There was an Adams or a Jefferson serving as either President or Vice President of the country, as well, for the first twenty years of our nationhood. And then

There was an Adams or a Jefferson serving as either President or Vice President of the country, as well, for the first twenty years of our nationhood. And then after an eight year break, the son of the first President Adams became Secretary of State. And then President himself. An Adams or Jefferson was President, VP, or Secretary of State for the first 36 out of 44 years the US existed! I'm not sure what the above proves. Neither then nor now is what's going on anything like a hereditary monarchy. For one thing, Hillary Clinton is not the heir of Bill Clinton. And in both cases other people have been in the mix holding power. Washington during Adam's Vice Presidency. Obama during Hillary Clinton's Secretaryship of State. Which kind of kills the "mono" part of a "monarchy" -- if there are a bunch of different people from a bunch of different families running around with power. (Is "polyarchy" a word?) So don't get too freaked. (Also, plenty of first world democracies have hereditary monarchs. The United Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain, Australia, Canada, Japan, etc. The existence of a hereditary monarchy isn't necessarily anti-democratic.)