Jeb Bush: the candidate without a constituency
I’ve heard for years about the Republican “establishment” pushing this candidate or that candidate on the rank and file. Most of the time it’s seemed untrue to me.
But it seems absolutely on target with the current talk of Jeb Bush for 2016. He has no natural constituency. There is nothing special—or especially appealing—about him as a candidate. His name, IMHO, is a liability rather than an asset, both with Republicans and with Democrats.
So who would be voting for Bush in a primary? Darned if I know.
[NOTE: In choosing a category for this post, I thought about including him in “people of interest.” But the opposite is the point: he’s a person without interest.]
I’m guessing Floridians would be, but that’s clearly not enough.
Please, no more Bushes, Clintons or Kennedys.
Good question Neo. At one time I bought into the Jeb hype; but, that was a while back.
I do think that there is a constituency for Jeb. It is the politicians and such who are desperately searching for an establishment type who can oppose the Conservatives. Don’t think they can elect him, however.
(To me Governor Walker has all of the qualities we thought we saw in Jeb, and he has fought for his principles–and won.)
Sam L. I am not even so sure about Floridians. Jeb was painted as a popular Governor, and I suppose he was at the time. However, not everyone in my Florida based family are sold.
The problem with the Bush’s is that the well has run dry–unless Jenna goes into politics. Or would Laura count? Jeb is no George W. Nor is he George H. W. for that matter.
I don’t think Jeb could win the primaries and I hope he and the NJ gov don’t run as it will deflect money and attention from other candidates.
If he was the nominee, Clinton would run against him as being George W.
Just like Barack has done for the past six years.
It’s early.
Running Jeb Bush would open a good opportunity to set the record straight and rehabilitate Bush’s legacy, thereby taking away the sword and shield the Dems depend on, but that strategy would require an activist social movement the GOP doesn’t currently have to work with.
The solution isn’t the GOP and elected office. The necessary solution is a competitive activist social movement by the people. Just like the Dems reliance on the Left, the GOP needs a social movement from the Right to be effective.
So what’ll you do in choosing between a Jeb and a Hillary, Neo? Never mind the primaries; the GOP winner-take-all primaries have given us such outstanding candidates that Jeb is not to be discounted for the general. Why, Jeb’s a ‘conservative’ that can win with independents and Dems, just like Buckley (and you) have favored. I’m not being ad hom here, just being clear.
What today’s WSJ Political Diary says, in part, about Jeb:
“Jeb Bush’s weekend comments about immigration reform and Common Core national education standards have grabbed headlines, but they aren’t the only things he said that are worth noting.
“Mr. Bush, a Republican former governor of Florida who is weighing a 2016 White House run, told Fox News that he would make a decision by the end of the year but was not looking forward to “the vortex of the mud fight.” Mr. Bush said he’d rather “run with a hopeful, optimistic message.” We can’t blame the man for hoping, but let’s also hope he’s willing to get muddy if necessary.
(3rd para deleted)
“Right now, Jeb Bush is Chris Christie without the bridge scandal. He’s a moderate Republican who can raise a ton of money and appeals to independents but has credibility problems with the party’s base. He’s also a talented and articulate politician who can likely bridge those divides with conservatives. His support for comprehensive immigration reform is admirable and realistic given the country’s changing demographics. His support for Common Core is misguided at best, given the dearth of evidence that national standards are a necessary precondition for lifting student achievement. Still, Mr. Bush’s education record as governor was stellar–particularly with regard to advocating for more school choice–and Republicans ought to give him the benefit of the doubt.
“What conservatives may not forgive, however, is a sense that their nominee isn’t willing and able to go blow-to-blow with Democrats–and deliver the knockout punch. Going forward, Mr. Bush might want to advertise his toughness. GOP voters are understandably wary of nominating another Mr. Nice Guy.”
#########
There are some here who like Christie (“Jeb with bridgegate”)and so should like Jeb, based on the WSJ analysis. But tough men don’t need to advertise toughness.
Pfaagh to them both, I say. No difference between them and Cory Booker; they are all just hollow men who play the system by “bridging”.
Why Jeb? He can beat Hillary — an article in the Tampa Tribune by a former Florida state legislator who also worked for Jeb. He views the Florida thing as key, which may reflect what the “establishment” folks are thinking as well:
Republican Big Donors just came out in favor of Jeb Bush, so of course the GOP leadership wants him. But even the least astute political prognosticator has to know that the Bush name is a political ‘non-starter’. So the more interesting question for me is why does the GOP want to lose? Why the death wish?
