Observations from a Marco Rubio Rally: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly of the Republican Party
Saturday was the most Southern Republican day of my life. My wife and I attended a Marco Rubio rally at Mt. Paran Christian School in Kennesaw, Georgia, where the presidential hopeful identified the crowd as larger than any he ever played in front of during his college football days. We ate at Zaxby’s. We somehow ended up taking our daughter to a Civil War museum — we were just there for the playground, I swear. I bought copious amounts of meat to grill after church on Sunday. If I wasn’t watching my girlish figure there would have been cheap beer involved.
Yeah, we live in Georgia.
Aside from the culinary components of the day, though, this wasn’t an ordinary Saturday if for no reason other than the Rubio rally.
I’ve never been to a political rally or campaign event of any kind. I vote. I read a lot. I listen to a slew of election podcasts. I follow the news pretty closely as a necessary tangent to my job. But I wouldn’t say I’ve ever been “politically active” so to speak. And though I’d like to think I’m more politically knowledgeable than the majority of voting constituents (I stand by that assertion, false as it may be), I’ve never felt truly comfortable telling anyone to “do this” or “vote that way.”
As an investment advisor, I give advice all the time. I’m at home in that arena. And part of that ease stems from a unique client-advisor dynamic. A large portion of the advice I give in my career is left in my hands to execute upon. Just this past Friday I was meeting with out-of-town clients and gauging their interest on a slightly different investment strategy. I’ll spare you the details because even I find it boring. After giving a quick explainer, the couple said, “Well, why don’t you tell us if we should do it. And if we should be doing it, go ahead and do it.”
I appreciate that type of trust and accountability. That type of trust and accountability doesn’t exist in my own political recommendations. At the end of the day, my political leanings don’t vest themselves in full-on recommendations for others because I can’t control the outcomes of such endorsements. If I tell you to vote for Candidate X, I can’t control Candidate X’s performance in office or the future of the nation any better than if I tell you to vote for Candidate Y. This isn’t financial advice for which I’m trained to provide guidance and responsible for the execution of a plan. This is, for better or worse, an exercise of faith in human competency. And I can’t really vouch for any candidate as well as I can vouch for myself.
That doesn’t mean that I think I’m more competent or more capable than any candidate of either party (though I do think I would toast Ben Carson in a debate thanks to volume and cadence of speech alone), it just means that I value personal accountability. If I screw up an investment portfolio, I know who to blame and I know corrections will come. If I screw up a political recommendation, there’s no real pattern of recourse — not against me and not (directly) against the candidate.
That’s arguably my biggest beef with the American political system as a whole. Politics came off the tracks when it became a “career” to represent constituents. And that happened a long time ago. In 1815, U.S. Senators earned the equivalent of $19,085 in today’s dollars. That’s a nice little bonus, but that’s not a career. Prior to that time, representatives were simply paid small per diems for days of work. By 1855, annual pay had risen risen to the equivalent of $75,000. By the early 1930s, it was north of $150k in today’s dollars. One can build a very long, successful career by simply winning periodic elections. That is, by my estimation, a big problem as it relates to accountability.
That problem is why I don’t really concern myself with who gives money to candidates. Campaign funding from convoluted Super-PACs, lobbyist and self-interested interest groups isn’t a disease; it’s a side effect of the medication. The disease itself is the viability of a long-term career based solely on one’s ability to win an election with under-informed votes.
That problem is also why I have trouble endorsing candidates or being “politically active.” As I’ve confessed before, in jest I bought a “Make America Great Again” hat. That’s the only political apparel I own. There’s no bumper sticker on my Hyundai and there aren’t signs in my yard. And up until Saturday, I’d never exercised my right to assemble at a political gathering. I don’t really tell people how to vote, so why would I need to rally with like-minded people ahead of an election?
Given all of that, it was admittedly awkward going to see Marco Rubio at a local high school football stadium on Saturday. On one hand, there was a cautious excitement about seeing and hearing from a man who (per many pundits) is one of three people with any path to the White House (joining but trailing fellow-Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton). On the other hand, Rubio hadn’t (and as of today, still hasn’t) won a single primary or caucus and was still very much the underdog of the less-sexy party.
On both hands, did my attendance matter to anyone — myself included?
The Good
Ultimately, I made the trek to the Rubio rally alongside my better half for two reasons. First and in the interest of transparency, he is the Republican candidate I favor for a variety of reasons. Secondly (and perhaps more compellingly), he was just down the road.
As an isolated event, the Rubio rally inspired confidence in the Republican Party. I parse out the sources of this optimism as follows ( and in order):
- Rubio is likable. In a political climate defined by one’s ability to win an election, this should be a prerequisite for a presidential bid. But apparently it is not. Trump is offensive and lacks any semblance human decency. Ted Cruz comes off like a list of rules printed on sand paper. Rubio is pleasant.
- Rubio is humble. Undoubtedly, it takes an ego to run for office. It takes an enormous amount of self-assuredness to say, “I should lead the free world.” But without compromising confidence, Rubio seemed humble, sincere and driven by a calling to serve. There are many words Donald Trump can’t spell (including either honor or boner); and I imagine humility is one of them. Cruz’s unfaltering stances come off as unsympathetic, cold and text-booky in their authoritarian idealism.
- Rubio is upbeat. Rubio has great plans for America because he thinks America is already great and has been great for centuries. He believes that making the country greater yet again is a more relevant than making America great again. The American Dream is something he has lived (and he brings that up as often as possible) and the ultimate outcome of such a process should be continued improvement generation to generation. All is not lost in Rubioland.
