Jeb Bush’s Challenge

It is quite interesting to look at the Republican Party’s recent history and presidential candidates. Generally speaking, the party has drifted to the right. The vast majority of its most prominent figures are conservative politicians. Within Congress and the Senate, they support a dogmatic agenda that finds itself in stubborn opposition to President Obama, unyielding in its protection of a short and rigid list of demands. A few months ago, a political analyst told me that Republicans have stopped being a viable option for governing, as they are now “fully reactionary.” He is probably right. At least when it comes to legislative affairs and executive scenarios at the local and state levels, the Republican Party seems able to do nothing more than fight for its own narrow agenda — an agenda that is essentially devised to attract a large, yet diminishing, demographic group: the white voter. Thus far, the gamble seems to be reaping benefits: They control both chambers in Washington and 31 gubernatorial seats.

Given all this, one would think that when the time to choose a presidential candidate comes around every four years Republicans would act in a reasonable manner. In practice, the opposite has happened: in the last three decades they have ended up putting their hopes on candidates that, in relation to the party’s general inclinations, are much more moderate. Even George W. Bush, despite his guts, was never truly a conservative candidate, at least not in relation to the ridiculous standards that his party sets in other scenarios. In the last two electoral rounds, Republican contenders were men who, deep down, were never in sync with the ultraconservative, evangelical, right-wing program. Neither John McCain nor Mitt Romney were ever Republican in today’s sense — be it in social, economic or immigration terms … heck, not even in military terms (though McCain has gotten closer in the past few years).

The thing is that such inconsistencies within the Republicans’ nomination process are, at the end of the day, a blessing for the United States. After all, it is much more desirable that two moderate candidates compete for the presidency than to face the possibility that, because of some generational faux pas, voters opt to elect some puritan who inherently opposes, say, the theory of evolution, or women’s right to choose or, worse yet, the possibility to enact reasonable immigration reform.

This dynamic will probably be repeated in next year’s presidential election. At the moment, the Republican Party seems to gradually be leaning toward Jeb Bush — Florida’s former governor and George W. Bush’s brother — as its candidate. Jeb has been judicious and intelligent with respect to a good number of issues, beginning with immigration. For many years, he has urged his party to abandon the “stupidity” of systematically opposing immigration reform. He has good ideas regarding education and is a learned politician, an oxymoron within his party. This doesn’t mean that he is moderate when it comes to social issues. In fact, as governor of Florida he showed the opposite: He opposed abortion and adamantly protected the right to bear firearms. Even so, Bush is noticeably less fanatical than any of the other Republican choices for 2016. Furthermore, he is lucky to have a politically advantageous biography, particularly for the Hispanic vote. He is married to a Mexican woman and speaks perfect Spanish (believe me, better than many politicians this side of the border). All these traits make him a potentially formidable candidate, especially when considering that the difficult mission at hand is to defeat Hillary Clinton.

Bush’s task will be to keep his (mostly) moderate identity intact throughout his party’s primary election process. The road to the White House is littered with the bodies of centrist Republican politicians who were forced to adopt a right-wing attitude in order to secure enough votes to win the candidacy. The countless number of debates programmed, for instance, force Republican candidates to endorse views that are popular among Republican voters but extremely unpopular (even eccentric) with the general electorate. Some candidates, for example, avoid taking a stand with respect to the theory of evolution, which represents an abomination for evangelical voters who insist that humans come from intelligent design, not from apes. A similar thing happens with respect to global warming, abortion, minority rights, immigration and numerous other important issues. The outcome is always the same: When the candidate is finally picked, that person is no longer who he used to be. He wears the “conservative” gown that the Republican base has imposed upon him for months. Until now, Bush has managed to remain unscathed. But the remaining stretch is long, very long. If by some miracle he is able to emerge clean out of the swamp, the White House could have a new (and much better) Republican president. If not, Mrs. Clinton might as well start preparing her inaugural speech.