The answer that resonates with me is conservative unrest. Either somehow they’ve convinced themselves that another Presidential loss will finally convince conservatives that they have to support the GOP candidate… and/or they’re quite happy with the status quo and see no reason to change it.
Don Carlos:
Of course I’d vote for Bush over Clinton if they were the nominees. That’s not even remotely the issue.
My point here is that I don’t think Bush has a chance of being nominated, because he has virtually no popular support, and not just among conservatives; among Republicans as well. Also (although I didn’t say it), unlike in 2012 and even 2008, there are going to be (I predict, anyway) much better candidates running, such as Scott Walker.
And I never favored Romney because I thought he “could win with independents and Democrats.” I favored him because I thought he was the best candidate of a poor crop, in terms of what sort of president I thought he’d be. I also did think he would get more votes from Democrats and Independents than Gingrich or Santorum would, but that’s not saying much. I continue to think that they would have done much worse than Romney did against Obama in the general, and I believe I am right.
I was not optimistic about Romney’s chances of beating Obama in 2012. You won’t find a lot of optimism in my posts during that campaign. I was never one of those people predicting victory; in fact, I was almost literally ill in the week before the election because I was so worried (rightly so, I might add). But I felt—and I think I was absolutely correct—that the other Republican candidates in the primaries would have done even worse than Romney did against Obama in terms of their vote totals in the general. Although Romney was not a good candidate, they were very poor candidates, for reasons I wrote about ad nauseam back then. When the field was finally solidified, and I saw who had and who had not thrown a hat into the ring, I knew the field was so weak that no matter who was nominated there was an excellent chance the Republican candidate would lose. This was very distressing.
And yes, I actually think that Romney is a conservative (by the way, he was the conservative alternative to McCain in 2008, you may recall), and I explained why in post after post in 2012. I continue to think he’s a conservative. Not the most conservative conservative on earth, but definitely a conservative, and more conservative than he was able to be as governor of Massachusetts, dealing with a hugely liberal legislature and populace.
Don Carlos:
Jeb Bush’s name is his very own bridge scandal.
JB’s “act of love” comment was enough to sink him IMO. That said, I would vote for any republican over any democrat in a presidential election.
I agree parker. Maybe before that act of love comment but to me that says he hasn’t been paying attention.
And I don’t believe Hillary will have a cake walk either.
I voted for Jeb twice as Governor. He was a very good Governor. I will never, ever, ever vote for him as President. If for no other reason than he endorsed Charlie Crist as his successor.
Allahpundit at Hot Air has posted a video of Bill Kristol saying no way Jeb will be the nomineee in 2016. That almost makes me think he will be, mainly because I’ll never forget Kristol saying on TV when the Lewinsky scandal broke that there was no way Clinton could not resign the presidency.
Allahpundit writes more about all this, and provides a scenario in which Jeb does get the nod:
Read the whole thing here.
Ann:
Note that the article you linked mentioned Walker could do better than Bush, even in that scenario.
Walker’s my candidate at the moment, and has been for some time.
kaba:
So, in a Hillary vs. Jeb fight, you abstain? I will never understand that sort of thinking.
Jeb Bush, like his father and brother, he’s a thoroughly decent man. And, IMO, that was one of the main problems for 41 and 43. A good President needs to be an ethical man, a man who knows exactly what he believes and why he believes it. But he must be a hard man. The President makes life and death decisions that can be fatally flawed when they are tempered with too much decency/compassion. The President’s job is not about getting domestic policy right – that’s primarily for Congress. The President’s job is primarily about defending the
country and administering justice. Joe Arpaio is the type of man we need for President. He’s tough as nails but fair and ethical. The last man we had as President who was tough as nails yet fair and ethical was Ronald Reagan. George W. tried to do the right thing as C-in-C, but he had the vision of “Compassionate Conservatism,” which is what his brother, Jeb, is echoing when he compares illegal immigration to an act of love. A man with that kind of hazy thinking about the law and law enforcement is, IMO, not a good candidate for President.
I have raved on about this issue many times here at neo’s, and I know I sound like a broken record. But dagnabbit, it’s the most important issue when selecting a President.
All that said, if the choice is Jeb or Hillary, I’ll be voting for Jeb. Jeb’s not perfect, but Hillary’s a proven disaster – never, ever, forget Benghazi!
I agree with neo and JJ’s POV and if its Jeb or Hillary, I vote for Jeb Bush.
But…then Jeb, Boehner et al leads the republicans into voting for Comprehensive Amnesty and 11-33 million new ‘undocumented’ democrats ensure permanent one-party rule in America.
