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.
Power, Limited Government, and Marco Rubio
Marco Rubio in 2009 by DavidAll06 – via Flickr.
Every conservative candidate says the government has too much power … until he enters government and tastes it for himself. This is not a problem of one specific political party, political class, or establishment, and it is not a problem solved by electing an outsider. It is an age-old problem of human nature. A candidate may condemn presidential overreach on the campaign trail — perhaps even believing his own words — but won’t be able to relinquish the reins of power once handed them, or to let go and allow Congress and the states to work their will.
This question is why one minor point in Sen. Marco Rubio’s biography leaped off the screen and caught my eye:
It was the way that Rubio restructured the [Florida] speaker’s office that surprised many capital insiders. After spending years to secure one of the most influential positions in Florida government, he relinquished his biggest power.
To oversimplify, Rubio gave up the close control the speaker’s office once had over the House’s legislative process, handing significant power back to committee chairs. The details of the Florida legislative system are complicated and boring, but Rubio’s changes went beyond mere willingness to delegate: It was a concrete, meaningful de-centralisation of power.
There were reasons, of course. Rubio wanted to present a clear contrast to his predecessor. He was not being idealistically naive, and he hardly avoided all the rough-and-tumble of politics. The new arrangement worked to his political benefit, just as executive restraint could have political advantages for a president willing to step back.
Even before his speakership, in his various roles in legislative leadership, Rubio generally let the process work and made his case to his members on the merits, rather than issuing political decrees from the top and arm-twisting members into going along. “He could convince you on a policy basis … It wasn’t your typical you-have-to-fall-in-line kind of threat.”
It is worth noting that the policy cases he made were conservative, and that Rubio held a difficult spot, caught between the moderate governor and the state senate. In 2010, it may have been politically advantageous to run to Charlie Crist’s right; in 2007, however, Crist was still a very popular governor, and standing up to him — as Rubio did — required real political nerve.
Rubio had convictions, and he fought for them, but he also resisted the urge to gather all power in his own hands, or to seek control of the process beyond his legitimate authority. When Rubio promises to end executive abuses on Day One, we should remember that the last time he held power, one of his earliest acts was indeed to give up some of that power.
If we want a president to exercise restraint in clear contrast to Obama, that quality is something we should consider.
Published in Politics
Those are certainly up there in the qualities I look for in a President. Sort of like voting for Obama again…or even Trump and his celebrity.
Ideology is a point of view, a foundation. I want ideological. Had Obama revealed his “ideology” from the start, we wouldn’t have him as President today. No, there is nothing wrong with partisanship…it is necessary to evaluate differences. Nothing wrong with ideological leanings…it tells you what to expect so you can evaluate fairly…and what he looks like is not important…if it were we would not be celebrating Lincoln’s birthday today… Pragmatic and sensible would not point you in the direction of the Gang of 8.
Now we know why Canada elected Trudeau….
I would add “Citizen’s United” to that list.
I think the OP did just that.
Add me to all the people that think this is a great post.
1 and 2 wouldn’t. 3 and 4 would require Congress, I believe.
I mean since he got to washington…
This is one of the only substantial arguments for Marco Rubio I’ve seen since this whole thing started. Thank you for that.
Unfortunately, until I can hear a substantial defense for his role on the Gang of Eight, I can’t support him. All the stuff in his favor is meaningless if he doesn’t own up to what he did.
Nice work, Leigh. Thanks for the information!
I believe de-unionizing feds could be done without Congress. I know Mitch Daniels did it at the state level.
#3 & #4 would, since they would involve ignoring/violating laws passed by Congress. I’m not sure about #1, since there may be Administrative Procedure Act requirements, and ignoring those would be unlawful. #2 would not, assuming one could get them confirmed. But, then again, I think that all of the GOP candidates would do #2, except for Trump.
The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS), enacted in 1978, gives most federal employees the right to unionize. Federal employees have the right to organize and collectively bargain, but they cannot bargain over wages or strike. Additionally, the President has the power to unilaterally exclude an agency or subdivision from coverage under the FSLMRS if he determines that its primary work concerns national security.