- Rubio is compromising. On no fewer than three occasions the presidential hopeful acknowledged that not everyone in the Republican Party was going to agree with him. Such a sentiment shouldn’t even merit a talking point. But in an election defined by winning, strict-constitutionalism and other steadfast, unfaltering vernacular there was something refreshing about Rubio’s acknowledgement that a greater good may not mean sweating the small things. As he spoke I was reminded of his nuanced response to stem cell research and abortion from last week, where he defined his primary objective as saving as many lives as possible. There’s no contradiction in that, but there may be an overlap in boxes checked. I’m OK with those overlaps even if they’re viewed as inconsistencies because I agree with the outcome.
- Rubio is young and he’s not white. I would never vote for a candidate solely because of skin color or age, but many people do and will continue to do so. Knowing that and given my conservative leanings, I believe Rubio could demographically benefit my political interests moving forward. In a political era defined by demographics and analytic polling, Rubio looks like a powerhouse.
All of these things looked good on Rubio and the Republican Party as a whole.
The Bad
It’s impossible to acknowledge the aforementioned positives without recognizing that this was not an isolated event. I would be completely remiss to pretend that the rally Saturday was an accurate litmus test for conservative politics.
In fact, all of the points made above are as bad as they are good with slightly different context.
The reality is that the Republican front-runner is none of the things that I appreciate about Rubio. He’s an unlikable, arrogant, fear-mongering, uncompromising (except when compromising his own stances), bigoted blowhard. And if current polling trends and recent results remain the status quo for the remainder of primary season, then every bit of goodwill put forth by Rubio won’t be reversed but rather will be validated as no more than a dissenting opinion among conservatives. And that’s bad. Or maybe depressing.
Further, it also bears noting that this was undoubtedly Rubio at his best. He was fresh off a strong debate performance and he was entertaining his largest rally crowd to-date without interference, questioning or any script other than his own. And even then, the driving force for many attendees was aligned with my own. I didn’t conduct a poll but I’m guessing a majority of the 7,000 people at the event would offer some variation of, “Yeah, I kind of like this guy. It’s neat that he made a stop so close to where I live.”
I’m sure there were some longstanding Rubio zealots among us. A few people around us had seen Rubio at a previous rally. But a father-son duo nearby had been to a Trump rally also.
Perhaps the most damning thermometer at the event was the lukewarm efforts of pre-game chants.
“Rubio! Rubio! Rubio!” would start and die out as quickly as it gained momentum. “Marco Rubio [clap, clap, clap-clap-clap].” survived for three or four refrains.
It was hard not to equate the feeble attempts at cohesive enthusiasm to the disjointed efforts of the party as a whole.
The Ugly
The ugliest part of the day was also the most petty and the most media-ready. Though good for a laugh and an “Oh man, he went there,” Rubio’s comments on Trump’s ugly spray tan were…well, ugly.
As it relates to Rubio, the delivery was arguably the most awkward of any line in his speech. This isn’t a guy who’s fully comfortable delivering one-liners. Rubio isn’t great at talking trash, and though funny because of content the jabs didn’t seem natural. I don’t think Marco Rubio wanted to be the jokester. And yet, he had to be.
On a broader level, it’s ugly how necessary such meaningless trench warfare has become. Insults aren’t new to political elections (though, Trump may soon claim to be the inventor of the tactic while simultaneously feigning insult at being on the receiving end), but Republican candidates have taken things to new lows in 2016. Though I don’t disagree with Rubio’s strategy, it’s ugly that such a strategy is both viable and vital.
So what was the takeaway from my afternoon as a political activist?
I’m not quite sure.
I’m going to vote for Marco Rubio in Tuesday’s primary, but I probably was going to anyway. That doesn’t mean the totality of my perspective was unchanged, though.
I left Saturday’s event more confident in Marco Rubio and more attracted to him as a presidential candidate. Conversely, I left less confident in the Republican Party as a whole for all the reasons — good, bad, ugly and otherwise — detailed here.
I pride myself in being a logical thinker and above-average in my knowledge. I could be wrong on both counts, but if I’m not I remain baffled that Rubio isn’t the leader in the clubhouse at this juncture. He’s not a perfect candidate; Rubio himself wouldn’t claim to be one. But he’s certainly a respectable candidate — particularly as it relates to a general election.
He’s capable of speaking his mind, but he’s able to do so while prioritizing information over uneducated generic rhetoric, boasting and cheap shots. He’s firm in his convictions, but he’s willing to compromise rather than relying on ideological stalemates for validation. He takes money from self-motivated big businesses and conservative interest groups, but he doesn’t run a self-motivated big business and he hasn’t financially supported liberal operatives previously. He’s backed by “the establishment” despite a short tenure in D.C., but he’s in favor of term limits for legislators and justices.
Rubio looks as good on paper as he does in a rally and some of that may be by comparison to the rest of the Republican field. But ultimately, he may not matter. And if he doesn’t matter, the party may not either.
If he were reading this, Rubio would channel his inner Tim Tebow and insist that only God can save the Republican Party.
“There’s only one Savior and it’s not me; it’s Jesus Christ.”
That was his actual response to a question about electibility recently. I don’t disagree with that statement, though it may be lacking on the practical side of theology relative to the question that was asked. After all, Jesus Christ isn’t on the ballot. But with the Republican Party teeter-tottering between survival and implosion it really can’t afford for Rubio to be its own personal Tebow — popping up as a commentator far too often but only flirting with relevance every election season.
The Republican Party needs Rubio to be relevant — at least as a nominee if not as POTUS.
Rubio promises a “New American Century” and though that slogan may be 15 years too late to make chronological sense, the party will be a figment of the past if he can’t displace the current front-runner.
