Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Five 2016 Candidates Who Could Change the GOP
I posted this piece to my Forbes.com blog. The premise: once your start narrowing the field of 17 Republican presidential candidates, there are arguably five with the potential to move the party in a different direction — in doing so, easing the GOP into a post-Reagan identity that’s eluded Republicans since the end of the Cold War. I deliberately left the three three non-officeholder candidates – Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina – out of this conversation. Each has had a good summer, but each also faces questions as to whether their respective surges can last.
My five choices:
- Jeb Bush. How would a Bush 45 presidency alter the GOP? Obviously, there’s the emphasis on Latino outreach, but don’t overlook Bush’s willingness to move a wee bit on items like climate change. As such, he’s a continuation of what the liberal historian Sean Willientz calls “modern Republicanism” – in the tradition of Thomas Dewey and the previous two Bushes, trying to soften the party’s conservative edges.
- Scott Walker. Where Walker breaks with the field: the ability, for the son of a small-town Baptist minister, to be “pastoral” in much the same way that Reagan was able to channel faith into a larger conservation about values and principles (remember, it worked for Mike Huckabee in Iowa in 2008).
- John Kasich. Ohio’s governor immodestly told The New York Times: “Hopefully, in the course of all this, I’ll be able to change some of the thinking about what it means to be a conservative.” Kasich seems to be representing an updated version of Bush 43’s “compassionate” message – emphasizing, as Kasich likes to put it, “people in the shadows.”
- Marco Rubio. The Florida senator would be all of 45 at the time of next year’s national convention. Not that Rubio would bring a complete set of Gen-X sensibilities to the race (the media will note this ad nauseam), but he would be able to speak peer-to-peer to the non-AARP sector of the electorate on matters like child-rearing, college-savings and caring for aging parents – something new for a GOP accustomed to 60- and 70-something nominees.
- Ted Cruz. The Texas senator is a quiet third in the latest Fox News poll (one point ahead of Bush, two points behind Ben Carson), and of late doing something even quieter: mounting a clever but stealthy campaign across the Deep South (20 stops, 2,000 miles across “Cruz Country – i.e., states participating in next March’s “SEC Primary”). Cruz has raised the most hard money in this campaign; his may be the one candidacy most dead set on realizing the Tea Party’s dream of ending the culture of big government and over-spending.
There’s my “starting five.” Your thought as to which, if any, goes the distance?
Published in General
I really wish Bush were not Bush sometimes. His record is good in office, but he’s soiled his brand quite considerably since. I see his message as being much more like his brother’s than Kasich, who is off-putting in his own way. The other three is where I see the real battle on our side. Walker pits executive experience (and a throne of skulls) against Rubio’s poise and indescribable allure, against Cruz’s unflinching constitutional conservatism. A contest between the three of them will determine the shape of the party possibly for decades. This is the way in which we become the party we want to be.
Carly Fiorina is quickly forcing herself into the conversation.
Jeb Bush is a front-runner, but I don’t know how you can think he’s going to change anything in Washington. He’s the establishment candidate if there ever was one. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but I don’t see him coming in and kicking the butt of the status quo.
I am very cynical that any of them can change anything. Or let’s put it this way: The limit of what can be achieved in terms of real change in Washington is shown by Barack Obama – here’s a candidate who had overwhelming support when elected. He was given a Nobel Peace Prize. People around the world marched to support him. He had the media at his back, and a fawning White House Press Corps. He was willing to circumvent any rule, break any precedent, and stretch his imperial powers to the breaking point.
And what did he achieve at home? He destroyed his own party, he did some damage to health care, and he blew a trillion dollars on foolishness. But the cronies are still there, the influence peddlers are still peddling influence, the establishment still runs the show, and when the next Republican president comes along he’ll work to undo what Obama has done.
Now imagine how much a Republican will be able to do when the media is hostile and constantly digging for ‘scandal’, when the educational institutions start telling their students to march against him every time he tries to cut something, and when a drone strike is met not with a shrug as Obama’s are, but with a million people marching for ‘peace’ in London and Paris.
Even Reagan struggled to make real change in domestic policy, and the changes he made were largely unwound by his own Republican successor. His great success was in foreign policy.
As for changing the party itself, that’s a tougher one. And I’d think you might have more success at that in the Senate than in the Presidency. I suppose there is some PR value – being an inspirational leader that draw more young people into the party to help build the future.
Reagan did that – he converted a lot of independents into Republicans and helped pave the way for the conservative resurgence in the 1990’s. So from that standpoint I’d have to say Rubio would be the most likely to have some effect on the direction and future of the party. He’s young, attractive, and can give a moving speech.
Oh brother…
So you’ve got two Progressives—who now call themselves “compassionate conservatives”, since the Progressive and Rockefeller modifiers have acquired a bad odor—and three Conservatives.
Why both groups? It seems you’re a little unclear on what you’d like our next President to accomplish.
Great article, btw, especially this bit:
Thanks for posting that link.
Given what the prior two Bushes did to the Republican party, I wonder if it could survive a third one?
We’d be left with a Socialist Party (Democrats) a Progressive Party (Republicans) and a bunch of pissed-off Conservatives at Ricochet.
Oh, and the Libertarian Party. Sigh.
And the Republicans won’t have Obama around to make us look good…
The next president may get to pick as many as 3-4 Supreme Court judges. We really need to win this election any which way we can…
What conservative edges are these?
I would hold my nose voting for Bush or Kasich.
If I knew for sure he’d pick Clarence Thomas’ brother for the Court, I’d vote for him just based on that.
What worries me is another Souter or three. Or another John Roberts <shudder>.
The problem is you can’t rely on the Bushes for Conservative justice picks, because they’re not Conservatives.
