Marco Rubio's speech on the middle class raises the bar for 2016

Before I continue with my string of posts on the theme of reform conservatism’s correct views on everything, let me make a brief foray into real-world politics: Yesterday Senator Marco Rubio gavea domestic policy speech, co-hosted by Hillsdale College and the YG Network, that’s worth reading if you’re interested in what a reformist vision looks like when it’s an actual Republican politician (rather than a tribe of conservative scribblers) giving it form and substance. Naturally, it strikes me as a very impressive and encouraging speech. But I think I would say that even if I were less inclined to agree with its policy specifics, because purely as a rhetorical matter, it does something that Mitt Romney didn’t manage to do in 2012 until, well, basically the first presidential debate: That is, it tries to meet non-conservative voters where they are and talk about the issues that they say they care about, rather than lecturing them on what they should be concerned about (too few people are paying income tax! Obama doesn’t like entrepreneurs!) and assuming that they’re already persuaded. It’s a speech rooted in conservative principle without being trapped by the conservative talking points, in other words, and that’s something we saw very little of in the 2012 campaign.
So where Republicans are inclined to disagree with some of Rubio’s proposals, I would join my friend Reihan Salam in suggesting that they should treat his speech as an opportunity to demand that other would-be leaders (a Ted Cruz, a Scott Walker, whomever) step forward with alternatives — and just as importantly, explain how they “expect to secure a durable majority” in their favor. The Republican Party in recent years has featured a great deal of non-substantive debate: The ’12 primary season was full of it (excepting, of course, 9-9-9!), and the clashes in the House and Senate leading to the government shutdown over who really wants to repeal Obamacare and who’s a sell-out squish followed a similar pattern, in which affect and tactics were often the main things up for dispute. But that does not have to be the case in the 2016 campaign: If the party’s presidential contenders follow Rubio’s example, the party could have an actual debate about what it believes should replace Obamacare (a universal tax credit, or something more limited, like what Bobby Jindal has proposed?), what the details of a potential tax reform should look like (the vigorous online debate over the child tax credit versus deeper top rate cuts belongs in an actual political campaign), how the safety net should actually work (as opposed to just vague promises to cap its growth), even how Social Security should be reformed (champions of private accounts, tell us why Rubio’s proposals don’t go far enough!). Of course it won’t always be a high-minded debate — perish the thought! — but just having these kind of arguments would be immensely constructive, not only for the party, but for the country it aspires to govern.
I would add one other other thought on the speech: I see that Rubio was attacked by Danny Vinik at The New Republic for being insufficiently wonky (because he hasn’t specified pay-fors for all his education/safety net proposals) and by Laura Ingraham on Twitterfor being insufficiently exciting (“dare you to try to make it to end of speech w/out nodding off,” she writes). As I’ve said beforeregarding Rubio’s proposals, the insufficient-specificity complaint strikes me as a bit ridiculous given that 1) he’s the only 2016 contender offering anywhere close to this level of detail on policy at this point and 2) he’s explicitly endorsed reforms to Medicare and Social Security that would have a much larger impact on the budget than any of his possible tweaks to education outlays. And Ingraham’s insufficiently-exciting complaint sounds a lot like what critics of Bill Clinton always said about his speeches — so long, so much policy, surely voters won’t like this. But they did, and they still do.