The ink is not even dry on the results of the last election and we are already being inundated with speculation about 2016. As early as it is, the field of candidates is pretty well developed. Unfortunately, our next election is shaping up to be another dynasty election. The establishments of both parties are working overtime to anoint an establishment-friendly candidate, who knows how the game works, and who is not shy about rewarding political contributors. It's shaping up to be yet another election we could all just do without.
The point of this article is not to say that establishment candidates are necessarily bad. To the contrary, without the political establishments, most candidates would have no chance of winning. The political establishment provides the money to get the message out, the volunteers to get out the vote, and the media support necessary to stay on message. But there is a big difference between a genuine Washington outsider, who leans on the establishment in the general election, and the Washington insider who spends his or her time doling out goodies to political supporters. The latter deserves the lion's share of the blame for many of the problems facing our nation.
On the other side of the equation, there are a number of candidates that are not necessarily part of the problem, but are simply unelectable. They have demonstrated, either by actions or words, that they would not withstand the scrutiny of the election, or would otherwise self-destruct during the process. Like the Washington insiders, it would be best for the process if they just sat this one out. So, here are the four candidates that, in my opinion, we would be better off without.
The point of this article is not to say that establishment candidates are necessarily bad. To the contrary, without the political establishments, most candidates would have no chance of winning. The political establishment provides the money to get the message out, the volunteers to get out the vote, and the media support necessary to stay on message. But there is a big difference between a genuine Washington outsider, who leans on the establishment in the general election, and the Washington insider who spends his or her time doling out goodies to political supporters. The latter deserves the lion's share of the blame for many of the problems facing our nation.
On the other side of the equation, there are a number of candidates that are not necessarily part of the problem, but are simply unelectable. They have demonstrated, either by actions or words, that they would not withstand the scrutiny of the election, or would otherwise self-destruct during the process. Like the Washington insiders, it would be best for the process if they just sat this one out. So, here are the four candidates that, in my opinion, we would be better off without.
Jeb Bush
At the top of the list is Jeb Bush. By all accounts he is a good man, did a good job in Florida as governor, and would be a formidable fund raiser. He probably would be a competent president. But, his last name is Bush, and there is strong evidence that the country still has Bush fatigue. George W. Bush left office with a low approval rating, and many Americans still believe that his policies caused lasting damage to the economy. There are also many Republicans that believe that W did lasting damage to the Republican brand with the bank bailouts, Medicare Part D, Common Core, deficit spending and, of course, the invasion of Iraq. The last two years of his presidency were a remarkable rush to the left after having governed as a conservative for more than six years. Like his father before him, W left conservatives suspicious that the Bushes are really just repackaged New England RINOs. George H. W. Bush, for example, also did lasting damage to the Republican brand (and the Reagan legacy) when he signed into law the largest tax increase in American history. Four years later, after having lost his bid for reelection, Bill Clinton was able to use that precedent to argue that "even Republicans believe in tax hikes," as George Bush Sr. was the poster boy for a tax and spend policy that cost the party its monopoly on the issue. Bush supporters, of course, argue that the Bushes are "reasonable" and willing to "compromise" when in the best interests of the country. While that may be true, the "compromises" for which the Bushes are most famous led to disastrous election results for the Republican party.
Finally, I think it is bad for our country to have these political dynasties. Dynastic poltics is particularly un-American. If Jeb Bush were to be elected, he would be the second Bush in one generation and the third in two to hold the most powerful office in the world. Even if he is the greatest, most moral man on Earth, that sends the wrong message to the rest of the world. America is not a monarchy and, while we can vote against another Bush (which we probably would), Jeb Bush's presence on the stage crowds out other candidates who might otherwise bring fresh ideas to the table. It's time to turn the page.
Hillary Clinton
For many of the same reasons discussed above, Hillary Clinton needs to get off the stage. She had an unremarkable career as a Senator, largely playing it safe on most issues, and an equally unremarkable stint as Secretary of State. Her principal qualification for the presidency is that her husband was president. She has been in politics nearly her entire life, she has little real world experience, and she has certainly demonstrated, at least early on, that she has trouble connecting to most Americans in a meaningful way. She's no Bill, and it is doubtful that she would govern as effectively as her husband did.
A Bush vs. Clinton election would be the epitome of elitism. Imagine how history would be written: Since 1988, the presidency has been occupied by Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Clinton. That's just not good for America.
Chris Christie
Governor Christie has already demonstrated a tendency to blow up while on the campaign trial. In America we like our leaders to be measured. Measured leaders are reasonable. They make measured decisions. They are contemplative and fair. Christie is a large man with a booming voice who has no compunction about using both his size and his voice to shut others down. While that is sometimes necessary, Christie seems to need to do it more than others. It is very likely that whoever he runs against will find a way to exploit his temper and his bombastic nature. Add to that "Bridgegate," and you have someone who is too risky to nominate.
Joe Biden
I've always liked Joe Biden. I rarely agree with the man, but I respect a man who speaks his mind using regular language. The snobby media of course can't stand this kind of man and look for opportunities to mock him for dropping the F-Bomb or telling it like it is about the efficacy of his boss's policies. I don't doubt his genuine love for the country, even if he does have some bad ideas or speaks a little too bluntly from time to time. All of that being said, his time has come and gone. Like the Republican party, the Democratic party also needs new blood. The old guard has old ideas that have proven equally unpersuasive over the last decade. Most Americans crave a robust debate on real issues, but we have also learned to tune out the same old tired arguments that have been constantly recycled. Joe Biden represents the recycling. Again, it's time to turn the page.
A Bush vs. Clinton election would be the epitome of elitism. Imagine how history would be written: Since 1988, the presidency has been occupied by Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Clinton. That's just not good for America.
Chris Christie
Governor Christie has already demonstrated a tendency to blow up while on the campaign trial. In America we like our leaders to be measured. Measured leaders are reasonable. They make measured decisions. They are contemplative and fair. Christie is a large man with a booming voice who has no compunction about using both his size and his voice to shut others down. While that is sometimes necessary, Christie seems to need to do it more than others. It is very likely that whoever he runs against will find a way to exploit his temper and his bombastic nature. Add to that "Bridgegate," and you have someone who is too risky to nominate.
Joe Biden
I've always liked Joe Biden. I rarely agree with the man, but I respect a man who speaks his mind using regular language. The snobby media of course can't stand this kind of man and look for opportunities to mock him for dropping the F-Bomb or telling it like it is about the efficacy of his boss's policies. I don't doubt his genuine love for the country, even if he does have some bad ideas or speaks a little too bluntly from time to time. All of that being said, his time has come and gone. Like the Republican party, the Democratic party also needs new blood. The old guard has old ideas that have proven equally unpersuasive over the last decade. Most Americans crave a robust debate on real issues, but we have also learned to tune out the same old tired arguments that have been constantly recycled. Joe Biden represents the recycling. Again, it's time to turn the page.
No comments:
Post a Comment