Should Jim Webb be included in next GOP debate?

In an era when partisanship has sorted Democrats and Republicans into relatively homogenous ideological groups, Webb is not easy to pin down.

Lucy Nicholson/Reuters
Democratic presidential candidate and former US Sen. Jim Webb speaks during the first official Democratic candidates debate in Las Vegas on Tuesday.

Jim Webb won many new fans with his performance in Tuesday night’s Democratic debate. The problem for him is that they’re mostly in the other party.

It’s true – GOP pundits and ordinary voters alike seemed surprisingly impressed by the former Democratic senator from Virginia. On social media, there was lots of speculation as to maybe, just maybe, Mr. Webb might decide to chuck this Democrat thing and cross over to run in the other side’s race.

“Republicans, let’s take a second look at Jim Webb,” ran the headline on a post at right-leaning RedState.

Why the enthusiasm? Republicans thought Webb sounded like a Republican, raised Republican issues, and talked tough, that’s why.

At the conservative National Review, Jim Geraghty wrote that Webb talked about the effect of affirmative action on poor whites, the need to respect gun owner rights, and the danger from threats Democrats don’t generally acknowledge, such as China. Webb told Bernie Sanders that Congress would be unlikely to vote to pay for all his expensive proposed social programs. In general, he seemed like an old-line Southern Democrat, said Mr. Geraghty.

“Webb has a good chance of winning the Democratic nomination in 1948. You almost have to wonder how Webb would be doing in the GOP presidential primary,” he wrote.

Then there was Webb’s closing-moment answer to Anderson Cooper’s question about what enemies the Democratic contenders were proudest they’d made. While most of the Dems on stage referred to lobbyists or other political actors, Webb’s was personal. A Marine officer who fought in Vietnam, Webb mentioned an enemy soldier who’d thrown a grenade that wounded him.

“He’s not around to talk to right now,” Webb said, pointedly.

Some pundits found this answer creepy. A presidential hopeful openly talking about killing a man during wartime, and giving a half-smile while doing so? Perhaps it was a bit jarring in the context.

But others thought it tough, and a reminder that Webb had served his country when called.

“There was probably a time when liberal voters would have been impressed by someone who had served his country so valiantly.... Twenty-five years ago he might have been a star,” wrote David Harsanyi in the right-leaning The Federalist. “Today? He’s a man completely out of touch with the philosophical temperament of his party.”

Webb’s real problem might be that he’s out of touch with both parties. In an era when partisanship has sorted Democrats and Republicans into relatively homogenous ideological groups, Webb is not easy to pin down.

He is conservative on many issues, and indeed, served President Ronald Reagan as a high-ranking Pentagon official. But at Tuesday’s debate, he also noted he’d have “no problem” with undocumented immigrants having access to Obamacare. On some economic issues, he is a populist closer to Bernie Sanders than Jeb Bush.

Still, if the GOP really wants the ratings for its next debate to explode, the Republican National Committee should invite Webb to participate on grounds of partial affinity. Imagine the ex-Marine dealing with Donald Trump’s half-answers on foreign policy. It could solve the party’s Trump problem, once and for all.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Should Jim Webb be included in next GOP debate?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today