In recent days, I have argued that Republicans must allow Donald Trump into the debates, and that his inclusion should be viewed as an opportunity for other candidates like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio to take him on.
But not everyone agrees. And frankly, there are good arguments on both sides. Here’s an excerpt from an email sent to me by a regular reader from Louisville, Kentucky named Robbie Sherman:
I know you have said if Bush and Rubio can’t stand up to Trump, they don’t deserve the nomination, but Trump is PT Barnum. He is a showman who believes all publicity is good publicity. Bush, Rubio, and the other are politicians. Politicians can’t compete with showmen, but showmen know how to “trump” politicians. This debate has the makings of a real disaster for the top candidates and the party. Regrettably, though, Reince Preibus [sic] is repeaping [sic] what he sowed by playing footsy [sic] with Trump for five years.
I always thought it was unfair when CNN decided to pit center-right journalists against Democratic political operatives on Crossfire, and I suppose this is a similar argument. Trump isn’t merely quick-witted and confident, he also has nothing to lose. Moreover, he’s not encumbered by consistency or truth. This makes him dangerous and slippery. And, for traditional politicians who do have to hew to a consistent record or a coherent political philosophy, it probably isn’t a fair fight.
Sherman continues,
I know there is a fear of alienating Trump’s supporters if he’s martyred, but so what. They claimed the same with Palin, Cain, Bachmann, and even Cliven Bundy. As for Bush and the others skipping the debate, it could be a powerful message to the country that they reject the insanity of Trump, the birthers, and the rest of old Birch Society that’s rallied to him. I hate this term, but it could [be] a Sister Souljah moment.
The problem is that we’re talking about two different things. I have suggested that it would be a mistake for the RNC to exclude Trump (it would only reinforce the narrative that the establishment is rigging the game). But Sherman is suggesting something entirely different — that Rubio or Bush (and Bush is the only one I could imagine doing this) should boycott the debates if Trump is included.
Is Jeb Bush willing to be the adult who finally calls bullshit on this reality show — and essentially makes his campaign about fixing the systemic problems and perverse incentives that have come to define the GOP primary process since 2008? While I like the idea of someone assuming a leadership role in restoring order to the GOP’s self-flagellating nomination process, no good deed goes unpunished.
Here’s the problem: Let’s suppose Jeb Bush decided to take a stand on this. The odds are, he would stand alone. The event would likely still happen in his absence, and other candidates would reap the benefits of participation. What if Jeb Bush sits out the debate and Marco Rubio rises to the occasion by taking Trump to task for his rhetoric about Mexicans?
And that’s just beginning. Sitting out a debate is one thing, but what about the second or third or fourth? It would become a test of wills. If Bush eventually relents and decides to enter the debates, he loses.
This isn’t something Bush would do on a whim. It would be a high-risk gambit that would probably be more likely to make him look like a wimp or a scold than a savior willing to sacrifice for his party.
It would be a heroic, if thankless, project. In other words, don’t count on it.