Jeb Bush seems now to be running, as Hillary Clinton well may, and a common feeling is that, “Oh, gosh, really? Another Bush against another Clinton?”
I have a couple of words to say about each.
Clinton:
Objectively, she would bring more experience to the office than any other incoming president in our nation’s history. (Perhaps important?) But the thing I want to note is that, unlike John Quincy Adams or George W. Bush, she is not Bill Clinton’s child. So for those spooked by the “children of former presidents make rotten ones themselves” meme, it simply does not apply. With the Clintons back in the White House, the goal would be eight more years of peace, progress, and shared prosperity, like their first eight.
Bush:
Let’s assume he is a good and talented man, far more serious than his brother. That still leaves the issue of his governing priorities. My knowledge of those come from his years as my governor, in Florida, where he found a way to cut taxes only for the rich (hard to do in a state with no income or estate tax!) and then, faced with insufficient revenue, decimated the state’s drug treatment budget (and opposed smaller class sizes — one of my friends had 40 children in his classroom). You can read all about it here. What makes this particularly poignant is that even as Jeb was shutting down drug treatment for thousands, he tacitly acknowledged its importance by providing it privately for his daughter.
All legal and above board; just a matter of worldview and priorities.
If you want an America that seeks yet more ways to advantage the wealthy at the expense of those struggling hardest . . . continuing the record of Reagan, Bush, and Bush, widening inequality’s chasm further still . . . you have your man in another likable gentleman (and he does seem to be both likable and a gentleman) named Bush. Reagan, Bush, Bush, and Bush.
Not for me; but that’s what makes horse races.