Trudeau is an extreme Progressive ideologist. He appeals to young, and older, uninformed people, who like his looks and “sunny ways”.
The majority of voters seem to be rather shallow in their assessment of proposed leaders. Don’t you think this has to be taken into account when putting forward a candidate.
Lincoln certainly wouldn’t stand a chance today. Canadian Diefenbaker is another who would be a no-no.
Thank you. Excellent information.
No, I don’t.
And it seems the Democrat ticket so far doesn’t agree with that assessment either!
Not buying it.
Union employees at the Federal level are not the government union problem, regardless. They have zero power to negotiate wages or benefits.
The government union issue is in the states, where SEIU rules, and the NEA, prison guards (particularly in California), highway crews, and police/fire groups essentially dictate to the government executives.
Robert, if you are going to be a one issue voter, period, is that the issue that makes you fall on your sword? Really?
The only reason I prefer Cruz to Rubio is because I think Rubio would be quicker to compromise. It’s not that I doubt his ideological resolve. I just think he underestimates Democrats.
Electing Rubio President would be like sending a gentleman to clean up pirate-infested Nassau. Its like hitting an alligator with a flyswatter. He’s clever, but there’s no way to break Big Government without being accused of extremism, callousness, and dictatorship. Any President who seeks to limit government must beat the media on their own turf. You have to be willing, like Ronald Reagan, to call evil and lies exactly what they are.
If he beats Cruz for the nomination, I’ll gladly vote for him. I just hope he realizes that the typical Democrat would love to spit on the Constitution and burn him as a witch. Only power restrains them; not principles.
Rubio is doing himself a disservice by not promoting this. Thanks a bunch. Just when I was wavering away from him, this pulled me back. Yes, he’s inexperienced but he’s got all the right values.
Daily Caller: “Sen. Marco Rubio blocked numerous immigration-enforcement bills when he served as speaker in the Florida House of Representatives from 2007 to 2009.”
Maybe he was too busy blocking immigration-enforcement bills to do anything else.
Wow — I don’t think I’ve ever gotten so many nice comments on a post before. Thanks, everyone! I didn’t understand why Rubio’s time in Florida hasn’t drawn more scrutiny and finally just went digging myself. It’s not perfect, and it’s not full of stunning victories — Crist tied his hands — but it has some very good pointers that actually leave me with more confidence in him as a president. And Chris Christie’s line about him living in a bubble is pure nonsense.
My point in the post, though, wasn’t primarily to speak to Rubio’s conservative qualifications. It’s about a matter of character that matters very much when it comes time to put that conservatism into practice.
The thing is, a senator or a governor may genuinely resent presidential overreach because it intrudes on their prerogative. But then when they hold that power themselves, suddenly restraint on their power gets in the way of things they want to do.
The record shows that Rubio — while unquestionably ambitious — is not a powermonger. That matters.
Appreciate the thought, but I don’t think I actually did show that — I just pointed to it a little. He did indeed take solid stands against Crist though. Since coming to Washington he has voted with Heritage Action against McConnell often enough — he simply doesn’t rail against him as Cruz does. But I actually find his opposition to Crist more meaningful because it was arguably more politically risky.
Crist was a popular governor, and Rubio played hard on more than one issue. He lost some. He didn’t get the property tax reform he wanted, though he got a smaller cut and didn’t even pretend to be happy about it. He won some — he evidently outmaneuvered Crist on cap-and-trade. But I don’t have time to research and write a post on all that.
I think this is the real core of the issue with Rubio. His Florida record is very good, and it showed, as you say, character. That, along with his conservative and even Tea party positions, is why he was supported by me and plenty of others when he ran for Senate.
Then he threw that all away his first month on the job with the gang of 8. He showed a complete lack of character. He betrayed himself and all his supporters, and for what, to make the Chamber of Commerce, Republican Leadership, and Chucky Schumer like him and consider him part of the club?
So, which Rubio would be president, the Florida Rubio or the Washington DC Rubio? Why should I believe either one?