Game over. Slow poison instead of a quick march to the guillotine. When fiscal collapse occurs (its mathematically and politically inescapable), the republicans share responsibility for the debacle, so they can’t offer a credible alternative. And the media supports the democrat’s charge that the republican’s sabotaged their noble socialistic efforts… calling for the low-info voter to double down by voting for their candidates.
Predictable as a Japanese Kabuki play.
Someone please explain, without wishful thinking, where that future scenario is flawed.
neo,
Very simply we’ve had a Republican establishment approved candidate for at least the last 6 election cycles. As a result we’ve had two Clinton administrations, two Obama administrations, and only narrowly escaped having a Gore administration.
These candidates tepidly pay lip service to conservative values during a Primary run but they seem to forget about all about them during the general or after elected. I’ve dutifully donated to and voted for all of these candidates because of party loyalty.
At the same time the Republicans have a reasonable majority in the House. And yet we’re almost certain to have an immigration bill that includes some version of amnesty. And they have watched helplessly as this President and his Attorney General violate the law and ignore the Constitution on a daily basis.
No, I won’t abstain. Rather I’ll find the candidate that best represents my values and beliefs and support that candidate with my dollars and vote. Better than unnamed Democrat candidate just won’t do. In fact that type of thinking has led us to this miserable point in history.
kaba:
I’ve argued against thinking like yours many many times on this blog, and I’m not going to re-invent the wheel and start again from the beginning. Suffice to say that IMO you are wrong in a great deal of what you say, and such a course of action will end up facilitating the triumph of the left.
I agree, by the way, that in the primary one should always vote for the candidate you like the most. In the general the lesser of two evils must prevail, or else the more evil of two evils will prevail. Plus, in 2016, whoever is elected will almost certainly name one or more SCOTUS justices, and if the Court flips to the liberal side as a result it will solidify very powerful leftist thinking and control for many decades.
I refer you to the following posts of mine for more on the subject of voting and choosing candidates, conservative and otherwise:
this, this, this, and this.
neo,
GB says, “When fiscal collapse occurs (its mathematically and politically inescapable)….. Someone please explain, without wishful thinking, where that future scenario is flawed.”
For me, its a matter of how far we fall, not that we will fall. That is inevitable. I’m of the opinion that Japan will be the first to implode with China and the rest of us to swiftly follow. When that happens the developed nation that falls the least will have the best chance of recovering without too much suffering and chaos. That is the best we can hope for.
neo,
I read you on a daily basis and agree with a vast majority of what you write. On this one we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
I am no writer and this is a poor analogy but:
We are in a speeding car rapidly approaching the precipice of a very steep and very deep cliff. The Democrats seem intent on holding the accelerator to the floorboard while the Republican establishment is willing to slow down and just coast so long as it doesn’t discomfort their big donors too much. The end result will be the same. They seem immune from any suggestions from the Tea Party or conservatives that the solution might be to change direction and steer away from that precipice. Instead we’ve seen McCain, McConnel, and Graham ridicule such efforts.
Perhaps it is already too late. Like Wiley Coyote we may already be dangling in mid-air waiting for gravity to do what it does best.
kaba:
This equation of the end result is very very wrong.
One may be speeding towards something awful, the other going somewhat more slowly towards something bad. There’s not just a difference in the speed, but in the awfulness of the destination.
Plus, buying time before the plunge gives us a chance to perhaps change the destination.
“Plus, buying time before the plunge gives us a chance to perhaps change the destination.”
I agree with voting republican in order to slow the velocity of the train speeding towards the wall of fiscal ruination. However, it will take a true fiscal crisis and a strong and trustworthy (in the eyes of a majority of voters) president with a compliant congress to change direction. But, if we can begin to slowly change direction over the next 5-10 years it might be possible to avoid a depression far worse than the last one.
Several things must happen to make this possible, and right now it does look like things are going our way. There must be no amnesty, the borders must be secured, the rule of law must be upheld, an actual conservative constitutionalist must be appointed to replace the next judge who leaves the SCOTUS, at the grassroots level conservatives must learn how to counter the blow back from the MSM, and true conservatives have to be elected in all branches of the government in a majority of the states as Article V may be the only way to put DC on a tight leash.
parker,
That’s a rather comprehensive list of things that must happen if we are to begin to slowly change direction over the next 5-10 years.
If not, I’m fairly certain that it will be far worst than simply another ‘depression’. The country is on the fiscal brink and all that is keeping it from going over the fiscal cliff is the ‘full faith’ of those ignorant of the actual state of the international financial system.
