Family legacy overshadows Jeb Bush’s policy platforms

In an attempt to repudiate the unfortunate connotations of the Bush name, former Gov. Jeb Bush delineated his foreign policy agenda to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs on Feb. 18. Though he assured the crowd, “I am my own man, and my views are shaped by my own thinking and own experiences,” his speech seemed modeled after his brother’s ideology: American hegemony, uncompromising approaches to disagreeing actors and assertive leadership. The ideological similarities aren’t altogether surprising when we consider the fact that 19 of his 21 foreign policy advisors either worked for his father or brother as well .

As he stumbled through his speech with an unsettling array of flagrant grammatical errors, he turned to vague and generalized rhetoric to discuss his ideas concerning Russia, Iran and the Middle East. While he did prescribe a “tailor-made” approach to each country, a deviation from former president George W. Bush’s platform, his solutions were simplistic.

When it came to combatting ISIS and its affiliated terror organizations, Bush suggested the United States “eschew diplomacy and aim instead to take them out” with a drone coalition.

The details involved in “taking them out are unclear; however. President Barack Obama has already been prioritizing partnerships with regional and international actors to combat ISIS militants for months. With ISIS interspersed between several nation-states, entrenched among civilians and leveraging complex geo-political situations, “taking them out” isn’t as simple as it sounds. Moreover, the ideas resonated with his brother’s view on Saddam Hussein: that his death would fix far greater, systemic issues.

Bush called his foreign policy approach liberty diplomacy, “a policy based on American values of individualism and liberty,” which seems to be a mere reiteration of his brother’s “freedom agenda.” He suggested that the United States reassert itself as a leading world power in global issues — but with patience. For Bush, that means instilling confidence in our allies, striking fear in the hearts of our enemies and following through with executive promises. With this, he turned to the Republican playbook, focusing more on criticizing the president than providing his own vision and concrete strategies. “The great irony of the Obama presidency is this: Someone who came to office promising greater engagement with the world has left America less influential in the world,” he said. He addressed Obama’s inconsistency with drawing the “red line,” specifically in regards to Syria’s use of chemical weapons and yet offered no alternative himself. The administration’s handling of Russia also posed several issues for Bush, who urged the U.S. to send arms to support those fighting the separatists, despite himself admitting Ukraine “is not immediately in our national interests.” He seemed more concerned with Putin’s ruthless pragmatism than Ukraine itself, which signals his focus on individual, regional interests.

Bush also addressed recent controversy over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Congressional address. As he provided his approach to Iran’s nuclear program, he called for the reinstatement of sanctions and a deal approved by Congress, which continues a tradition of hostility towards Iran exacerbated by his brother. In 1998, it seemed as though United States-Iranian relations would see a new era after President Mohammad Khatami engaged in United States relations. When George W. Bush, however, categorized the country among “the axis of evil” in his 2002 State of the Union address, any willingness to re-establish a relationship dissipated. This assertion immediately garnered backlash from the international community, which distanced from the United States for its interests in Iran. The next few years followed in intermittent diplomacy, Iran’s isolation from the Western banking system and sanctions that undermined the latter’s ambitions for growth. But amid all that, there was a willingness to negotiate. And, in 2013, we saw the first conversation between heads of state of the United States and Iran in 30 years. It is these breakthroughs that will lead to results — not binary approaches to such a complex issue.

To his credit, Bush did concede to his brother’s mistakes and promised to integrate those lessons into his own. While the George W. Bush administration wreaked havoc in an attempt to impose American values on other nation-states, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, Jeb Bush cautioned against this type of leadership. “We have to balance our belief in liberty with a belief that security and engagement,”  he said, suggesting elections aren’t necessarily synonymous with democracy or order. It is unclear whether that means a willingness to work with despots or authoritarian regimes who provide stability, but it is a distinction from his brother’s priorities; however, it is a distinction from his brother’s priorities. Perhaps as the elections approach, Bush will elaborate on his policies and we will see a greater distinction between him and his predecessors. Yet, as of now, it’s safe to say a Bush is a Bush is a Bush.