As his interview earlier this week with Charlie Rose demonstrated, Governor Jeb Bush is fluent and in command of the issues, which is not surprising to anyone who knows him. There’s an active intelligence and engagement with public policy matters that makes him allergic to talking points.
But there are several others elements in the interview that I want to focus on, including Bush’s style. I don’t mean that in the shallow sense of the word. Rather, what I have in mind is a particular temperament and disposition in approaching politics and the wider world.
For one thing, there’s an admirable candor and genuineness in Bush, including his love and admiration for his brother and father and his principled and bountiful attitude on immigration. He also possesses a generosity of spirit, including his praise for President Obama on several national security issues. That’s not to say Bush didn’t articulate a powerful and effective case against the president or on behalf of conservatism. He did. Indeed, the fact that the former Florida governor wasn’t robotically critical of the president makes his criticisms more, not less, effective. And Bush is clearly a man without rancor, proving that principled individuals don’t have to be angry ones.
Beyond all that, though, Bush spoke about the importance of a “divergence of thought” and the dangers of orthodoxy when it comes to American political parties. He’s a man who clearly enjoys intellectual give-and-take; he talked about the good that emerges from “flourishing policy discussions.” Here Governor Bush is onto something important, which is that conservatism needs to avoid the mindset that demands conformity to the point of stifling silliness.
For example, in his interview with Rose, Bush reiterated that he would of course accept a hypothetical debt deal that included $10 in real spending cuts for every dollar in tax increases. This brought to mind one of the low points of the GOP primary, in which all eight candidates indicated they’d walk away from such a deal. We all understand why; if any of the candidates had said they would accept the deal, they would have been accused of being a RINO, moderate, weak, unprincipled and unconservative.
I argued at the time that lower taxes are a very good idea, but it is not a talisman. And if we have reached a point where Republicans running for president cannot envision (or at least admit to) any scenario in which they would raise taxes, even if as a result they could substantially roll back the modern welfare state, then it’s time to consider loosening the philosophical straitjacket they are in.
A philosophical movement and political party are better when they are drawn more to vigorous and spirited debates rather than excommunication. That is, I think, what Jeb Bush was saying; and he was right to say it.
Yes, I agree taxes may need to be raised, BUT not until Congress can prove to the American people that our hard-earned money that goes to taxes is not spent irresponsibly and abused by people in government who think of it as THEIR money (GSA, for example}. Until then, I say no increase or new taxes. Sorry, but I've been abused enough already and my trust in government has been greatly shaken.
You stop smoking by quitting smoking. Don't sneak a "few butts" a day and expect to quit. Not a radical idea, at all. We are NOT under-taxed now, so what practicat benefit is there to raising taxes even a little bit?
Absolutely right about Jeb Bush. If you could build a perfect Republican it would look and sound a lot like Jeb for sure. (Or maybe a combo of Jeb & Pete Wehner.) This is a good and timely reminder… as all of my harshest partisan thoughts & instincts are coming to the surface due to the election. I don't ever, ever want to sound like one of those thugs in Madison, WI, or the Occupods, or Pelosi, or the swaggering POTUS in full campaign mode…
One could argue that the eight candidates were right to turn down the 10 to 1 offer because history tells us that the only aspect of that deal that would go into effect would be that tax increase. Until Democrats offer or agree to serious and specific changes to the unsustainable entitlement programs then Republicans should say no to any such con-man offers. Remember what happened to Bush the elder? n nThe record shows that Speaker Boehner was prepared to accept substantial tax increases until he realised that Prez Obama was not serious about concluding a deal with him.
" his principled and bountiful attitude on immigration", say what? Jebbie and his brother Jorge are OBSESSED with mass immigration, mainly Latino immigration. n nMost, repeat, most American (citizens) favor deporting illegal immigrants and actually reducing legal immigration. n nThe Bush's are out of touch, pandering elites……no different that the Clinton's, the Hussein Obama's, the Kennedy's, etc.
And if someone offered me 10 unicorns for every dollar in raised taxes that would be a great deal too. You are more likely to get a unicorn than have promised future spending cuts actually happen. Please point to a substantial actual cut (or even a cut in the rate of growth) of spending in the last 40 years. Wehner shows his establishment preferences by refusing to acknowledge that it is Washington (both dem and Rep) that has shown itself repeatedly unable to honor its spending cut commitments. To pretend that the justifiable lack of trust on the part of the republican base is some example of rigidity is to pretend to an ignorance of recent history. It isn't that republicans are troglodytic tax fanatics. It is that the establishment has lied over and over and over again. It isn't regidity to make liars prove themselves maube even once__We don't trust you. You have lied and/or allowed yourselves to be taken in by empty promises too many times. The fact that you want to blame the base rather than the establishments shows a certain lack of seriousness about fiscal matters that must be necessary to defend the bush fiscal legacy.
There is always room for disagreement in building and decorating a house to disagree about paint color. n nThe arguments between building a certain room a certain way, or using a wrecking ball to tear that area down entirely – there is not room in one model for that kind of disagreement. n nThere is no room in the Conservative movement for Socialists. n nThat is NOT an improvement in Vision – that is a recipe for total disaster. n n"Diversity" came from the Stalinist Agenda to destroy what was working successfully in America, to tear down her strengths. n nThere is only room in a movement to decide what accomplishes common goals. n nWhen their goals diverge, they cannot work together. n nIf it's just the paint, there is plenty of room for compromise and still come to an agreement after a good debate on the issue. n nThere are some who want to see the Conservative movement destroyed by internal forces working for such terribly opposite and divergent goals. n nThere can be no such "Big Umbrella" to make them feel they are "being as inclusive" as the DIMS. n nThe Dims ALL divergent groups, all have one common goal, to destroy America entirely, So if some want to do it by plague, some by genocide, some by euthanasia, some by preferring illegal aliens and animals to the reasonable essential needs or ordinary human being CITIZENS, some want to do it by shutting down technical advancements and jobs and financial capacity – it all contributes to a common goal, they are all still united, no matter how diverse their tactic of choice is, in the various factions under one large umbrella. n nBut someone who wants to bring Dim Destructions into the Conservative Umbrella for the sake of widespread "cooperation" – THAT is schizophrenic, fractured, and destroys the legitimate goals of Conservatives. n nThat is like a farmer who hires someone who destroys irrigation systems, and another who throws weeds and tares into his fresh-plowed ground, and another to pour synthetic non-food products into his livestocks' feed bins, and they all sit down and say what fine farming this is creating. n nIt ain't going to happen. n nThose who are doing the destructions, those who are ENABLING the destructions – you know who you are, and so do we. n nWe know you for the Dim Donkey Moles that you are.
I'm shocked.
Jeb Bush is like the worst of his father and brother all Conservatives now know to STAY OUT OF THE BUSHES!
Forget "conservatism," please. It has, operationally, de facto, been Godless and thus irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God they are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:u2028u2028”[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. n n“American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It .is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth."u2028u2028Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2). nu2028John Lofton, Editor, Archive.TheAmericanView.com nJohnLofton.com nRecovering Republican nActive “Facebook” Wall nJLof@aol.com