Daniel TilsonLike a minor leaguer who shockingly grabs an established star’s spot in the majors, has an out-of-this-world first few seasons, then overthinks his meteoric rise and falls back down to Earth; Marco Rubio is his own worst enemy as he keeps trying to snap out of a prolonged slump.
Not long after ascending to anointment as “Republican Savior” on the cover of Time magazine and giving the “Big Gulp” GOP TV response to President Obama’s 2013 State Of The Union speech, the upward trajectory of Rubio’s political path slowed, then ground to a halt.
From immigration reform, to LGBT rights, to women’s reproductive rights and more, Rubio veered this way and that on a range of divisive issues, ironically channeling Charlie Crist’s own “evolutionary” style.
He lurched away from the Tea Party base that got him elected, co-authoring comprehensive immigration reform legislation, searching for moderate middle ground from which a 2016 presidential candidacy might be launched.
Then came blowback from the base, which turned its attention to other presidential hopefuls like Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, ideologues more willing to take national flight solely on the strength of the party’s dominant right wing.
Instead of standing firm on principle, Rubio scrambled to secure his own hardcore conservative creds by turning his back on the very immigration reform bill he helped write.
Other switchbacks and course corrections followed.
After cautiously avoiding alienating LGBT voters for a while, Rubio returned to base camp by vocally opposing equal immigration rights for same sex couples, and voting against the ENDA bill prohibiting workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.
In July, he was reportedly eager to sponsor a bill banning abortion beyond 20 weeks. By November, sensing his comeback strategy might be working, his slump ending, and well aware such sponsorship would be unpopular with lots of women voters nationwide, he passed the baton to Lindsay Graham.
The triangulation doesn’t stop with domestic issues either.
In what was touted last week as a “major” speech at the American Enterprise Institute, Rubio attacked the Obama administration’s “lack of leadership” on foreign policy.
He predictably pushed for tougher sanctions on Iran, even though sanctions are in place and negotiations are underway; and for a prolonged, increased American military presence in Afghanistan.
But then, he articulated an overall approach very similar to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “smart power” doctrine, a theoretically balanced blend of diligent diplomacy, economic aid, human rights advancement incentives, and military might.
Seeking distance from national conservative competitors like Cruz and Paul, Rubio said in a post-speech interview with The Daily Beast:
““It has become starkly apparent to me that we lack any sort of strategic foreign policy view, and when I say ‘we,’ I mean the country in general but in particular the Republican Party. …There’s this false choice between the labels ‘isolationist’ and ‘hawks.’ I think, frankly, those labels are obsolete in the foreign policy debates we now have.”
That’s the kind of sensibly centrist, solid ground that might win Rubio broad-based support — were he willing to plant a flag in and stick to it
Instead, whatever ground Rubio stands on seems unsteady. Take Syria. In past months he shifted from saber rattling for premature military action, to joining the Paul-Cruz-Tea Party call for no intervention.
In sum, whether on foreign or domestic policy, Marco Rubio has been playing a weak game of pandering political Ping-Pong for way too long.
And it may just earn him a 2016 ticket back to the minor leagues.
