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
I don’t thin people on Ricochet who have an issue with Rubio hold their concern because they don’t think him to be a Conservative. I certainly don’t.
Thanks, Leigh. Definitely a worthy item to file in the pro-Marco column in my head.
Like.
Actually, I think there are lots of people here who don’t think he’s a conservative–see, for example, the post that asked how he is different from “Jeb!”.
Jeb is a conservative, certainly more than his father or brother, but he’s a Bush, they’re kinder and gentler and not particularly ideological. That’s no longer good enough. .
I forget who, but I’ve seen at least one member describe him as “center-left.”
Jeb! is also more conservative than he gets credit for.
I thought about that before I wrote it, but I still think that a) Jeb is not conservative in the eyes of those who write posts like that one and b) the absence of conservative ideology really does make him “not conservative” in some important senses.
Thanks for this. I didn’t know this and I’m glad I do now.
See I don’t think that piece disputed Jeb being a Conservative either. From what I recall that wasn’t even brought up. The question was that, according to the writer, they are basically the same person policy wise so why choose Rubio over Jeb.
That’s funny, because everything I read from the anti-Rubio crowd seems to paint him as a big government, establishment type.
I think this is completely wrong. To the extent that people have an issue with Jeb, those issues are one of three things: his last name, immigration, or common core.
I would like to see those pieces. Again, everything that I have seen–and granted I don’t read everything on here–has always been about immigration and Gang of 8. I know some wanted to make hey out of him not voting for the omnibus, but that might be it.
Rubio is the second most conservative candidate behind Cruz. The issue with Rubio was never his conservatism, it is his credibility. What we saw in his rookie term was that he is willing to turn his back on the promises made in the campaign.
So, conservative, yes. Trustworthy and credible, not so much.
Willing to buckle to the establishment when the chips are down, and willing to legislate against the clear will of his constituents, in other words, cram it down their throats because he knows better than they do.
So, conservative in word, but when the rubber hits the road, he still thinks like an elite establishment type.
Show me where he has taken a solid stand against the establishment?
My biggest issue with Jeb is that I think he can’t win. He’s no good at debating or campaigning. He’s not inspiring. He’s not persuasive. He’s not relatable beyond certain limited constituencies. “Low energy” was devastatingly apt.
The “sweetspot” on abortion comment was revealing and unforgivable.
Also, he doesn’t respect the base.
Notwithstanding Marco’s really bad move on immigration, I think he does generally respect the base (which is somewhat divided over immigration.) And he’s young and energetic and charismatic and Cuban.
He has crossover appeal.
I’m leaning toward Cruz these days, but give me Marco over Jeb any day of the week.
me too!
For limiting government if he wins, maybe Marco Rubio could create a commission on reducing the size of government. Of course within a year it would no doubt have thousands of employees, all doing necessary work.
See here:
Good post Leigh. I am constantly amused by the argument, made on Ricochet and many other places, that in order to return to limited, Constitutional, and small government, what we need is a strongman who will overturn the political system, issue changes by fiat, strong-arm or ignore the Congress and the Supreme Court, and generally act like a dictator. I see this argument made without any sense of irony at all. Remarkable.
At least Bernie is consistent. He wants a socialist dictatorship, and tells us that he plans to act like a socialist dictator.
Good article, thank you for one more arrow in my pro-Rubio quiver. I think that Rubio is more electable than Cruz in the general and we can not afford to let a Democrat into the White House. My problem with Bush is the Bush family’s love affair with the Saudis. I believe it goes back to HW’s days at the CIA and I believe this prevented W from prosecuting the “War on Terror” effectively. In order to defeat Islamic Supremacism the next president will have to eliminate at least a dozen or so high ranking members of the Saudi Royal Family who fund the terrorism which they have been exporting since the 6th century. The Bush family is incapable of this.
Would:
count as strongman behavior to you?
Thank you for this very persuasive and thought provoking gem.
Okay, well I stand corrected then.
From my vantage point Rubio is a Conseravtive, no doubt. I don’t trust him on immigration.
As a fascinated Canadian outsider, my pick would be Marco Rubio. I remember when he first came to the attention of the media. Even then, he had star quality written all over him.
If the Republican Party wants to win this election, he is the person to do that, if Trump doesn’t get there before him.
Marco is young, handsome, and charismatic. He is not an ideologist, of any sort, and is pragmatic and sensible. In this day of charismatic ideologists, one would think that is to his advantage.
Your article, Leigh, just adds to my already high opinion of him. Thanks!
I kind of wish you could explain that to David Carroll, and others.
Like, Leigh. Thanks.
I agree with Robert, no need to explain it to me. My point was (I hope humorously made) about the delusion of shrinking government. It was not meant to be a slam on Marco Rubio. I apologize if it was taken that way.
Brava Leigh! Excellent post.
This is the sort of thing that shows something about a man’s character as well as about his political inclinations. It sits very well with me.
For many people, I think the real definition of “Conservative” means does he belong in my segment of Evangelicalism.
Because Marco Rubio is most definitely conservative by any political definition.