Why Jeb Bush makes my skin crawl

The usual reasons given by conservatives for their disapproval of Jeb Bush are his apostasies on illegal aliens, and his support for Common Core. While I also hold these same reservations, that is not what creeps me out about the guy.

For instance, my opinion of his tenure as Governor of Florida is generally positive, and all indications are that he was an able leader of that state. But lately, he has been justifying his pro-illegal alien stance with saccharine-schmaltz like:

“Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love. It’s an act of commitment to your family.”

This was the first such pronouncement (which caused everybody’s heads to turn), but since last April, there have been more nausea-inducing statements like this. I guess why I find them so offensive is that he confounds sentimentality with morality. To make an analogy with the art world, it is like confusing Thomas Kinkade with DaVinci’s Last Supper.

This type of moral error is popular among the ditzier elements of the left. For instance, I remember a documentary from the seventies where some bleeding-heart activist-type spoke about the violent crime problem in New York’s ghettos, “all these people need is love.” Riiight. My reaction to Jeb Bush when he speaks this way about illegal immigration: riiight.

(Incidentally, unlike the new-age crowd, the hard-core left has no illusion about how the world works. Read the blood-curdling works of Lenin, Trotsky and Saul Alinsky. They are absolutely hardheaded and realistic about how to get and keep power).

For what it’s worth, Jeb’s brother, George W, is also prone to this kind of fuzzy thinking, particularly in his second term when he allowed it to get the better of him. I think this was one of the reasons that allowed the punitive expedition against Iraq and Afghanistan to morph into an unending missionary war for democracy. Secretary of State Condi Rice was once asked if the she thought the Palestinian people in the Gaza strip wanted democracy. She replied yes, everybody wants democracy.

Earth to the Bush Administration: no, they don’t. A significant segment of the populations in Venezuela, Argentina, the Middle East, Russia and China have no taste nor desire for democracy or freedom. They yearn for a barrel-chested strongman. In Germany in the early 1930’s, a clear majority voted for explicitly anti-freedom, anti-democracy parties: the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, or the communists. Even among North American conservatives, some isolationists seem to admire Putin and other tyrants (cf Pat Buchanan). Are these people wrong? Yes. Are they blockheads? Absolutely. But their opinions, as wrong as they may be, have to be realistically accounted for.

One of the President’s roles is to be the United States’ chief strategist. The worst sin a strategist can make is to refuse to see the world as it really is. For this reason, there is absolutely no place in any President’s world-view for wishful thinking. Sound moral principles yes – schmaltz no. That is why, every time Jeb Bush makes a sanctimonious pronouncement about illegal aliens (while passing over the criminal and welfare-seeking and terrorist elements within that group in silence), he further demonstrates to me his unfitness to hold the high office he is seeking.

 

Comments

[anonymous]

Sounds a lot like the statements of PM Harper on Islam; and all the while still allowing Muslim immigration into Canada and allowing Muslims to use the sanctity of their mosques to spread evil and to promote the murder of infidels and Canadian soldiers on Canadian soil.

[WiseGuy]

Fortunately Jeb is looking pretty dismal in the polls when pitted against Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Scott Walker.
Of course if Jeb's Establishment boys and deep pocketed donors are able to win him the nomination, expect even more conservatives to sit out this election than they did for Romney's.

[AutoGuy]

I'm in agreement on Bush. The guys is a borderline RINO, as is his family. The US needs a Reagan type right now with his "bold colour differences" - especially given the existential threats we face right now.
As for the comment from Anonymous, I have to respectfully disagree. Harper is an incrementalist. Sure, his detractors say he's not conservative enough, not libertarian enough, too autocratic, etc... But he has been arguable the most successful Tory PM we've ever had.
Why do I say this?
When Harper took over, he was dealing with a significant amount of political momentum leftward in the Canadian electorate. Things had been going left for a LONG time and he had to change that. Attempts to reverse course quickly were to fraught with danger (note the last minute electoral failure in his last failed bid) and he was dealing with a minority government.
Since then he has slowly and surely changed the direction. A nudge here, a statement there, and now we have a significantly different situation.
Compare Harper's stance to Mulcair and Trudeau. Trudeau prays at a radicalized mosque. Mulcair can't even bring himself to call the Parliament Hill attack "terrorism". Harper, on the other hand, has used some of the most direct language on this issue of any world leader. Read some blogs - for example, the Daily Caller ran an article that headlined "When did Canada become so bad-ass?" The US thinks he's tough, thats for sure.
Furthermore, his ground breaking speech in Israel to the Knesset was actually out of character. THAT was not incrementalism. THAT was international leadership.
There is a long way to go, no question. But if Harper tried to bridge that gap in one stride, he would be out on his ear. Harper has shown in the past that he will get us there. It will just take a little more time.

