From Rags to Rubio The GOP candidate says many Americans identify with his past financial challenges.By Kimberley A. Strassel
The swirl this week over Marco Rubio’s personal finances brings to mind that popular children’s word game, “Would You Rather.” Cut through the hype and the question Mr. Rubio presents to the electorate is this: “Would you rather a president who is above it all, or who has lived it all?”
Only the voters can answer that question—if they have the chance. The press for its part is more interested in presenting Mr. Rubio’s financial history as some evidence of scandal. The New York Times has devoted near novel-length inches to the non-news (this was all covered in Mr. Rubio’s Senate race in 2010) that as a Florida legislator he used a Republican Party charge card for personal purchases.
And? The card was used primarily for political expenses—which were covered by the party. Mr. Rubio occasionally used it for a personal expense, which he then paid for each month by writing a check to the card company. No one is suggesting that the party paid a dime toward Mr. Rubio’s expenses, or that the candidate was a dime short in promptly paying back his personal charges. If this is a scandal, we’ve found a cure for insomnia.
Opinion Journal Video
Mr. Rubio’s rivals meanwhile are hoping to present other aspects of Mr. Rubio’s financial past as evidence that he is unfit to manage the federal fisc. The focus is on the Floridian’s past struggles with student debt and mortgage payments. The fact that he decided to liquidate a small ($68,000) retirement account (partly to prepare for a presidential run) is also, somehow, proof that he needs financial counseling.
“He is a disaster with his credit cards,” declared Donald Trump, who is familiar with business bankruptcy law. Mr. Rubio’s finances show he is a “risky bet,” explained a leaked campaign memo from Jeb Bush, who began at the elite Phillips Academy boarding school, ended on Wall Street and is worth as much as $22 million. “What is he hiding?” demanded a super PAC backing Hillary Clinton, who is an expert in cattle futures, and who leveraged the entire U.S. government to fundraise for her family “charity.”
Mr. Rubio’s response has been to profess openly that he grew up in a poor family and has struggled financially himself, and to say that this makes him more qualified for office because he is like most Americans. In a Fox News interview on Wednesday he said: “I think it would be good for this country to have a president that knows what it is like to have your house lose its value because of irresponsible and reckless behavior by Fannie and Freddie, by the Federal Reserve. I think it would be good to have a president that knows what it’s like to owe money and student loans like I once did. Someone who grew up paycheck-to-paycheck.” Mr. Rubio is betting his own story adds authenticity to his argument that all Americans deserve more “opportunity.”
Whether Americans buy that pitch gets to a central, if somewhat under-reported, tension of this presidential race. The reality is that Americans—even the most up-from-their-bootstraps Americans—tend to vote very wealthy people into the White House. Not always: The late 19th and early 20th century featured a turn to executives of more modest means. But the past 100 years in particular has seen mostly millionaire presidents.
Americans like winners, and wealth is a marker of success—so that might be part of it. Donald Trump has also highlighted another possibility: independence. The real-estate mogul likes to brag that his wealth means that he won’t end up beholden to donors or “special interests.” That Mr. Trump is beholden to other, weirder forces (like his own ego) seems not to matter to Americans who fear the government has been bought.
The flip side to this argument is none other than Hillary Clinton. What worries many voters isn’t that the former first lady is too wealthy to identify with average Americans, but that the Clintons still can’t outgrow their keeping-up-with-the-Clampetts mentality. Bill Clinton likes to note that he was the poorest president elected in the 20th century, and don’t we all know it—the Lincoln Bedroom, the dictator-speaking circuit. The Clintons would do anything for a buck.
No one will admit it, but all these underlying biases are driving the focus on Mr. Rubio’s money. Though they present him with a legitimate challenge. Americans might indeed like a president who has lived it all. But only if they believe the individual has moved beyond the struggle. In such pressing times, the electorate fears a president who must divert precious energy to personal problems, or who feels compelled to cut ethical corners to make money.
The Rubio challenge is even more acute, because the financial story feeds two other raps against him: youth and inexperience. The country has lived youth and inexperience for seven years, and isn’t impressed. Mr. Rubio’s only effective rebuttal to these charges will be a daily display of knowledge, competence and principle. He can run on “living it all” so long as he can show he’s come out all of it smarter.
Comments are closed.
