Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
“Electability” Isn’t All It’s Cracked Up to Be
I think I’ve only ever been to two political events. The first was a Romney meet-and-greet in the New Hampshire backyard of Ovide LaMontagne during the 2012 primary season; the second was a pre-Election Day rally for him in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, which featured Sen. Marco Rubio.
In both cases I was impressed — even swept up — by the attractive power of their political skill and charisma. How did Romney do that trick of reading my name tag while looking me in the eye, so that I felt like we were friends when he said with such warmth and sincerity, “Thank you, Katie”? How did Rubio pull off that impossible feat of making me feel positively hopeful and enthusiastic, when — moments before — I’d been depressed and cynical about our chances against Obama?
Only one thing Rubio said that night stayed with me … and it later stuck in my craw. In so many words, he told the assembled crowd “Don’t worry about Florida; we’ve got Florida in the bag. Now, let’s go get Pennsylvania!” Wild cheering followed. He had said it in a way that made us believe it was true; he had internal polling showing Florida was safe for Romney and that Pennsylvania was in striking distance.
Afterwards, when the event proved both statements utterly false, I felt as if I’d been taken for a ride. I’d been fed reassuring lies. I’d been manipulated, and by my own side. It wasn’t a nice feeling.
I’ve been more skeptical of charisma ever since. I’d learned, experientially, what I’d only known abstractly before: Charisma is dangerous; it’s seductive. Those who have it can sway people, but they can fool people too, including themselves. They can use people. They can easily think and behave as if what matters in politics is being able to talk a good game.
All this came to mind last night when I heard Rubio — whom I would still gladly vote for against Trump or any Democrat — dismissing the idea of unity ticket as “good on television,” but “unrealistic.” He is running to win in Florida. I thought, “This is empty talk. He doesn’t really believe what he’s saying; he’s just hoping he can make voters believe it.” Or worse, he’s deceived himself into thinking it’s true.
You will say all politicians do it and I will know you are right. It’s the way the game is played. You have to whip-up your supporters. You have to make them believe things you know are truth-stretching at best.
My point here is to lament the fact and to remind us all that it isn’t a good thing, especially not for those serious about ordered liberty and responsible self-government.
I also want to make an observation, for those who are down on Sen. Ted Cruz and upset that our “most electable” candidate has lost.
Rubio is much more likable and charming than Cruz, no question. But that’s not an unmixed good for our side. It means he is accustomed to being able to get places with less effort and real achievement than is required of non-charming people. Say what you like about Cruz, he hasn’t gotten where he is by the force of his charisma; he’s gotten where he is despite his complete lack of it.
Charm is effervescent. Substantive arguments and achievements tell over time. They sink in and they stick.
Rubio woos better; Cruz reasons better.
In saying all this, I don’t mean than that conservatives, as a matter of principle, ought to dismiss or ignore the value of charm in our politicians. It’s not nothing. Rather, I mean that there is good reason to hope that Cruz will prove more electable than Rubio in the general, just as he is so proving now in the primary.
He’s not beguiling us into signing on with him, despite his unreliable conservatism; he making the case that he and his conservatism are better for American than any of the alternatives.
And, as a matter of fact, he’s right about that. It should give us heart.
Published in Politics
He also woos women (other than his wife) better than Cruz.
Like with Trump, the media doesn’t bring this up now so they can use it in the November election.
Cheap shot. The O/P deserves better.
Cruz is guilty of the same thing. I saw him in SC by chance and met Bernie Sanders a week later. Note to self: stay out of SC every four years.
Well here is the thing, Marco pitched a New American Century which is a hopeful message and youthful vision backed up by many things. His enthusiasm is real. But, he was eviscerated by $50 (count-em) million of anti-Rubio messaging on TV, radio, etc.