[Cincinnatus]

Autoguy:

That is probably the best summary of why Harper is a good leader that I have ever read!

[monkey]

My main issue with Bush is in general I am not a fan of dynasties, nonetheless I am less concerned about a RINO winning as I look at things through a Canadian perspective.

First there is Canada-US relations and if a more ideological one wins, we will off course have bad relations if the Liberals are in power whereas a Blue Liberal and a RINO might not agree on everything but could have a decent working relation much like John Manley and Tom Ridge did a decade ago. Likewise if the Tories are in power and they get too cozy with a more right wing leader it will just be more ammunition for their opponents.

Also on many issues I would like something that falls in between what Canada and the US have. Otherwise more conservative than Canada today, but more liberal than the US today. On unionization rates, I think Canada is too high while US too low (note we are 30% and US is only 12%), while generally I've found around 20% is when things are most optimal, otherwise large enough to act as a balance to excessive greed, but not so powerful they hurt productivity and growth like they do here in Ontario.

Same goes with health care as with the developed world Canada is virtually alone in practically (or at least tries to) outlawing private health care for basic health care services while the US is alone in not having universal health care. I would rather we had a hybrid system like most other industrialized countries have.

So unlike some on the right, I don't necessarily think the US moving to the right is a good thing especially since it just gives those on the left more ammunition to use as scare tactics.

[james]

The number one issue facing the US is their economy and government spending. Bush will solve neither of those problems. The illegals and common core are just noise. Hitlery Klintoon or worse Focahantis Warren or creepy uncle joe would completely destroy the US. They don't have 6 years left down this road.

[AutoGuy]

That's an interesting take Monkey, and good food for thought. I agree with some thoughts and disagree on others...
My main issue is that the US right now is actually to the left of Canada in my thinking. I know that is a simplistic statement, and that the pendulum swings widely from state to state, but I feel overall that to be the case. You can talk about Texas all you like, but you have to balance that with the craziness that is California.
I believe that worrying about the tactics of the left is understandable but misguided. Make your enemy - and the left is the enemy - dance to your tune, not the other way around. For the last 50 years or so we have danced to the left's tune. Now we have some ammunition of our own and we need to produce the music.
The ammunition? Here goes...
1. Abject fiscal failure of multiple socialist states in Europe discredits leftist economic ideals.
2. Significant terrorist activities discredits basis of multiculturalism and reinforces assimilation.
3. Failing school systems based on socialist ideals.
4. Economic powerhouse of 'right to work' states discredits unionism.
And thank you for the compliment Cincinnatus. I really enjoy your blog and am happy to contribute.

[monkey]

AutoGuy - While you have some interesting ideas, I guess what I was more getting at is right vs. left are relative terms and since your median voter in the US is well to the right of your median Canadian voter its quite possible to be on the right in Canada and left in the US. As for Texas, that would be too right wing for my personal taste while California maybe too left wing for your taste, but I would hardly say its more left wing than Canada. Lets remember the GOP usually gets in the high 30s to low 40s in California and that percentage for the Conservatives is all they need to form government here in Canada. Otherwise the left is united in the US unlike Canada. As for hating the left, I don't hate anyone whose views are well intentioned even if I disagree with them. I have family members and friends on the left and although we have vigorous debates, they are still good people with good intentions, just maybe the wrong solutions. Besides I don't think you can alter Canadian values easily, rather what you have to argue is Conservative ones will better achieve those than left wing ones. For example on the idea of compassion, having smaller government means more growth in the private sector so more revenue and fewer people needing social assistance so the few who need it there is more funding for them without higher taxes or deficits.

