Jeb Bush arguably would have been the better Bush to elect in 2000, and Hillary Clinton arguably would have been a better president than Barack Obama if she had been the nominee in 2008.
But history will record that George W. Bush and Obama were the 43th and 44th presidents of the United States.
In 2016, the electorate would be better off if neither major party nominee had the Bush or Clinton name. That’s not to say neither could be elected. But the country could use a refreshing campaign in which the name of neither — nor their family members — is involved or at issue.
Current members of the Republican Bush and Democratic Clinton families have been elected in every decade since the 1960s, from George H.W. Bush being elected to Congress in 1966 to George P. Bush being elected Texas land commissioner in November.
A 2016 campaign involving Jeb Bush, no matter how unfair, would bring up the perceived shortcomings of the 43rd president and the reality that in his last few months in office the country fell heavily into a recession. Similarly, a campaign involving Hillary Clinton, no matter how unfair, would bring up the real and hinted dalliances of her husband, the 42nd president, and his impeachment as president.
That’s not to say the candidates don’t have their own issues to answer for.
Bush is at the forefront of candidates who believe it is vital — even after President Obama’s controversial executive order last month — for Congress to pass immigration reform. He also long has been a proponent of the misunderstood and in some corners hated Common Core standards and has an environmental record with which conservatives could argue.
Clinton, who envisioned passing health care reform long before the unpopular Affordable Care Act, had an undistinguished, eight-year record as a senator and presided weakly as secretary of state in the first Obama administration as world events worsened. The 2012 terrorist attack on the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in which four Americans died, may be a particular thorn for her because of her tone-deaf “What difference does it make at this point?” answer in a House Foreign Affairs Committee as to why the diplomats died.
Both potential candidates made news last week.
Bush became the first Republican to dip his toe in the 2016 race, saying he would “actively explore the possibility” of running for president. For the former two-term Florida governor, that put him out in front for potential money that would go to establishment Republican candidates, as well as for campaign staffers and policy advisers. It might also, the thinking goes, scare off more conservative candidates.
Clinton, while thought to be a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination should she decide to run, didn’t exactly get overwhelming news when 50 percent of those surveyed in an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll said they could support her but 48 percent said they’d oppose her. In another report last week, college students were shocked that Clinton is 67 years old (and would be 69 when the 2016 election rolls around) and hasn’t driven a car in more than 18 years.
The problem for Democrats is that the field beyond the former first lady is painfully thin. Vice President Joe Biden is seen by many as a national joke. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren would appear as far left to the 2016 electorate as George McGovern did in 1972. The same holds true for Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders. And few outside of their home states know who former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley are.
The problem for Republicans is a different one. They have a number of creditable candidates in governors, senators, former governors and even a former surgeon, Ben Carson, but the party is split between support for establishment candidates (who have been nominees the last three presidential elections the GOP lost) and more conservative types.
An election without a Bush or Clinton, though, could sharpen the policy differences between the two parties, force candidates to look forward rather than backward and call for nominees to articulate their positions rather than be known for ones their family members took or things their family members did.