The Marco Rubio Phenomenon
By Randall Holcombe • Tuesday February 23, 2010 11:20 AM PDT • 13 Comments
Last Spring I was considering blogging about Marco Rubio’s run for the U.S. Senate in Florida, but decided against it. I’m a Floridian, so it’s interesting to me, but I thought he was too much of a long shot to be of much interest to people outside of Florida. Now, Rubio appears to be the hottest Senate candidate nationwide.
Some background: Rubio is running for the Senate seat formerly held by Republican Mel Martinez. Martinez decided he’d had enough of the Senate in 2008, and not only wasn’t running for reelection, he was resigning his seat in mid-term. His replacement, George LeMieux, appointed by Governor Charlie Crist, was a long-time aide and friend of Crist’s. LeMieux is not running to keep his seat, but Crist is running for that seat.
Crist, finishing his first term as governor, decided that rather than run for reelection he would run for what amounts to an open Senate seat, now occupied by his friend who appears to be just a place holder for Crist until the November election. Meanwhile, Jim Greer, another Crist buddy and until a few weeks ago head of the Republican Party of Florida, not only supported Crist for Senate, but told other Republicans they shouldn’t run. Interparty competition would just weaken the Republican candidate in the general election.
Marco Rubio, former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, was term limited out of office two years ago, and announced he was also running for that Senate seat.
Rubio looked like a long shot, running against a fairly popular governor with lots of name recognition state-wide and support of the state’s party. As Speaker of the House, Rubio certainly has some background in politics, but not nearly as much name recognition (until recently). Everybody knows the governor; few people know the Speaker of the House.
Now I notice Rubio getting lots of press in national outlets. I’ve seen a number of stories about Rubio that don’t mention he’s running against Crist, but it seems like whenever a story about Crist appears, the story mentions that he’s running against Rubio. (The stories never mention Kendrick Meek, the front-runner among Democratic candidates.)
The buzz on Rubio comes from two sources. First, he’s a Cuban-American whose parents fled the Casto regime. Second, and more substantially, he’s a very committed fiscal conservative. I’ll stop short of calling him a libertarian, but (1) there’s lots for libertarians to like about Marco Rubio, and (2) he holds firm to his principles.
Despite the name recognition advantage, in straw poll after straw poll Rubio has been beating Crist, and that has thrust him from an almost-unknown to prominence. This happened because the people who vote in early straw polls are better-informed, and liked Rubio better than Crist. My perception is that Crist is a populist who will take any position he believes will get him more support, whereas Rubio is a committed fiscal conservative who has principles and lives by them, which Republicans who voted in early straw polls liked.
Now the press is treating Rubio as at least a credible candidate, and maybe the front-runner for the Republican nomination, and that press coverage is giving Rubio more visibility, both state-wide and nationally.
Rubio is still behind Crist in fundraising, but Rubio’s rise is something those who favor more limited government should note. If he wins the Senate race he will look like a giant killer, and will be a credible presidential candidate in 2016.
From a distance it appears that Rubio is a lot like President Obama, notwithstanding their very different political views. Both rose out of nowhere, apparently, and as a Hispanic minority Rubio, like Obama, will appeal to the “diversity” crowd. If Rubio wins the Senate that parallel will surely be noted.
But Rubio and Obama differ in more than just their political views. While Obama was a community organizer, Rubio served eight years in the Florida House of Representatives, the last two as Speaker, until he was term-limited out of office. Rubio was a tough and principled leader as Speaker. He held firm to his ideals, and I give him much credit for holding the line on Florida’s state government expenditures as revenues fell throughout the recent recession. While he was Speaker, he set the fiscal agenda more than Governor Crist.
If Rubio looks attractive at a distance to those who favor limiting government, he should look even more attractive once people get to know him. His candidacy is picking up steam, even as Crist’s appears to be falling apart. The odds look good that he will not only be Florida’s next U.S. Senator, but also will become a visible proponent for limited government on the national stage.
I’m confused: how does calling for a war with Iran and denying basic rights to those labeled terrorists by the federal government qualify one as a “libertarian”? Oh, but I guess he’s for lower taxes, or something, so we can look past that.
From Marco Rubio’s CPAC speech:
“[T]here is no greater risk to this country than the risk posed by radical Islamic terrorists. Let me be clear about something. These terrorists aren’t trying to kill us because we offended them. They attack us because they want to impose their view of the world on as many people as they can, and America is standing in their way. We need to make it unmistakably clear that we will do whatever it takes, for however long it takes, to defeat radical Islamic terrorism.