Ted would make a great Supreme Court justice, but is sometimes a bit off tilt campaigning. His strategy was to go narrow and expand the narrow. Narrow is hard to follow in the General Election when all those things start to come under closer scrutiny. Republicans are a minority and Purple States have to be won – and lots of them to win the General Election so Independents are what counts. Converting them to GOP voters typically means a message of moderation on social issues and economic and fiscal security. Fact is, Cruz could be easily cast as a carnival, tent preaching Constitionalist who wants to take away your rights while protecting the few he likes. That may not sell with the middle or Independents. Ted pitches returning to some time in the past.
Donald Trump snaked Ted’s base – evangelicals and southerners and even some talk radio hosts. He pitches nationalism, protectionism, and nativism. This is a good pitch for most people who blame most everything that happens bad economically on Mexico or China. In fact, America lost 2.5 million jobs in manufacturing during the Volker recession and millions more during the 2009 downturn. True, true, trade cut into manufacturing job growth and incomes. But, the problem is not just China. Count the number of BMW’s riding on Canadian tires with Hungarian bumpers driving around. Also, American worker regulations and unions work rules make replacing manufacturing workers very economic when the Federal Reserve has interest rates at or near zero. Anyway, Trump took his America First pitch and it sold well, as we might expect with those who feel economic stress or harm.
So that is a summary: Rubio – New American Century is not a big seller this year. Ted’s take-us-back-to-the-good-old-days is doing OK, but will it sell well in the fall? And Trump’s America First is very popular and might sell in the fall. By the way, Kasich is also out with a positive pitch like Rubio’s and it too seems of limited appeal to GOP voters.
Generally speaking GOP voters are not voting for Hope and Change – for obvious reasons.
How will these sell to the General Electorate? I am not sure. But GOP stalwart conservatives or moderates typically shift to the center as polling day approaches.
Exactly this. This has been my concern about Rubio since he rose to national prominence. And I think it’s why he not only embraced Go8 but refuses to apologize for it: he thinks that he can talk his way out of anything.
Time for the man to eat some humble pie.
His mistake was not doubling down. If you want to make your message “sticky” you gotta keep reinforcing it. Never give the voters a chance to think the message through before you hit ’em with it ten more times. Tell ’em why the polls are hogwash. The reason doesn’t have to make sense. Some studies have shown that simply using the word “because” is often enough to win people over.
“Hi there, can I cut in line ahead of you, because I’m really running late?” This works more often than not, despite being a ridiculous reason.
Yes, yes, all politicians lie, but some do it better than others. When you’re gonna do it, you gotta commit to the lie. If you’re not gonna commit to the lie and really sell it, then lie about something else you can commit to.
I’m not sure he thinks he can talk his way out of it. I see him trying like heck to never have to talk about it at all.
If he was truly as confident as you claim, he’d be shamelessly promoting Go8 and tirelessly selling it as a great conservative policy.
Interesting post, thanks.
I have trouble believing this. The Republican primaries are often quite different from the general elections, aren’t they? I’m afraid that Republican primary voters will go for Cruz, but he would lose the general.
Well, this is his big moment. My hope is that he can do what Romney could not: explain basic conservative ideas in a way that people can understand them.
Maybe Cruz can do what I wanted Romney to do: embrace the awkward. Use the fact that he is not a ‘cool guy’ to his advantage.
Getting tired of this argument. It’s what the left trots out every time pro-business legislation passes: “Industry groups lobbied heavily against the measure, which died in the Senate.” Well, maybe senators don’t like anti-business legislation to begin win; correlation does not imply causation.
Do you really mean to imply that people who change their minds about Rubio are just numbskulls being manipulated by TV?
Look, I like Rubio’s vision; it has a lot of good qualities. If he’s leading in CA when our primary rolls around, I’ll vote for him to stop Trump. But it seems pretty clear that people are abandoning him in large part because he reneged on a promise he made to his constituency on an issue that was so important to them that he campaigned against it in his run for the Senate.
