Jeb Bush, and the most preposterous phrase in politics

The days of breathless anticipation are over, and Jeb Bush — or, as his new logo would have it, "Jeb!" — has finally become a real live candidate. And while there were many interesting things about his announcement speech, there was one part, both maddening and predictable, that's worthy of attention. Like so many candidates before him, Bush proclaimed that he is the man to clean up Washington and end all its dysfunction because he is an outsider, not tainted by the capital's corrupt ways.

Why do politicians keep serving us this particular helping of balderdash, and why do we believe them? Bush could barely be more wrong on both parts of this message: He's no outsider, and more importantly, no outsider could do what they always tell us they'll do. Even insiders may not be able to. Here's an excerpt of what Bush had to say:

First, let's dispense with the absurd notion that Jeb Bush is some kind of outsider. He may have made his political career in Florida, but the man does have more than a passing familiarity with Washington. His grandfather was a senator, his father was the president, and so was his brother. Whatever his innate talents might be, his entire career, both in and out of politics, has been built on his name and its association with Washington-based power and influence. They don't come much more insidery than Jeb Bush.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

But even if he really were an outsider, why on earth would we think that would make him better equipped to change the fundamental operation of Washington than anyone else? Does not knowing too much about how the system works help you change it? Is it that no one in Washington has ever considered that it might be better if lobbyists didn't enjoy so much influence? Or that only someone from the outside could bring the wisdom that moving legislation is preferable to gridlock?

Of course not. And it certainly isn't the case that an outsider would be better able to transform Washington. Everyone says they're going to come in and change the way Washington does business, from the lowliest congressional candidate all the way up to the next president. And guess what? They never do. It's particularly ridiculous to hear it from someone hoping to be 435th in seniority in the lower house of Congress, but even presidents have failed at this task. Barack Obama said he was going to change Washington by bringing Democrats and Republicans together to find common ground, and that didn't work out so well. But George W. Bush said exactly the same thing, with the same result. So did Bill Clinton. It's what voters want to hear, so it's what candidates tell them.

At some point though, you'd think voters would get wise to the fact that they keep being promised a change that never comes. The problem is that the things about Washington that we're referring to when we talk about changing it are deep institutional forces with their origins in the incentive structure affecting hundreds of lawmakers and thousands of other people within the city's concentric circles of power.

Let's take one example: comprehensive immigration reform. The public wants it, and many people in both parties want it. So why doesn't it happen? You can answer "Washington gridlock!" but that doesn't tell you anything. The truth is that the extremely conservative Republicans who populate the House mostly come from safe Republican districts where they only fear competition from the right, and their constituents don't want comprehensive reform. There are enough of them to stop it. So if you were Jeb Bush and you wanted comprehensive reform, what would you do? You can't toss out half your party's representatives in Congress, and you can't redraw the lines to make their seats more competitive. So what then? How's that outsider status going to help you?

This applies to Democrats as well. President Obama said he was going to cut down on the power of lobbyists by not letting any of them work in his administration. Not only did he end up making plenty of exceptions, the power of lobbyists in Washington remains more than ample, and the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street continues to swing freely.

That isn't to say that fundamental change to the way Washington operates is impossible. But it comes incrementally, with two steps forward and one step back about the most you can hope for. If you're looking for a reason to vote for someone, you might want to consider whether he or she will work the system to accomplish the policy goals you prefer. That may not be as lofty a goal as sweeping Washington clean of its corruption and dysfunction, but it's something that the next president might actually be able to accomplish.