“We will punish— we will punish their allies, like Iran—and we will stand with our allies, like Israel. We will target and we will destroy terrorist cells and the leaders of those cells. The ones that survive, we will capture them. . . . We will capture them, we will get useful information from them and then we will bring them to justice, in front of a military tribunal in Guantanamo—as I said, in front of a military tribunal in Guantanamo, not a civilian courtroom in Manhattan.”
Charles Davis | Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
What are Rubio’s views on foreign policy? What about personal liberties?
Bill Woolsey | Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
From what I can see Rubio is pretty bad on civil liberties, except those that statist conservatives like. He supported the theocrat Huckabee because Huckabee connected “how people’s social and moral well-being cannot be separated from their economic well-being” and Huckabee was a big government interventionist on anything the Christian Right calls a morality issue. He wants to continue the ban on travel to Cuba.
As for the war he says his hindsight view was that Iraq diverted our military from Afghanistan where we really should be fighting (in his view, not mine). But he’s quick to say he isn’t against the invasion of Iraq either, just that maybe we should spend more time fighting in Afghanistan.
Like Republicans wanting to be elected he emphasizes economic freedom but which one of them doesn’t. Even Dubya did that. So, at best, he might be slightly good on economics, is bad on civil liberties and bad on foreign interventionism. There is nothing here worth supporting.
CLS | Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
Okay people, pay attention: Randall said “I’ll stop short of calling him a libertarian.” And his praise for Rubio was tepid, to say the least. That said, I share the concerns voiced by the critics, and would add that his ties to the Bush family are at least as worrisome as his stated views on foreign policy. As a Florida resident, I’ll have to put Rubio in the “not gonna vote for him, but hope he wins over the others” category. Too bad I can’t vote for Rand Paul or Peter Schiff.
Bruce Driggers | Feb 23, 2010 | Reply
I have looked into Rubio as deeply as I’ve been able to as a non-Floridian, and I have not seen a single thing about him that I would characterize as remotely fiscally conservative, to say nothing of his being “a very committed fiscal conservative.” To be sure, I’ve heard pundits call him that, and he eats it up. But as for his beliefs, which are publicly available in a very fiscally liberal book he’s written proposing ways to solve 101 problems facing Florida by way of central management of the economy, as well as his voting record and other statements of his, such as his claim that he too would have accepted the Obama stimulus funds (the precise thing about Crist that is usually used as the reason to label as a fiscal liberal the man the Cato Institute rated the single most fiscally conservative in the nation).
Now I’m curious, what is it about him that has earned him the label of “a very committed fiscal conservative” and someone who has “lots to like for libertarians”? For that matter, can you even come up with anything that makes him less horrendous than Crist (other than the fact that you heard someone else call him a conservative)?
Eric | Feb 24, 2010 | Reply
I don’t see the difference between being a community organizer and serving in the state house. At least, I don’t see how that makes Rubio any better.
I’m going to go ahead and predict that Marco Rubio will be nothing special. I hope I’m wrong and I do think he’s an improvement on Crist, but that’s like saying 20% unemployment is better than 30%.
The problem is not that candidates like Rubio are bad people or even that they weren’t great state representatives. But it takes something extraordinary, both in knowledge and courage, to lead fundamental change in D.C. Rubio, for whatever reason, toes the party line on way too many things for me to believe he is going to be a great conservative leader.
Brent | Feb 24, 2010 | Reply
I personally doubt he’ll be any better. I’ve been burned by the GOP since I’ve been paying attention, every chance they get. Electoral politics is a cesspool.
Anthony Gregory | Feb 24, 2010 | Reply
Thanks for all the comments. I think Rubio’s credentials as a fiscal conservative are pretty solid, looking at what he actually did in the Florida House of Representatives for eight years, and Speaker of the House for two. Even as state revenues plummeted due to the bursting of the housing bubble, Rubio held the line on taxes in Florida. Total state appropriations went down, but Rubio insisted the budget be balanced by spending cuts, not tax increases. Rubio was the key player in that, and Crist went along. (The leaders in the Florida Senate were pushing for tax increases.)
Rubio pursued several objectives that didn’t come to fruition, including eliminating property taxes in Florida (seemed like wishful thinking from the outset, but he was serious), and passing a Colorado-style tax and budget limitation.
