An Open Letter to Jeb Bush
By: Mona Charen / NATIONAL REVIEW
Dear Governor Bush,
There
are many ways to express your love of country. One is to serve as
president. In your case, that path seems closed. Since April, you spent
the better part of $15 million in Iowa, yet you came sixth, winning just
2.8 percent of the vote and one delegate. At this rate, you’d need to
spend $18,540,000,000 to win the nomination — which is more than even
Right to Rise can manage.
There
is no shame in losing, of course, and it’s always possible that New
Hampshire will shock the world by giving you a victory, but let’s face
it, the RealClearPolitics average of New Hampshire polls has you at
under 10 percent (under 5 percent nationally), and your donors are
panicking. After what was supposed to be a reassuring post-Iowa
conference call with your campaign, one donor told Politico, “Have you ever heard the phrase ‘rattle of death?’”
Even
stipulating that primary polls are notoriously poor, there are other
reasons to conclude that this is not your year. It may not have much to
do with you personally. There has never been a third president from the
same family. Most Americans were fine with two Adamses, Harrisons,
Roosevelts, and Bushes. Three is pushing it. I know, I know. You’re your
own man. Of course that’s true. Life isn’t fair. But it goes both ways.
You would almost certainly never have been governor if your name had
been James Ellis instead of John Ellis Bush. You seem to be a fine
person and were certainly a superior and very conservative governor of
Florida. For good or ill, gratitude for past service is not the mood
this year, and, with all due respect, except at the last debate, when,
freed from Donald Trump’s bullying, you finally stood up straight,
you’ve been an awfully dull candidate. We cannot chalk it up to voter
ignorance. Between your campaign and your super PAC, you’ve already
spent $89.1 million on positive ads about yourself and negative ads
about others.
One of the great traits about the Bush family, as about other great New England Protestant old-money families, is that you value good manners, courtesy, and integrity. Those virtues are disparaged in our increasingly vituperative, bombastic, and swaggering era. One senses that you find Donald Trump’s conduct disgusting and even a little bewildering. Good for you. It is.
And
yet, you’ve directed the overwhelming majority of your negative
advertising (and you’ve led the pack on negative ad spending) not
against Trump, who seems to represent everything you find destructive
and dangerous in modern politics, but against your old friend and ally
Marco Rubio.
Your
ads have been embarrassing. You and Rubio agree on nearly everything,
so you’re dredging up long-since debunked stories about credit cards and
ridiculous accusations of missed votes in the Senate chamber. Really?
Is that all you’ve got? No, you’ve also run ads attacking Rubio for
taking the same position you took on illegal immigration. When
challenged about these at the most recent debate, you said, “Politics
ain’t beanbag.” No, but this is the narcissism of small differences.
You
seem to believe, as many of us do, that in order to prosper, in fact,
in order to survive, the Republican party must look beyond its aging,
white, rural, and Evangelical Christian core to welcome African
Americans, Hispanics, Asians, urbanites, and the young. Yet by attacking
Rubio, you are attempting to sabotage the very best messenger the
Republican party has found in decades.
As you yourself put it: “What
Marco has is something that the Republican party needs to have: A
hopeful, optimistic message based on our principles. He’s probably the
most articulate conservative on the scene today.”
After
Iowa, Marco Rubio has an excellent chance of winning the Republican
nomination. If he prevailed, he would be the most conservative nominee
in decades and well situated to win the general election. This
is not to hurt your feelings, but your general-election favorability
ratings are the worst in the Republican field with the exception of
Trump. Despite the avalanche of negative ads, Rubio’s net favorables are
the best (with the exception of Ben Carson and we know where that’s
going).
If
you were to drop out of the race now and endorse Marco Rubio, or at the
very least, call off the attack dogs, you would be advancing everything
you say you believe in except yourself. It would be a gracious and
inspiring gesture. It would be a different way to serve your country —
and might even revive our faith in Yankee integrity.
No comments:
Post a Comment