POLITICS AUGUST 25, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
I saw him last night. I saw Senator Marco Rubio in person as he delivered a speech at the Ronald Reagan Library outside of Los Angeles. I saw Marco Rubio catch Nancy Reagan as she stumbled. And I saw Marco Rubio offering coy answers to the question everyone in the press was there to see him answer: would you want to be vice president?
Rubio, in case you’re late to the party, is a Florida Republican who beat out Charlie Crist for a Senate seat in 2010. He’s a “Tea Party favorite,” whatever that means, and “the most talented speaker in American politics today,” according to a recent Weekly Standard piece. He apparently reduces even the most hardened conservatives to adoring jelly.
So I was lucky I got in to see him at all. When I drove up the hill to the Reagan Library, the cars parked along the side of the road stretched back nearly a mile. Inside, a sold-out crowd of about 700, by my rough count, had gathered. “I think people are just searching for somebody,” a middle-aged audience member named Nancy Most told me. She was a Rick Perry supporter from the nearby town of Thousand Oaks. “Someone who is young, articulate, good-looking—[with a laugh] from a woman’s standpoint—who loves his country.”
He is good-looking, that Rubio. Nice smile, too. After he’d escorted in Nancy Reagan (who wore a white suit and looked alert, though frail) and gotten introduced by library trustee Gerald Parsky, Rubio ascended to the lectern. It was flanked on either side by two American flags against a blue curtain backdrop, and bore a presidential-ish seal complete with the bald eagle clutching arrows in one talon and an olive branch in the other. This was clearly designed to be a test drive, if you will, for the real thing.
Rubio called for a political future that combines “prosperity and compassion.” He mentioned “free enterprise” about forty times. He has apparently decided to bring back “compassionate conservatism,” which, truth be told, isn’t a bad wine to rebottle. (Just because George W. Bush turned out to be neither particularly compassionate nor conservative doesn’t mean that such a combination isn’t possible or promising.)
Rubio is known as a Tea-Party candidate, or semi-Tea-Party candidate, but he didn’t throw any rhetorical bombs yesterday. That alone made him sort of agreeable. There were moments when he dared to offer a gram of risky honesty and an ounce of real ideas.
On the honesty part, for example, he admitted, obliquely, that George W. Bush had raided the nation’s piggy bank and subsequently beaten the piggy to death. “I know that it's popular in my party to blame the president, the current president," Rubio said. "But the truth is that the only thing this president has done is accelerate policies that were already in place, and were doomed to fail."
And on the vague semblance of ideas part, Rubio clearly said he wanted to phase out Social Security as something unaffordable, something that would bankrupt the nation and harm our children. As for who would be stuck footing the bill for the elderly today while getting screwed themselves tomorrow, Rubio suggested himself and those younger than him. “It really calls a specific generation of Americans, those of us like myself, decades away from retirement, to assume certain realities, that we continue to pay into and fund a system that we will never fully access,” he said. “But you see every generation of Americans has been called upon to do their part to ensure that the American promise continues.”
Whether you think that’s correct or not, it’s not a fairy-tale position. Of course, it’s also a politician calling for sacrifice through, well, taxation. But let’s not get the poor fellow in trouble with Grover Norquist just yet.
Now, I don’t mean to be grudging in my praise just because Rubio’s a Republican. But neither do I want to be excessive in my praise for the same reason. Here’s the problem: Yes, without question, Democrats are craven and feckless, not to mention enslaved to bad ideas and dumb interest groups. The trouble is just that Republicans, anno 2011, are insane. So my standards are relative. I regard even a glimmer of reality-based wonkery from a Republican as something that demands society’s protection, like the ivory-billed woodpecker.
Certainly, Rubio offered only a very little in the way of reality-based wonkery. But by the standards of today’s political conversations, he was still noticeably less partisan and vacuous than his peers. He did not, for instance, do any of the following: Solely blame Obama for the deficit; pretend that cutting unspecified wasteful spending would balance the budget; suggest Democrats are soft on terrorism; accuse secularists of trying to stamp out religious faith; complain about a war on Christmas; rail against judges “legislating from the bench”; suggest that increased oil drilling at home would grant us energy independence; demonize climate scientists; demonize Ben Bernanke; demonize fiat currency; demonize The New York Times; demonize liberals; demonize unions; or demonize anyone, actually. He even conceded that liberals aren’t evil, they’re just wrong.
And the crowd loved it. Well, the crowd loved everything he said, really. They seemed ready to induct him into the conservative pantheon on the spot. Organizers of the event – and especially, Gerald Parsky, the evening’s presenter of Rubio – dropped occasional hints that Rubio might have some important qualities in common with Ronald Reagan. And by “dropped occasional hints,” I mean “mentioned it explicitly about ninety times.” Rubio, in turn, called Reagan “the greatest American of the twentieth century.” (Though in that setting, it was only polite.)
