Presidential Politics VI – Jeb Bush and Lessons Learned

Looking only at one candidate, we can learn several lessons about all candidates.

Anyone following the current national reality show, which is Republican Presidential politics, is probably amazed at Jeb Bush’s precipitous fall in the polls. On the ground, I imagine Jeb Bush is also amazed. Indeed, it is amazing from a qualifications viewpoint. Bush does have some impressive credentials complete with executive experience.

In the Bush camp, it is not a stretch to conclude that Donald Trump is viewed there as similar to the elder Bush’s nemesis, Ross Perot. It cost the election for Bush in 1992. So it was decided to attack Trump. An attack was launched with his “Chaos candidate” remarks made at the last debate. It has intensified. Is it working? Doesn’t seem to be. Bush is now developing a last stand policy in Florida, seemingly ignoring Iowa and New Hampshire. This strategy reminiscent of Rudy Giuliani’s similar Florida policy in the previous cycle. It did not work.

Experience. This is not the only problem. It is true Bush has little foreign policy experience, but the others have a similar flaw. However, our current President found himself in office with the same lack of experience. Perhaps, the mood of the country was such that “foreign policy is easy;” so just be tough. Or accommodating? Or accepting? Whatever is was, the country was dead wrong. So, suspicion about foreign policy concepts by any candidate should be foremost on our minds. Secretary Clinton, on the other hand, does have foreign policy experience, but it is the experience linked to the President’s, and most Americans believe his policies to be incorrect. Even many Democrats agree. So, Bush and Clinton have problems but of different varieties, virtually bipolar.

Lesson 1. If the candidate is vague on foreign policy, this indicates he or she has little depth of understanding. Electing such a person puts him or her into a league of foreign experts, i.e. other world players. The obvious conclusion is that making Presidential foreign policy leaves little time for OJT. It can result in fragmented policies, changing frequently as the President learns. Risky this in, as history has shown.

Instincts. When it comes to electability, it is an easy jump to believe most candidates believe that voter instincts simply judge on whom to vote on the basis of perceived candidate instincts. In consequence, many candidates appeal to voters on such a basis. Are they tough? Are they resolute? Do they understand opponents? Are they honest? Can they get things done? All these are vague, and all are NOT measurable with any real metric. In this we note, it is not clear to me what Bush’s instincts are. He often retreats behind defined policies, seldom revising them, seldom revealing any depth of understanding. Trump, though, survives and thrives on voter perceived instincts.

Lesson 2. When you vote on the basis of perceived candidate instincts, think carefully. Many instincts, untempered by experience, are dead wrong. Voting by instinct based upon a candidate’s instincts is at best risky, and at worst just plain stupid.

Presentation. Putting Trump aside, the other top candidates on the Republican side are Cruz and Rubio. Both are articulate; both are excellent at debate; both connect with voters. None have any real experience at working the long, hard road of achievement. Both have defined policies and programs that live only in their minds and those of their supporters, but not in the hard-scrabble world of accomplishment. Neither show evidence of this form of strength. They do demonstrate a personal resolute nature. Bush does have this, but it does not affect his dwindling support. Bush is not really articulate in the sense of Cruz and Rubio. Indeed, few of the others are either.

Lesson 3. When you are seduced by those articulate or by sound bites, or by slogans, you must expect little more than exactly that. People in office use the same techniques they used to get them there.

UNCERTAINTY IS CERTAIN

Uncertainty is Certain G. Donald Allen 12/12/2024 1. Introduction . This short essay is about uncertainty in people from both secular and nonsecular viewpoints. One point that will emerge is that randomly based uncertainty can be a driver for religious structure. Many groups facing uncertainty about their future are deeply religious or rely on faith as a source of comfort, resilience, and guidance. The intersection of uncertainty and religiosity often stems from the human need to find meaning, hope, and stability in the face of unpredictable or challenging circumstances. We first take up the connections of uncertainty to religion for the first real profession, farming, noting that hunting has many similar uncertainties. Below are groups that commonly lean on religious beliefs amidst uncertainty. This short essay is a follow-up to a previous piece on certainty (https://used-ideas.blogspot.com/2024/12/certainty-is-also-emotion.html). U...

CERTAINTY IS ALSO AN EMOTION

Certainty is also a Feeling Certainty is often viewed as a mental state tied to knowledge and confidence, but it also functions as a feeling with distinct emotional and physiological components. While it arises from cognitive processes, certainty also has a subjective and emotional quality that makes it more than just a rational judgment. It provides a sense of assurance and security that shapes human experience in profound ways. Emotional Dimension . At its core, certainty evokes emotions that influence how we perceive and interact with the world. When someone feels certain, they often experience relief, comfort, or empowerment. These emotions are particularly strong when uncertainty or doubt is resolved, offering a sense of closure. For example, solving a complex problem or having a belief validated by evidence brings not just intellectual satisfaction but also emotional reassurance. Subjectivity. Certainty is inherently personal and subjective. It depends on individual...

Lies, Deceit, and the National Agenda

The world you grew up in is no more. The world of reasonable honesty and reasonable lies has been replaced by abject dishonesty and blatant lies. Lies. Yes. People have always told them. You have told them; so have I. We need lies; they are a foundational structure of social living. They both deceive and protect. Children tell them to their parents to avoid consequences, like punishment. Adults tell them to their bosses, to enhance their position and/or avoid consequences of poor performance. Our bosses tell them to their boards to suggest business is good, the project is on target, or the detractors are wrong. The boards tell them to shareholders to protect their own credibility and most importantly, stock values. Our politicians tell lies to their constituents, though sometimes innocently with them not actually knowing much more than they've been told. They enhance their positio...

First Blog

Search This Blog