This. Over and over and over again, this.
These edges:
It’s interesting you mentioned Rubios age, but not Cruz or Walker who are also young. Cruz is only 5 months older than Rubio.
I like Rubio, who looks younger than his relatively young years, and that may be a liability.
Any of the candidates you listed will be transformative simply by getting elected!
Whether or not people admit it, our electorate has changed radically in the past 10 years. Most of the Reagan Democrats have passed on and today’s young adults get their information in very different ways than their parents do. Attitudes about social policy among the under 40 crowd are also very different. Many of these folks are economically illiterate because of the breakdown in public education.
The methods to get elected 10 years ago no longer work.
Rubio presents the GOP with the best opportunity to win an election. Bush has no shot.
No, absolutely not. If conservatives want certain judicial outcomes, or merely stopping progressive ones from happening, it MUST invest in legal strategies in the service of both. Nothing else will do.
I have problems with Kasich’s willingness to expand government in the name of conservatism. Ohio’s Medicaid budget is going to explode once the Feds stop paying the entire cost in 2018. Nor do I trust him on the issue of Supreme Court appointments. I look at him and see Jon Huntsman.
Despite the polling, I’ve never considered Bush a viable candidate. He’s the best known (other than Trump), but he has never had enough support within the base to cross the finish line in first place.
And now the same goes for Kasich. Reading some comments about his prickly demeanor, I can’t see that will play well (especially if he has a “gotcha” moment December or January) with independents.
I’d replace Bush and Kasich with Fiorina and Perry, but for whatever reason, Perry is not resonating. He has the best record of governance, he’s given some of the strongest early position speeches, and he’s a natural one-on-one politician. Too bad.
Hopefully he’s just having a bad Summer and can make it into Autumn.
The reason I like Sen. Rubio is because he is extremely hard to hate. He is thoroughly optimistic in his countenance. That may be more useful than it is normally given credit. He does not come across as artificial but steadfastly determined.
I can follow him proudly.
I can not argue his relative conservative-ness in positions. I estimate that his style will be more effective in moving the needle rightward.
Which is why not all states signed on to that option in Obama Care, yes?
The best thing about your list as a prediction is that there are 3 “moderate” candidates (Bush, Kasich and Rubio – yes, Rubio) who will fight for the same votes. This compares very well to 2012 when multiple social conservative candidates split the traditional American vote and the more moderate Romney ran “unopposed” (if you discount Huntsman’s odd campaign).
If Walker fades in Iowa, which is make-or-break for him, Ted may have an even smoother path forward.
The only new direction for the Republican party that I am excited about is the dramatic new direction of inheriting a Republican House and Senate and using that dynamic to cut government spending and unconstitutional authorities.
Of the five you’ve listed, only Walker seems fit for that task. I do like Cruz and Rubio though. I would hold my nose for the rest. I will crawl a mile over broken glass just to vote against any Dem they put up.
I do not understand the article’s name, these don’t look like change to me. They are moderate, grown ups, good stewards, place holders for the next batch of progressives who will carry on the same destructive agenda. Change must mean undoing some really negative harmful policies, taxes and regulations. Nor do I understand why Carly is not on this list. Do we know how many of the Trump supporters and “anyone but Bush” folks will stay home? That they may be wrong about Bush and Trump is no consolation if they help elect Hillary. That may be unfortunate but we have some very strong, conservative candidates who are also grownups. Can we not get some deeper insights into this wing of the party that we didn’t really know much about until Trump showed up.
Change the GOP? Doubtful any of them could. Cruz maybe. Walker maybe. For the rest it will be business as usual for the GOP. And that’s one small reason why Trump has support.
If Bush is the nominee he’s going to have to convince the Republican base he’s not going to stab them in the back if he gets elected. Being a conservative governor isn’t enough because that was in the past and he seems to have drifted quite far leftward (including his gigantic Forget You!! intransigence on Common Core).
Running a “Vote for me, I’m not quite as stinky as the Democrat” campaign simply isn’t going to cut it for him.
The most likely way I see Bush “softening the party’s conservative edges” would be by driving conservatives into a third party.
I want somebody who has DONE something for president. Ergo, I want a Walker/Rubio-Cruz or a Perry/Rubio-Fiorina ticket.
There is only one candidate as far as I can tell, someone tell me if I am wrong, who is really talking about fixing entitlements (social security, medicaid, medicare), far and away the biggest driver of our debt woes. He’s the unabashed conservative, pro-life governor of a blue state. Yes, Chris Christie hugged the president that time his state was hit by one of the biggest natural disasters in its history. If that’s a disqualifier to run for president later, I’m really uncomfortable with where we have gone as a party.
And are we really going to let a drummed up nothing story about a bridge closure driven by vengeful New York media kill one of our candidates? The country doesn’t give a damn about that bridge but MSNBC apparently thought it was the Apocalypse because they hate the guy so much. That should tell you something right there.
As a millennial, the idea of anyone taking Jeb! seriously makes me want to get my papers ready for citizenship elsewhere. We are a country that has jumped off the cliff both economically and constitutionally. If Jeb! is the candidate there is no point in showing up to vote. It would be generous to say he will manage the decline. He is a big government, pro-amnesty elitist, in bed with the lobbyists and big donors, who is constantly talking about how he “feels” about things. If that’s not enough, he’s a beta. And we desperately need an alpha. We need to challenge the misguided thinking that got us into this mess. Not milquetoast.
For the love of your children and grandchildren, if you are a baby boomer, do us all a favor and stop the madness of voting for one loser moderate after another (Dole! McCain! Romney!). And no, Rubio isn’t better. Google how is telling people one thing on immigration in English and another in Spanish.