the whole family wasn't on it. People just need to own whatever. If we've learned anything from Trumpet's short, a name, some notoriety, own it. Hillary should have owned those emails. She should have been. What's the big deal? So someone who just really refuses to leave the room, well, maybe the last one standing will win in some ways.