So, trying to put the nicest spin I can on this, I hope Republican stalwarts pay attention to what Jeb has to say. Here are some of the points I hope they pay attention to.
“I think we need to change the tone of the conversation as it relates to immigration.”
“We have to actually be proposing solutions to what appear to be intractable problems as it relates to education, health care, infrastructure.”
Good! Excellent! Nothing would make me happier than Republicans engaging in reasoned arguments based on facts, principle, and evidence. Bring it on. And, the more solutions offered the better. Why would anyone even feel compelled to mention this? Why wouldn’t they offer solutions?
I’m not sure what he means when he states that Republicans should “organize ourselves in the form of a shadow government.” Really? What does that even mean? Why not participate in the non-shadow government? Why exert all this energy on a “shadow” government? Does Jeb Bush think Al Gore should have said, after his loss in 2000, that Democrats needed to form a shadow government?
Another awkwardly phrased statement I don’t really understand is that “there are ways that we can show that we are truly on the side of the people that are concerned about the future of the country, without abandoning our principles.” This sounds like it’s a fine line that must be walked between abandoning their principles and showing that they are on the side of the people concerned about the future. What is this delicate balance? Why isn’t being concerned about the future an easy and easily explicable part of Republican principles?
Watching the interview all I can think is that Jeb Bush and I understand the world in profoundly different ways.
And, now that I watch it, rather then simply read the excerpts, I can’t help but wonder why Jeb Bush doesn’t stop his lunatic characterization of liberalism if he really wants to “change the tone.”
He says that it’s shocking that a liberal would run on a platform of cutting taxes. If he truly believes this then he has no concept of what liberalism means. I wonder if he’s educable? If presented with facts, evidence, history, and cogent argument, would Jeb Bush characterize liberalism fairly? Or, is he so embedded in repeating the Republican false accusations that he will never be able to engage in honest and principled debate? He persists toward the end of the interview in mischaracterizing Obama’s tax policy. It’s like a compulsive tic. He then carries out the canard that “we don’t know much about him” despite Obama writing three books, and having been in public service much of his adult life. Anyone who is interested can find out a hell of a lot more about Obama than than they can uncover about anyone in the Bush family.
His awesome solution for attracting minority voters into the Republican party? Remind them that we can all hate gays! I think this is going to be a significant Republican strategy over the next few election cycles. Republicans will soon be advertising themselves as the big tent of fag-bashing.
I completely agree with his assessment that education is a problem in the US, but I have a hard time buying his solutions without some evidence to back them up. More technology? I think we need more teachers. No tenure? We need to strengthen the tenure system at colleges and universities and reduce our reliance on adjuncts and grad students. Tenure in primary and secondary schools? I don’t know so much about that, I’d be interested in hearing the arguments from all sides.
And finally, what is a “passion for reform?” And, how does this passion for reform fit with conservative values of adhering to tradition and ensuring that change is incremental rather than radical? Is the Republican party ready to abandon all pretense of conservatism?
