Jeb Bush, and the most preposterous phrase in politics
Please don't tell us you're going to change Washington
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.
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.
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.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Paul Waldman is a senior writer with The American Prospect magazine and a blogger for The Washington Post. His writing has appeared in dozens of newspapers, magazines, and web sites, and he is the author or co-author of four books on media and politics.
-
'Helene's death toll surpasses 200'
Today's Newspapers A roundup of the headlines from the US front pages
By The Week Staff Published
-
Pig butchering: one of the world's fastest growing scams
In The Spotlight Beijing is cracking down on the crypto con but this has only pushed it worldwide
By Chas Newkey-Burden, The Week UK Published
-
Quiz of The Week: 28 September - 4 October
Have you been paying attention to The Week's news?
By The Week Staff Published
-
Will 'weirdly civil' VP debate move dial in US election?
Today's Big Question 'Diametrically opposed' candidates showed 'a lot of commonality' on some issues, but offered competing visions for America's future and democracy
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
1 of 6 'Trump Train' drivers liable in Biden bus blockade
Speed Read Only one of the accused was found liable in the case concerning the deliberate slowing of a 2020 Biden campaign bus
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
How could J.D. Vance impact the special relationship?
Today's Big Question Trump's hawkish pick for VP said UK is the first 'truly Islamist country' with a nuclear weapon
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Biden, Trump urge calm after assassination attempt
Speed Reads A 20-year-old gunman grazed Trump's ear and fatally shot a rally attendee on Saturday
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
Supreme Court rejects challenge to CFPB
Speed Read The court rejected a conservative-backed challenge to the way the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is funded
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
Arizona court reinstates 1864 abortion ban
Speed Read The law makes all abortions illegal in the state except to save the mother's life
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Trump, billions richer, is selling Bibles
Speed Read The former president is hawking a $60 "God Bless the USA Bible"
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
The debate about Biden's age and mental fitness
In Depth Some critics argue Biden is too old to run again. Does the argument have merit?
By Grayson Quay Published