If Marco Rubio Is 'Establishment' Then 'Establishment' Has Lost Its Meaning

I must confess that I'm confused. I still have vivid memories of the tea-party revolution of 2010, when insurgent conservative candidates toppled incumbents and establishment favorites from coast to coast. This was the year of Rand Paul in Kentucky, Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, and Nikki Haley in South Carolina.

Perhaps most momentous of all, it was the year of Marco Rubio, who overcame long odds to beat Charlie Crist, a man who's since proven himself to be exactly the kind of soulless politician the tea party exists to oppose. Since his election, Rubio has delivered, becoming one of the most consistent and eloquent conservatives in the Senate. My colleague, Jim Geraghty, has outlined his stratospheric ratings from the American Conservative Union, National Rifle Association, National Right to Life, and the Family Research Council.

In fact, Rubio is largely responsible for the single most effective legislative attack on Obamacare, a move that the New York Times bemoaned in a piece last month:

A little-noticed health care provision that Senator Marco Rubio of Florida slipped into a giant spending law last year has tangled up the Obama administration, sent tremors through health insurance markets and rattled confidence in the durability of President Obama's signature health law.

So for all the Republican talk about dismantling the Affordable Care Act, one Republican presidential hopeful has actually done something toward achieving that goal.

By blocking bailouts of insurance companies, he's preventing the White House from passing even more of the costs of Obamacare to taxpayers and forcing insurers to live with the true price of the law.

Yes, I understand the criticism of Rubio for his membership in the ill-fated "Gang of Eight." But in changing his position and his tone on immigration, how is Rubio different from Donald Trump? One can choose to believe that 2013 Rubio is the "real Rubio" just as one can believe that 2012 Trump is the "real Trump," but there's no doubt at all which man has been the more consistent conservative.

Here's what I don't understand, then: How did Rubio morph -- in the eyes of his critics -- from tea party to "establishment" in less than one election cycle? Let's recall that as recently as this summer, Rubio's bid for the presidency was seen as a serious threat to fellow Floridian -- and undisputed "establishment" heavyweight -- Jeb Bush. Rubio was an electoral Bush-killer. He was the roadblock to the return of the Bush dynasty.

Now, it's all changed. To some on the right, Rubio is the establishment toady, the "GOPe" candidate, a man only a RINO could support.

Has Rubio moved left during the primary? No, he's actually tacked right, especially on immigration. Has he been soft on ISIS? No, it could be argued that his policy has more teeth than Trump's or Cruz's, and few men in politics better understand the apocalyptic dimensions of the jihadists' faith. As if that weren't enough, he's made the case for life as well or better than any of his rivals.

It seems that he's now the "establishment" candidate mainly because a number of establishment figures and donors have defected to him after their preferred candidate -- perhaps Bush, Christie, or Kasich -- failed to gain traction. But if the standard for establishment status is simply whether establishment figures have chosen to support you after their first-choice candidate fails, then every single GOP contender is either establishment or establishment-in-waiting. After all, if Rubio falters, mass numbers of establishment politicians and donors will rush to back Cruz over Trump. And if Cruz falters, those same people will presumably back Trump over Hillary.

Here's the reality: In the battle -- launched in 2010 -- between the tea party and traditional GOP powers, the tea party largely won. The contest between Rubio, Cruz, and Trump is a fight between Tea Party 1.0, Tea Party 2.0, and classic American populism. And each one of these candidates would need traditional Republican or "establishment" support in the general election.

If Rubio is "establishment," the term has lost any real meaning. He's a consistent conservative whose positions and ideology largely align with whomever his critics prefer, Cruz included. He's a tea party champion who effectively expelled Charlie Crist from the Republican party and dealt a serious blow to Jeb Bush. For the most part, a fight between Rubio and Cruz is a fight over matters of tone and style, not substance. A fight between Rubio and Trump is a battle between a conservative and a populist. Unless something dramatic happens between now and the New Hampshire primary, the establishment has already lost this cycle. Only the insurgents remain.

-- David French is an attorney and a staff writer at National Review.

I still have vivid memories of the tea-party revolution of 2010, when insurgent conservative candidates toppled incumbents and establishment favorites from coast to coast. This was the year of Rand Paul in Kentucky, Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, and Nikki Haley in South Carolina.

I know that this won't be the most popular opinion, but I think the author's evident confusion stems from a misconception in this opening paragraph. The Tea Party was not a conservative insurgency. It was an anti-establishment insurgency, by people who have common sense (distinguishing it from the OWS "insurgency"). It happened that it appeared conservative because it was an insurgency grounded in common sense. But it was not ideological.

In tea party events, most of the people I met were not ideological conservatives. They were practical, generally middle-class, Republicans, Democrats, and independents, who are sick and tired of the entire DC establishment, which includes most "conservative" publications. These tea party citizens are, generally speaking, the same citizens who formed the Reagan coalition, who considered, or even voted for, Perot as an alternative to Bush Sr., who voted overwhelmingly in '94, '10, and '14. But it is not an ideological movement. And Trump, an anti-establishment pragmatist, who generally has conservative positions because he is a pragmatist, and can recognize good ideas when he sees them (hint: conservative solutions), is the natural candidate for this broad coalition of voters.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.