But, if we’re going to make Reagan comparisons, I’d have to say that Rubio’s Republicanism felt sort of—and this is the best I can do for now—high school extracurricular-y. It felt like the politics of a hardworking, decent guy who was brought up Republican and finds he wants to get involved with student government and college clubs and that sort of thing. He’s got the basic ideas and rhetoric down and believes them, but there isn’t a ton of substance behind it. There’s a worldview, but it’s basically a prefabricated one that’s ready-to-wear: Free enterprise and limited government will save us, we need a strong defense, taxes should be cut, and so forth.
Certainly, Reagan had a similar collection of principles. But Reagan’s were those of a man who starts out with one set of political beliefs and, gradually, as he arrives at what he feels is a better understanding of the world, sheds them one by one in favor of another set of beliefs. Call it the zeal of the convert, or just call it the conviction of someone who knows what he thinks because he’s thought a lot about it.
That’s not to say Reagan’s convictions or policies were right—I’d argue they often were not—but they generally were the product of reflection. Marco Rubio’s beliefs don’t seem like that. He’s thoughtful enough, but not so much as to be dangerous to himself or to his party. That’s probably going to keep taking him places. I just doubt it’s going to be anywhere all that interesting.
T.A. Frank is a special correspondent for The New Republic.
14 comments
Huntsman and Rubio? But how can such a ticket get elected, or even considered seriously, without having an atheistic lesbian and a person with a blue and green polka dot skin color? Even if they might be a bit sane? That alone is enough to disqualify them from their party's nomination.
- skahn
August 25, 2011 at 12:18am
I'm curious, who are these Democrats beholden to bad ideas and dumb interest groups? Did you fall asleep in the 1970s and 1980s and just wake up? By and large today's Democrats are centrist and policy wonks rather than idealougues, and not made up of the post-1968 feuding camps, as 2008's extended primary demonstrated. As to the less overheated rhetoric, that's, in a word, duh. This speech, at a Presidential library, is targeted at two things a) The DC Media ("He mentions slashing entitlements to balance the budget! He must be serious!") and b) Veepstakes. There wasn't going to be a red meat fest, that's for Iowa. It's just a lovely bit of image softening and media primping. It's designed to make reporters like Frank here. looking at style and not substance, decide he's "moderate" despite his radical positions. And he is radically out of the mainstream here--look how great "Let's Privatize / Eliminate Social Security" went for Bush in 2005. Finally, he's obviously going to either veep in 2012 or run for President in 2016: No one who ever pondered running for reelection statewide in FLORIDA would make his big political point that "We can't afford Social Security."
- Crock1701
August 25, 2011 at 1:12am
Rubio is definitely pushing some good buttons... Fluent in Spanish, mom a hotel housekeeper, dad worked in a restaurant. JD from University of Miami. Little bit of football in college. BS degree instead of some slack degree like communications or business. :)
- seattleeng
August 25, 2011 at 3:41am
I am so excited about the future. It streches out before us like a land of dreams-American dreams. See, there is Doris Day in the distance. She is still a virgin and she is singing "In Moonlight Bay."
- paskunac
August 25, 2011 at 6:23am
Frank's assessment is spot on. Rubio has little experience at anything other than being a conservative politician from a conservative district. Besides a short (very short) part-time stint at a politically connected law firm and in political office, he's never even had a job. It's as though he was conceived and getated in a bottle filled with conservative nostrums that he now repeats. The Manchurian candidate from the right. Here's one journalist's assessment (written during the Senate campaign): "On the surface Rubio is a young and telegenic Cuban American with an inspiring discourse of bonafide conservative ideas. He’s an extremely intelligent policy wonk, a fearless risk-taker, and a talented orator whose grandiose speeches have made grown men cry. But in many respects his campaign was a hodgepodge of contradictions. He courted the Tea Party and ran as an outsider, yet is a lifelong Republican. He was baptized, confirmed and married by the Catholic Church, yet regularly attends an Evangelical megachurch to which he donated $50,000. In terms of policy, he focused on lowering the debt and balancing the budget, yet requested millions in earmarks, racked up personal expenses on a Republican Party credit card, and let a home fall into foreclosure. He supports making English the official language but spoke in fluent Spanish at campaign stops and was a Univisión political analyst. Rubio also shifted his positions on immigration and climate change." In other words, he's the quintessential Republican candidate and will be hard to beat.
- rayward
August 25, 2011 at 7:11am
There is some controversy over Rubio's qualification for president or vice president. It seems his immigrant father applied for US citizenship after Rubio was born. Wouldn't it be the ultimmate irony if the birthers prevented Rubio, who is their darling, from becoming president or vice president.
- rayward
August 25, 2011 at 7:48am
Fearless risk taker? Uh...examples? OK, how about example? Let a home fall in to foreclosure? What's the story there? This article reads like it was written by a college kid.