1. Greece has been an abject failure, but some like Norway, Sweden, and Germany have done quite well. Besides unlike 30 or 40 years ago, Europe is much less socialistic never mind in some areas like allowing a greater private sector role in health care, privatizing some state owned enterprises like the postal service, or not allowing individuals to opt out of union funds donated to political parties they are more conservative than Canada.
2. Multiculturalism has failed in Europe, but not Canada. The reason is while the elites in Europe support it, most people don't and since most immigrants realize the locals don't want them there it makes it easier to recruit. I've been to Europe and people are far less tolerant of those who are different. In Canada we may not support anything goes multiculturalism, but as long as you mind your own business and aren't harming anyone we don't care what your skin colour, ethnicity, nationality, or religion is. Case in point at a football match in Europe, you will notice its overwhelmingly white while at a Leafs game or Canucks game you will see people of every culture and race there and most come from countries where hockey and ice are non-existent thus proving our success. Now we should be vigilant but lets go after the radicals not all foreigners.
3. Actually on international tests Canadians do quite well and while some teachers do unfortunately bring politics into the classroom, most keep it out as well as one can always send their children to private school.
4. Right to work states are on average poorer not wealthier. Now that largely has to do with the fact most are in the South which has always been poorer. Some like Nevada have higher unionization rates and median incomes, so the point is right to work is not a disaster like the left claims but nto a pancea like right claims. Besides even in non-right to work states, unions don't have anywhere near the kind of power they have in Canada. In fact on unionization, US is in the bottom five of the OECD countries while Canada is top ten. Likewise our least unionized province Alberta has similar rates of coverage as the most unionized state in the US, New York so arguing for more unionization in the US and less in Canada is not hypocritical if you believe the optimal level falls in between the two countries. As I've always said, in Canada you need to defeat the left on facts not emotion as when run on emotion they always win.

[AutoGuy]

Hi Monkey. First off, let me just say that I really enjoy this kind of political discussion, so thank you very much. I'll try to take your points in order.
1. The US left is the Canadian right - in many ways I have no argument with this, but the key here (I think) is that you are looking at voter demographics and I am looking at enacted laws. California law is unquestionably more left wing than Canadian law in my estimation.
2. Voter demographics - I agree on the surface, with one caveat; how many current Canadian Liberals would vote NDP if the Liberal party disappeared? How many would vote Conservative? I believe that we would have a split very similar to the US. The Liberal party is supposed to be Centrist. Like him or not, Chretien was centrist, and one of the most successful PM's ever. Trudeau is definitely left wing, like his dad. I believe that many Liberal voters aren't very comfortable with that.
3. Hate, Canadian Values and Compassion... First off, I don't talk about hate, I talk about enemies. I also believe in keeping your mind clear of hate to deal effectively with those enemies - and by this I don't mean average left wing people, I mean the morally, ethically bankrupt leaders of the Left. As for Canadian Values, I don't see a decent definition of Canadian values. Without that, the argument is meaningless. I DO see leftists talking about their views and Canadian values, which is a shallow political ploy. Lastly, the idea of Compassion in Government is dangerous and counter productive. How is that, you ask?
There are a great many causes in society worthy of support and compassion. I decide which causes to support with my wealth and I make that decision based on what is important to me. When the government does this, citizens have essentially no input and can see their funds (taxes) going to support causes they don't agree with, or simply ones that aren't important to them. This leads to my take; outside of specific safety net programs that have specific limits, government shouldn't be involved in Compassion. That should be the province of private citizens only.
4. Socialism in Europe - I think you actually made my point for me. Europe was more socialist in the past and had to move away from that platform as it was destructive - at least in those countries that have done reasonably well. Sweden indexed retirement benefits to change with the average life expectancy. Health care systems allow for private payer alternatives. These are responsible fiscal moves that are anti-socialist, and they show the abject failure of socialist economics. Countries that have not taken these steps (Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Spain) are in HORRIBLE financial positions. They still have very early retirement ages (55 last I checked in Greece), free post secondary education etc. And they are failing.
5. Multiculturalism - once again, I think that you've made my point for me. Assimilation is not about looking the same as your neighbour, its about having the same set of values. The very fact that you can see mulitple ethnicities at a hockey game is evidence of assimilation. The opposite, that cultures within Canada hold themselves separate, is generally untrue - with one major exception. Islam.
6. Education - I would dispute your claim about our international standing, but that isn't what I was driving at. The change in the curriculum, so that the school system is an incubator of leftist ideals is the concern. The use of schooling for political ends is a failure.
7. Right to work states are poorer than other states. You are correct, this is fact. What you miss is that they started MUCH poorer when the right to work revolution started, and they are amassing wealth more quickly than leftist states (with some exceptions). Other economic indicators (unemployment, housing starts) all favour the right to work model.

