Δείτε εδώ την ειδική έκδοση

The tantalising prospect of a Bush-Clinton race

It is early days. But Jeb Bush's decision to "actively explore" a presidential run bodes well for the 2016 election. Some will rightly worry about the downside of his participation. The rise of dynastic politics is a troubling feature of the US landscape. Voters first faced a Bush versus Clinton contest in 1992. One or other name has lived in the White House for all but six of the last 26 years. But on merit alone, Jeb Bush deserves a crack at the nomination. Among other hopefuls, few Republicans would be as likely to match up strongly against Hillary Clinton. The US needs a competitive race between strong candidates for its top job. For all the drawbacks, a Jeb-Hillary contest would offer that prospect.

That said, Mr Bush's chances of winning his party's endorsement are nowhere close to Mrs Clinton's prospects of clinching hers. Should Elizabeth Warren, the populist senator from Massachusetts, enter the field, Mrs Clinton could yet face a bruising contest. A coronation is not assured. But the former first lady is still the overwhelming favourite. By contrast Mr Bush would start with poor odds. In addition to the family name, which is unpopular with conservatives, Mr Bush's views on immigration, education, spending and even guns will handicap him with grassroots conservatives in the early primary states. Yet these are precisely the stances that would make him attractive to a broader US electorate.

Mr Bush has admitted that he might have to "lose the primary to win the general". His views on immigration capture the dilemma. Every conservative knows Mr Bush described illegal immigrants as people who have shown an "act of love" for America. Such pragmatism could well be Mr Bush's undoing with the party's dogmatic base. It could also be his salvation in a presidential race. Barely a quarter of Hispanic voters opted for Mitt Romney in 2012. The Spanish-speaking Mr Bush could help lift that share to the roughly 40 per cent needed for a Republican to win. Likewise, conservatives have not forgiven Mr Bush for saying that he would consider raising taxes by one dollar for every nine in spending cuts. Again, such fiscal pragmatism would be helpful in a general election.

It may well be too hard for any moderate in 2016 to win over the Republican base. Conservatives argue that the party chose mainstream figures in the past two elections both of whom were soundly beaten. Why not go for the real thing this time? The answer is that both John McCain, the nominee in 2008, and Mr Romney adopted hardline positions in the primaries that came back to haunt them in the general election. Mr Romney said that America's 11m illegal immigrants should "self-deport". Mr McCain picked Sarah Palin, an unknown conservative firebrand, as his running mate. Mr Bush has hinted that he would be unwilling to pander to the Tea Party's worst instincts. He has also expressed disdain for the "flip flopping" that came to define Mr Romney.

If Mr Bush sticks to what he has said, conservatives may yet be grudgingly won over to his merits. He might also add that his supposed Achilles heel - the Bush name - would be neutralised in a match up with Mrs Clinton. Whatever their strengths on paper, every candidate benefits from a competitive primary contest. It would also be in Mrs Clinton's interests to face a real contest for her party's nomination. Should he run, Mr Bush would face an unusually wide range of competitors in the Republican field - some of whom have strong credentials. Only on merit could he make it through to a general election.

© The Financial Times Limited 2014. All rights reserved.
FT and Financial Times are trademarks of the Financial Times Ltd.
Not to be redistributed, copied or modified in any way.
Euro2day.gr is solely responsible for providing this translation and the Financial Times Limited does not accept any liability for the accuracy or quality of the translation

ΣΧΟΛΙΑ ΧΡΗΣΤΩΝ

blog comments powered by Disqus
v