- WandreyCer
August 25, 2011 at 8:38am
jesus christ what a useless piece. I had to read a real Conservative to get an honest take from that speech, here is David Frum: You know, we at the FrumForum take a certain amount of heat for the offense of “bashing fellow Republicans.” My defense: part of the work of upholding a body of ideas is to sift through them to ascertain what remains vital and what has been rendered irrelevant or obsolete by changing circumstances. OK, I would say that. But you know who else agrees? Conservative icon Marco Rubio. His speech was a blunt statement that rejects as useless and dangerous the main domestic policy achievements of every Republican administration of the past 100 years except Ronald Reagan’s: Now America’s leaders during the last century set out to accomplish that, but they reached a conclusion that has placed us on this path, except for the Reagan Administration to be quite frank. Both Republicans and Democrats established a role for government in America that said, yes, we’ll have a free economy, but we will also have a strong government, who through regulations and taxes will control the free economy and through a series of government programs, will take care of those in our society who are falling behind. That was a vision crafted in the twentieth century by our leaders and though it was well intentioned, it was doomed to fail from the start. Teddy Roosevelt left office more than 100 years ago, but I think these words rule him out. They probably don’t rule out Warren Harding, but even Calvin Coolidge as governor of Massachusetts signed a maximum-hours bill for women and children. For sure, Rubio’s words condemn Presidents Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. Truth be told they condemn Ronald Reagan too, but shhh. They condemn almost every one of the party’s presidential nominees since Wendell Wilkie except Barry Goldwater: Tom Dewey, Bob Dole, and John McCain. And of course they condemn almost every important Republican governor, senator and member of Congress of the post-1945 period, Robert Taft very much included. One of the effects of the Tea Party movement is to cut the Republican Party off – not only from the measured policy preferences of the American people – but from the Republican Party’s own history. It shrivels the GOP into a party without heroes, or rather a party with only one hero, Ronald Reagan, and otherwise a long succession of false and deluded leaders. And it points Republicans to a doomed future of continuing failure and recrimination. After all, if almost every elected Republican leader of the past 100 years save Reagan fell short of conservative principle, then it seems overwhelmingly probable that the next Republican leader will also fall short of conservative principle. In which case, conservative principle has become a vehicle for guaranteeing eternal conservative disappointment and alienation. Unhealthy, no?
- blackton
August 25, 2011 at 10:43am
What's going on these days -- are talkbackers getting too lazy to write their own comments or at the very least, if they are quoting someone, to indicate that by pasting in a link to the source at the end of the quote? blackton, on another thread you called out K2K for chopping a quote -- that was imo correct but in fact the problem was really caused by K2K cutting and pasting a long article from another author (who had chopped the quote) with no real attribution or signal as to where quote ended and his (K2K's) words began. Now you go and do the same with Frum's piece. Grrrrrrr!
- ironyroad
August 25, 2011 at 12:48pm
@Crock1701: "I'm curious, who are these Democrats beholden to bad ideas and dumb interest groups? Did you fall asleep in the 1970s and 1980s and just wake up? By and large today's Democrats are centrist and policy wonks rather than idealougues..." If you ask me, the Democrats beholden to bad ideas and dumb interest groups ARE the centrists (for the American value of "centrist," which anywhere else in the world would be seen as "far right"). Have you forgotten how centrist Dems in the Senate savaged health care reform? Notice how badly watered down finreg was? To say nothing of the nature of the debate in the current Congress, which is all deficits all the time. The Democratic Party consists almost entirely of policy wonks these days, but it's the ones on the left who have most of the good ideas. The centrists are the ones obsessing over the deficit in the face of a massive recession* and fretting about the need to cut "entitlements." Sadly, the President appears to be one of them. *Yeah, yeah, technically we're not in a recession any more. Tell that to the unemployment rate. Would you prefer "depression" instead?
- Dausuul
August 25, 2011 at 1:27pm
Dausuul: I would actually agree most of the bad ideas in the party come from the Center these days--but that wasn't the point I was making. I felt the implication by Frank was that it was that "crazy left" at it again in the Dems. By and large, that just sounded like a silly description of the party, left over from the McGovern debacles or the Jesse Jackson primary fights. It had no basis in reality.
- Crock1701
August 25, 2011 at 1:38pm
Ah, that makes more sense. My apologies.
- Dausuul
August 25, 2011 at 2:28pm
Rubio..."even conceded that liberals aren’t evil, they’re just wrong." I concede that conservatives aren't just wrong, they're evil.
- Weston
August 25, 2011 at 3:33pm
The well-behaved conservative Republican Senator Rubio, whose brilliant idea is the elimination of Social Security. Let me suggest to you that Senator Rubio is an aggressive reactionary. Weston is spot on: Rubio..."even conceded that liberals aren’t evil, they’re just wrong." I concede that conservatives aren't just wrong, they're evil." I would amplify slightly, "I concede that conservatives aren't just wrong, they're evil, including Nancy and Ronny."
- LawrenceGulotta
August 25, 2011 at 4:39pm