Comments?

[monkey]

AutoGuy - See my response below.
1. I would still say California is more conservative than Canada although perhaps if you just look at decisions made in the last ten years I would agree as it takes time to move in any direction. For example California doesn't have universal health care, doesn't have government liquor stores, spends less per capita on social welfare, doesn't have state owned electricity, their Worker's Compensation allows competition, looser gun laws etc.
2. I would argue the Democrats are more like the Liberals than NDP. While Obama has moved them somewhat to the left, Clinton was every bit as centrist as Chretien. I agree if the Liberals disappeared many Blue Liberals would go over to the Conservatives but I think a better comparison for this is BC right now or Australia with the Blue Liberals going to the BC Liberals/Liberal/National coalition of Australia and progressive Liberals going to BC NDP/Australian Labor Party. I tend to think of the Democrats being a coalition of NDP, Liberals, and former Progressive Conservatives, while GOP largely just the Reform/Alliance if you go back to the 90s.
3. I generally support a minimalist government but I am also a pragmatist realizing we cannot just rely on charity to look after the disadvantage. If we all lived in small towns under 1,000 people it would probably work, but in large urban centres too many will fall through the cracks. Nonetheless its about balance and I think Canada does a good job on balance.
4. Actually Ireland is one of the more conservative countries in Europe policy wise while Spain made big market reforms under Aznar between 1996-2004. The main problem in both countries is the real estate market was way too large and when it crashed it brought the country down. What those two need is a more diversified economy. In the case of Italy, corruption is quite rampant so left or right wing government, until that is eliminated it will stifle growth. Generally agree on Greece although I should note the Troika privatization program was more ambitious than even Thatcher's privatization but that was imposed on them and the current leader plans to ignore it. Certainly the size of the civil service, bonus for showing up to work on time, and 14 months pay for 12 months work are ridiculous. Greece's problem is both government being too big and too many people cheating on their taxes although perhaps the first is the causation of the second.
5. While Islam has its issues, I should note there have been examples of large Muslim populations integrating. A good example is the Iranian community in the Greater Vancouver area who mostly keep to escape Iran's theocracy and thus you never see their women wearing niqabs or any other issues people associate with Islam. Rather what we need to do is continue to support Muslims who want to escape the theocracies they came from while keep out those who want to make it like their home country. Otherwise we should continue to welcome people like Tarek Fatah, while keep out people like Anjem Choudary.
6. While this is somewhat of an issue, a good teacher should teach all political philosophies and encourage students to think critically and make their own decisions which they did when I went to high school, mind you I went to private school in BC.
7. That's only true in the sense that if you have a lower starting point its much easier to grow. Latin America and Asia are growing much faster than Europe and North America as they have a much lower starting point. My view on union laws is people should be allowed to opt out, but to prevent free riding they must donate the amount they would pay in union dues to a private charity of their choice thus eliminating any financial advantage of opting out while still allowing it on the basis of principle. Also much like Germany and Sweden, unions should improve their working relationship with the companies realizing a more profitable company means more money for higher wages rather than taking the adversarial role they do here. Unfortunately we copied British style unionism which is the worst style in Europe. That's why Britain prior to Thatcher was the sick man of Europe.