Newly announced presidential candidate Jeb Bush is the best of what’s being called the “Bush dynasty.” But coming third in line rather than first, he is tainted by his predecessors’ failures—and he’s doing a little tainting himself.
A decade ago Jeb was considered one of the most thoughtful and principled conservatives—the one Bush who should have been in the White House.
In a 2006, Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard told me about his upcoming piece that would proclaim Jeb the best governor in America. And he told me how he planned to begin the article, “IF ONLY HIS LAST NAME WERE SMITH.” (emphasis original) In the article Barnes said:
But his last name is Bush. So Jeb Bush, nearing the end of his eight years as governor of Florida, has to settle for being the best governor in America. Not proclaimed the best governor by the media and the political community. But recognized as the best by a smaller group: governors who served with him and experts and think-tank and conservative policy wonks who regard state government as something other than a machine for taxing and spending.
Barnes cited four examples to defend his best governor claim:
- He’s the first governor to impose stringent testing and accountability on Florida elementary and secondary schools, along with three voucher programs …
- He wrangled a breathtakingly broad waiver from the federal Department of Health and Human Services to privatize Medicaid in two populous counties …
- Bush, after handling eight hurricanes and four tropical storms in 14 months in 2004 and 2005, has become the undisputed national leader in emergency management.
- He’s the most powerful chief executive in Florida in modern times and has had a positive impact on the state in almost every conceivable way–economically, fiscally, educationally, politically,
An impressive set of accomplishments, and most conservatives echoed much of Barnes’ enthusiasm at the time. He was especially promising when compared to Bush “Read my lips” 41 and big-spending Bush 43, whose domestic and foreign policies paved the way for a huge Democratic victory in 2006.
But Barnes’ assessment was a decade ago, and just as the Democratic Party has moved left, the Republican Party has moved right. Jeb says he isn’t changing his policies just to please the party’s more conservative/libertarian base.
Does that statement, if he lives up to it, demonstrate that he’s principled—or out of touch? Or both?
In my opinion he’s one of the most principled candidates in the group, but some of his principles differ from the base. Jeb was a leader in education reform in the mid-2000s, but today that leadership embraces Common Core, which many in the GOP—and the country—detest.
Jeb was also a leader in Medicaid reform. Those of us dealing with health policy repeatedly cited his efforts as a model for national reform. But these days Medicaid is dominated by Obamacare, which has overshadowed any previous reforms.
Jeb has taken a stand on immigration reform that isn’t much different from what Ronald Reagan signed in 1986, but it’s seen as too lenient by much of the conservative base today.
Many in the media and the Republican establishment want to anoint him as the front-runner and likely Republican nominee. That’s a bad sign since “the establishment,” which seems bent only on promoting “electable candidates,” has done such a poor job of picking electable candidates—e.g., Bush 41, Bob Dole, Bush 43 (who squeaked by in 2000), John McCain, and Mitt Romney.
Ironically, Jeb was more of the anti-establishment candidate a decade ago because he was considered so conservative. But the conservative/libertarian movement has grown and changed, and so has Jeb.
He’s still the best of the Bushes. But is that enough to attract conservative primary voters who are demanding less of the same ole thing?