Well, I can’t personally defend the actual content of Gang of Eight, which I believe was a bad bill. I also do not personally believe the argument that immigration is the one most important issue of this election — in fact I find that dangerously wrongheaded — and I hold some sympathy for Rubio’s current position. But that’s another post, and I am not sure I am settled enough in my own mind on immigration to be the one to write it.
However, Gang of Eight does speak to Rubio’s position on… immigration. It does not prove he is an establishment sell-out ready to compromise with Chuck Schumer on any issue that suits him. His record actually indicates otherwise. It also does not show what Rubio really wants to do. It shows the absolute limits of where he was willing to go in a situation where he really, really wanted a bill. It’s absurd to think that anything Rubio and Ryan crafted on their own would look like Gang of Eight redux.
Rubio’s current enforcement-first promise is the kind that a politician knows he can’t go back on without consequences — just as I believe Mitt Romney truly would have signed Obamacare repeal.
And it speaks to his CHARACTER. As well as to his willingness to fight for those positions he stakes out in the campaign in Washington like he did in Florida.
I’ve said before,the single issue of immigration is far less my concern with Rubio than is his betrayal of his campaign position. Because of the character issue.
I’d also add that my understanding is that the idea was to pass the furthest right bill that could be gotten through a Democrat-controlled Senate, with the knowledge that the Republican-controlled Congress could then pass a better bill, and the two would then go to reconciliation with every chance that the Republican House bill, with a lot of enforcement measures written in, would have a heavy influence on the final bill that went to the president.
I wish someone who knew more about it had time to comment here. I gather that there’s a reasonably good argument to be made that the immigration thing was less bad than it has been made out to be. But I say that as someone who is sympathetic to those who are concerned about immigration, but does not hold it as the most important issue. In fact, that puts me in the mainstream of Republican opinion–only 13% of Republicans think it is the most important issue.
I agree. Character is most important to me, too.
Rubio’s record indicates he is willing to compromise when compromise is consistent with his political convictions, and rejects compromise when it is not.
But that question of not underestimating Democrats was one thing I really liked about Scott Walker. Simply not a weakness he was going to have. On that point, though, consider that Cruz has never had the experience Walker or Rubio have had of actually holding a leadership position in which one must deal with Democrats or even moderate Republicans, or in a position of needing their votes.
Besides, consider what Rubio said four times at that debate. He knows what the Democrats are up to. (And after his frustrations trying to get a conservative agenda past Crist, he can’t have many illusions about moderate Republicans either). He takes a different tack than Cruz to defeat them — one better informed, I believe, by life outside the bubble in a state where conservatism is not a guaranteed winner. I find his approach more credible and more likely to be successful.
So far as I can tell, Rubio’s Florida record actually pointed to his position on immigration. If, in that race, he never claimed to have changed his position (which I do not know) then those statements should have been interpreted in light of his record. He was less bad than Charlie Crist, but he was never going to be Donald Trump.
It may well be that, as he says, he thought something was inevitable and that he could make the Schumer-McCain bill less bad. That would not have been so different from what Cruz claims he was trying to do. The failure was in not walking away until after the thing was defeated. But he essentially acknowledges that failure.
I am also not arguing that Rubio is a man of unstained, unswerving character. I do not know this. I am making one simple point his record demonstrates: he does not crave personal power above all.
Thanks!! (Ricochet — where nationally known writers you’ve been reading for years just might actually read what you wrote. This may be unhealthy for one’s ego.)
How would he promote it, exactly? I mean, I just did it for him, I suppose (in a very minor way). But I can’t come up with a soundbite that works well to make the point for a candidate himself to say on the campaign trail. It’s substantive, but it’s really a boring legislative process story. I really did oversimplify. And sadly, it’s in a campaign environment where Trump — and perhaps certain governors — would ridicule him as weak for this.
I suppose he could make the point I made in my first paragraph, with the rest as a follow-up response if relevant. What I said there is basically my frustration with this whole primary, and the whole so-called “establishment-base” divide. We’re misdiagnosing a disease — the problem is less our specific Republicans and more just the corrupting influence of power, to which “outsiders” are at least as susceptible as any lifelong politician.