“One may be speeding towards something awful, the other going somewhat more slowly towards something bad. There’s not just a difference in the speed, but in the awfulness of the destination.
Plus, buying time before the plunge gives us a chance to perhaps change the destination.” neo
I’m fairly certain that there will be no difference in “the awfulness of the destination” but I’ve been wrong before (most recently in the 2012 election) and pray you’re right.
The hope that buying time before the plunge will give us “a chance to perhaps change the destination” is not a strategy but a hope. Sometimes ‘hopes’ actually come true.
It’s interesting to compare Jeb Bush and Scott Walker by watching a Peter Robinson Uncommon Knowledge interview with each of them.
To me, Bush projects as much more “presidential” than Walker does. Walker seems more the accountant type.
I see Bush in the debates for the Republican nomination coming across much the way Romney did last time — as the one most “centered” and electable.
And imagining Bush in debate with Hillary, I see Bush emerging triumphant. I don’t see that with Walker.
I understand the personal importance of making your own views known, but in all honesty, nobody here is going to determine the outcome of the 2016 election.
That leaves us with the philosophical observation that “people get the government they deserve.” If we lose 2016, it will be because enough people haven’t suffered yet.
In the end, you may find that we need to reach that awful destination.
“If not, I’m fairly certain that it will be far worst than simply another ‘depression’. The country is on the fiscal brink and all that is keeping it from going over the fiscal cliff is the ‘full faith’ of those ignorant of the actual state of the international financial system.”
Yes GB, the coming (real) fiscal cliff will make the collapse of of the 30’s seem mild by comparison. And yes, many things must come together to prepare the country for this reckoning. However, compared to China, Japan, Russia, and the EU; we are actually in better shape than the others. We have energy reserves just waiting to be tapped and we can feed ourselves. No other country, with the exception of Canada, can make this claim.
Its a matter of will. When the crunch time arrives its a question of do we have the will. Out here in flyover country society is much more homogenous than the coasts. Most of us do know how to survive and we are far away from the metro areas that will experience the full effects of a fiscal collapse. Out here most of us know how to grow and preserve food, slaughter a lamb, hunt, fish, and chop wood.
parker: “We have energy reserves just waiting to be tapped and we can feed ourselves. No other country, with the exception of Canada, can make this claim.”
I would put Oz in that category also. They are isolated, but that might actually be a good thing a in a global collapse. They’re also leaning more to the right these days, which means their economy and resources will be in better shape.
I have to disagree with you, Ann, about Scott Walker coming across as an accountant, vs. Bush being more “presidential.”
Walker was smart and serious in the interview; Bush was focusing on being folksy in his.
It might be fruitful to work on changing the OPEN primary system the Repubs have: that’s part of what’s killing us (IIRC it was how McVain got past the wire).
J.J.,
Your observation about OZ (and I would add NZ) is true. But they are not capable of protecting themselves against a hungry China. We, and Canada, are capable of defending ourselves against all enemies, given our energy/food reserves. When push requires shove, I want a Reagan or an Ike or a Harry at the wheel.
kaba: “These candidates tepidly pay lip service to conservative values during a Primary run but they seem to forget about all about them during the general or after elected.”
The only way you can hold elected officials accountable to upholding “conservative values” after election is to possess something they need beyond your vote.
Like anything, it’s about incentives and necessities. Like anyone, once in office, even a true-believing elected official is constrained by structural parameters.
So, what do you offer that changes the parameters of elected office?
A few 10s or 100s of million dollars in campaign funds and other lobbyist goodies up for auction to the highest-bidding politicians might do the trick.
Oh, you don’t have millions of dollars and other ‘benefits’ on tap to offer as legal bribes?
Then offer something else.
Offer what the Left offers to the Democrats: a full-spectrum activist social movement that moves a critical mass of votes and organizes the social-defining nodes of American society. Offer an activist social movement that can make – or break – the careers of politicians in and out of office, and thus, holds them accountable beyond election day.
Offer an activist social movement that can oust an entrenched party stalwart like Joe Lieberman and compel a former President to switch in short order from strongly endorsing Bush’s Iraq enforcement, based on Clinton’s own experience with Saddam, to claiming he opposed it from the start.
You’re all looking for a messianic savior to elect President to do all the heavy-lifting for a sweeping social cultural/political change.
It doesn’t work that way.
Only an activist social movement can engineer the social change you want. The only way an elected official can be an effective agent of such a change is with the partnership of an effective activist social movement.
Obama is merely an avatar, not the source. Activism is the way the Democrats and the Left are fundamentally transforming America. Activism is the only way the Republicans and the Right can fundamentally transform America.
