The Bush hater's case for Jeb Bush

Everything is guesswork in American politics, especially when predicting the next president's foreign policy. Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt were both elected on promises to keep America out of a World War. Ronald Reagan was the belligerent's choice in 1980 and ended his presidency shaking hands with the Soviets. George W. Bush promised a humble foreign policy, now look at the Middle East. There are twists in American history.

And I suspect there is a foreign policy twist in this election. Which is why there is a Bush hater's case for Jeb Bush.

Now, I very much dread the idea of Clinton-Bush Part Two, which I fear will play out like a grittier, cash-grabbing reboot of 1992. And nominating a man with a now-toxic family legacy is the surest path this side of Donald Trump to canceling all of the GOP's natural advantages against Hillary Clinton.

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 strangely enough, he seems to be the only top-tier candidate on the Republican side who seems to have learned something from the disaster of his brother's presidency.

Yes, he spent a painful week earlier this year awkwardly trying to clarify his views on the Iraq War. He was so determined not to talk about his brother's war that he made it his own problem. But he ended up saying this: "Knowing what we now know, what would you have done? I would have not engaged. I would not have gone into Iraq."

Jeb Bush also went on a brain-shopping spree sometime ago. His advisers include people from across the Republican spectrum, including ultra-hawks like Paul Wolfowitz and John Hannah. But The Wall Street Journal reported that he seems more in line with his father's foreign policy, and the broader realist tradition:

Bush has already had an occasion to distance himself from James Baker, after the old foreign policy hand gave a tough, anti-Benjamin Netanyahu speech to the dovish Israeli advocacy group J Street. But it is clear that Jeb Bush at least respects his non-neoconservative foreign policy advisers.

That may not be true of his chief competition in the GOP primary, namely Marco Rubio and Scott Walker. Rubio is close with Robert Kagan, Jamie Fly, and Elliot Abrams, all member's of Bill Kristol's post-Bush Foreign Policy Initiative. Fly is particularly notable for his advocacy of regime change in Iran, a position Bush has distanced himself from. Rubio is the candidate who most explicitly ties himself to the Bush formulation that American ideals and interests should be aligned — that America's foreign policy should be aimed at liberating and democratizing its enemies.

A funny thing happens when a GOP candidate doesn't really know much about foreign policy. He becomes a favorite of the most hawkish advisers. That's how the neoconservative Randy Scheunemann got so hooked into Sarah Palin. And so it's no surprise that Walker, the candidate in need of the most tutoring on foreign policy, had this said about him: "Of all the people identified as candidates, Walker strikes me as the most interesting, who potentially would bring some rare qualities to the presidency."

That's Richard Perle, co-author of a book that called for overthrowing the regimes of perhaps half a dozen states. Perle also came to prominence in the '90s for urging Israel to dump the American-supported Oslo Accords. You can imagine what he thinks of the Iran nuclear agreement. It's no coincidence that his favorite candidate is the one who advertises how suggestible he is. Abrams was also among those briefing Walker as the candidate took his crash course in foreign policy.

Of course, the obvious candidate for pushing the GOP toward a more realistic foreign policy is the ever-temporizing Rand Paul. But if Republican realists want to be realistic about 2016, their best shot may be the guy whose own brother is haunted by the costs of reckless foreign policy idealism. This is the candidate who keeps his father's wise-man foreign policy team within reach, and who knows enough to have a thought before someone from the adviser class tells him what to think.