Full disclosure here: I was an economic advisor to Rubio during his two years as Speaker. I know from talking to him personally his talk about limiting taxes and spending was not just political rhetoric: he was trying to reign in government in a state that is already fairly limited compared to most states. Partly, I’ll give him credit for having the good sense to seek my advice (but my critics here might cite that as another lapse of judgment on his part!). In private conversations that had no political value outside the room we were in, I could see his commitment to shrinking government.
As to his positions on civil liberties and international affairs, he doesn’t have much of a record, because he didn’t deal with those issues in his former political office. I can’t say how good he would be, and I’m not making an argument there. That’s why I referred to him as a fiscal conservative rather than a libertarian.
Randall Holcombe | Feb 24, 2010 | Reply
I am glad to hear that he is serious about reigning in state government. But do you think he can be a fiscal conservative in the US Senate while at the same time supporting every war on drugs, terror, perceived threat or inconvenience, or what else have you?
Brent | Feb 24, 2010 | Reply
“In private conversations that had no political value outside the room we were in, I could see his commitment to shrinking government.”
I encounter the same thing all the time. When it’s just a conversation between a politician and me, so that I’m the only other person whose opinion they have to worry about, they say they agree with me on just about everything. I assume they do the same thing when they’re in a conversation with someone whose views are diametrically opposite to mine. Politicians pander.
In Rubio’s case we know that he doesn’t adopt those same fiscally conservative ideals when addressing a diverse audience that he does when addressing a fiscally conservative audience because we can check his book.
Eric | Feb 25, 2010 | Reply
Thanks for the comments, Brent and Eric.
Brent, you raise a good point, but when it came time to make real decisions in Florida, Marco Rubio, as Speaker of the House, always put the bottom line first. He wasn’t going to advocate any spending programs that didn’t stay within the constraints of the current revenue structure, and during his years as Speaker, that meant cutting total expenditures. He stood firm, and spending cuts were enacted.
Would he do the same as a U.S. Senator? I hope so. Like you I have a healthy skepticism for all politicians, Rubio included, but his actions when he actually had political power make me optimistic.
Eric, you are so right that politicians pander. Well put! My interactions with Rubio were initiated by him, though. He asked to talk with me about policies and strategies he could implement to keep spending under control and to cut taxes. It wasn’t that I came to him and he was telling me what I wanted to hear; he came to me and asked me for suggestions to limit state spending, and as I said in my answer to Brent, he was successful. So again, I’m optimistic.
Randall Holcombe | Feb 25, 2010 | Reply
Thanks for this info about Rubio – I am not from Florida so this race does not really interest me too much, but if I was in Florida I would have a hard time getting behind this guy.
Just a quick look at him – he is relatively young and a career politician – having never held a real job. It looks like he went straight from school to politics (and probably politics in school). That’s always a red flag for me. Secondly he seems to tow the Republican line pretty strong – one example, on his website he certainly makes it clear that he is pro-life and while not specifically saying it, he surely insinuates he would litmus test a Supreme Court Judge nominee on those grounds – again not real reassuring.
Hopefully his economic pluses outweigh his social minuses when it comes to views on liberty and freedom. Although – I said the opposite about Obama who you loosely compare and have been sorely disappointed there too... who also is someone who has never held a real job in his life, irony?
AJ | Feb 25, 2010 | Reply
Even Patrick Henry knew the proper way to deal with hostis humani generis—enemies of the entire human race. Consider this part of his speech to the Virginia ratifying convention on June 7, 1788, with regard to Josiah Philips:
“That man was not executed by a tyrannical stroke of power. Nor was he a Socrates. He was a fugitive murderer and an outlaw—a man who commanded an infamous banditti, and at a time when the war was at the most perilous stage. He committed the most cruel and shocking barbarities. He was an enemy to the human name. Those who declare war against the human race may be struck out of existence as soon as they are apprehended. He was not executed according to those beautiful legal ceremonies which are pointed out by the laws in criminal cases. The enormity of his crimes did not entitle him to it. I am truly a friend to legal forms and methods; but, sir, the occasion warranted the measure. A pirate, an outlaw, or a common enemy to all mankind, may be put to death at any time. It is justified by the laws of nature and nations.”
Marco Rubio clearly shares the same attitudes about today’s sworn enemies of all humanity in the form of radical Islamists and the Iranian mullahocracy—there’s no peace possible with them, and no negotiation possible with them—the law of nature rules in our relationship with them—either kill them or be killed by them (or suffer the eternal state of war that slavery is). Choose wisely.
Robert | Feb 26, 2010 | Reply