Winning the White House only works as a lesser included element of a first, non-stop, and always proselytizing and spreading activist social movement.
The reliance on winning the next Presidential election as the primary social cultural/political moving element is a woefully inadequate prescription.
Add: The Reagan narrative is a lovely mythology. But even if it was true then, it’s not 1980 anymore. The game’s changed.
Freedom is about bottom up hierarchies. The modern US political system is about overlords taking care of business and being Presidential. It’s meaningless vis a vis individual autonomy.
Neo: “Jeb Bush’s name is his very own bridge scandal.”
I go the other way. If the GOP can rehabilitate Bush’s legacy in the zeitgeist, then everything else will fall in line. Thereby, the Democrats would be exposed, Emperor’s new clothes style. A fundamental re-frame means a new game.
This is true whether or not Jeb Bush is candidate.
If the GOP – with or without the necessary partnership of a Right activist social movement – doesn’t manage a basic re-frame of the narrative discourse and re-arrangement of the zeitgeist, then they have bigger problems than the Bush name.
The alternative is accepting the prevailing zeitgeist, which means accepting the handicap of a permanent struggle with the skewed physics of the Democrat/Left-constructed zeitgeist.
parker: “When push requires shove, I want a Reagan or an Ike or a Harry at the wheel.”
This is what you’re looking for:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/16/AR2009011603721.html
And this is why Bush’s legacy should be rehabilitated and presented proudly, rather than run away from.
Bush’s big mistake WRT immigration seems to be that he feels he must tell Americans how to treat Hispanics rather than telling Hispanics how to act toward America. Many Americans have contact with individual Hispanics and have no problem with them, nor do they treat them as some kind of underclass. Where they do have a problem is with the numbers of illegal immigrants who hide in ghettos of their own making and seem to come here only for the benefits and money. They resent being told they owe these people more and that they are intolerant.
It would be nice for a change to hear someone say that the Hispanics have to show that they value America for more than the feeebies. The hard working among them have to tell the La Raza types to shut up. They have to instill into their children the dream of what they can be here if they learn the language and study hard. They should read some books that describe what other immigrants faced when they came to America (Willa Cather, Frank McCourt, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn) so that they can see how truly diverse America is and not accept the us vs. them mentality. It is more than just learning civics, although that is important. It us rejecting the victim mentality the left tries to impose on them. When this happens and the borders become borders again, the legislation we need will write itself.
Any candidate who wants to win has to be someone who rejects the myth that America represents all that is bad in the world. It is not our lack of concern that is our problem; it is the screwed up policies we cannot criticize.
Related:
http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2014/04/08/campaign-song-for-rick-perry/
^^^^
This.
I think Jeb Bush comes to his “love” position authentically because he’s familiar with the immigrant community in a personal way. Take a look at him and his wife at this Christmas celebration at a migrant labor camp in the Everglades.
parker
April 8th, 2014 at 7:16 pm
The demographics of Japan make it the least likely nation to fold up.
The polity at extreme risk is Red China.
1) Youngest — yet demographically aging — will be old before rich.
2) Communist management even worse than the normal bad.
3) Repressive police states high the ‘blow.’ Then… it’s Spindletop — everywhere — and all at once.
4) The change in expectations is strongest in Red China.
5) Massive wastage in military ‘goods.’
6) Massive over investment in heavy production — iron ore reduction at the top of the list: 660,000,000 tons per year !
7) Ugliest financial accounts — may be more crooked than the Bourbon dynasty in its 1789 death throes.
8) Those in the know are already fleeing at unheard of tempos.
9) Pollution of the commons betrays official attitudes towards their proles.
10) Wise Beijing foreign policies — once exposed — put every other nation on edge.
11) What can a klepto-state do after having stolen all that there is — and then wasted it?
expat: “It would be nice for a change to hear someone say that the Hispanics have to show that they value America for more than the feeebies.”
In other words, culture matters. Norms matter. Values matter. Social – local, neighborly, up through national – cohesion matters.
Diversity can work. Diversity should make America stronger.
But diversity can only work if it is ordered by a common dominant American social identity – a common culture. Dominant doesn’t mean it supersedes individual ethnic, religious, family, etc, identities, but all Americans must prioritize a common social American identity. We can all be part of different micro-tribes, but we must all belong to the same American macro-tribe.
The community where this balance of individual diversity and dominant common social American identity has been best achieved is the US military, but the social conditions of the military are not the same as the whole of civil society.
The Left is using activism to impose a dominant common social ‘PC’ identity that is not only dominating, but superseding.