Personally I think we should admire a political process that holds politicians to some degree of accountability, even if it ends up depriving us of candidates who, at the moment, seem to look good.
My point was:
Like with Trump, the media doesn’t bring this up now so they can use it in the November election.
This was not intended as a cheap shot to Katie.
If he was as faithful to his wife as Cruz, I think he would get more votes in November.
Sorry for any misinterpretation.
More precisely, he thought at the time that he could talk his way out of it while reaping all the benefits of supporting the legislation. Now he’s starting to see the error of his assumptions.
Do we really know that about Cruz?
I think your analysis that things have come a bit too easy for Rubio is spot on, and I think that’s why he is where he is in the face of Trump. Cruz is committed (not a bad thing), Rubio somewhat less so.
But I’ve seen nothing to indicate that mano a mano Cruz “reasons” better than Rubio. Perhaps the debate chaos caused by Trump’s continual bloviating has made it difficult to draw a direct comparison between the thought processes of Rubio and Cruz.
I appreciate that–I wasn’t suggesting that the cheap shot was aimed at the O/P, however. I meant that the discussion she initiated was somewhat diminished by the shot at Rubio, which, AFAIK, is not an established fact. JMHO.
Fair enough, but I’m still not convinced by the “talk his way out of it” formulation. I think it’s more likely he thought it would be a winner of a policy and that he wouldn’t have to talk his way out of it. When that proved incorrect he chose the path of ducking the issue rather than doubling down and doing the work to sell it.
He might be doing a lot better if he’d chosen to double down. Lots of conservatives can support a candidate where they can say, “I don’t always agree with what he says, but at least I can trust that he means what he says. He keeps saying it, so he must really mean it!”
Never support a policy if you aren’t willing to do the work to sell it.
Or, to put it another way, “it’s not the scandal. It’s the cover-up.”
It is a sales training thing. As you turn towards a new person, your eyes scan the nametag before you make contact. It requires practice until it becomes instinctual.
James- good comment.
I wonder these days if the old reliable ‘center’ exists anymore except in Mike Murphys mind or sales brochures.
I find less and less ‘moderates’ and far more people in one camp or another than prior years. Obama has been a polarizing force beyond measure.
I also believe the Dems have yet to see the depths of rejection at the Presidential level on Obama. I know many people who are silent on their dislike, being good democrats, but have been quietly seething.
I expect some very volatile action in the blue states this year.
That’s my hope too. One thing he definitely has going for him that Romney doesn’t is that he actually is a principled, consistent conservative, and always has been. He memorized the Constitution in high school and has been passionately defending it (including in front of the Supreme Court) ever since.
Like Jonah says, Romney speaks conservatism as a second language. I’ll never forget his justifying the individual healthcare mandate in MA as “personal responsibility.”
I really don’t want to believe this is true.
I’d extend your analysis to the idea of Trump as nothing but a bloviator, but I largely agree anyway.
I agree Trump is a bloviator, but whereas Rubio went after Trump with insults in kind, Cruz attacked with facts. Rubio often resorts to deflection and platitudes in debates and interviews, while Cruz goes chapter and verse.
Perhaps not liking any of the candidates carries some advantages. I think there’s far too much certainty, good and ill, surrounding all of teh candidates. They’re all a mixed bag.
Your assessment of Trump is in the vicinity of truth but strikes me as too glib. For most people, even good conservatives, there’s plenty of legitimate ground to occupy besides Friedmanite free trade and old style lefty protectionism. Fairer trade deals doesn’t seem like an attack on liberty or prosperity to a good many people, conservatives and disgruntled democrats included.
“J. D. Fitzpatrick wrote:
James Madison: But, he was eviscerated by $50 (count-em) million of anti-Rubio messaging on TV, radio, etc.
Getting tired of this argument.”
Well, tell me one candidate that endured this kind of propaganda (from friendly fire no less, that you Jeb!). And tell me TV doesn’t work. And I will introduce you to the 1940’s.
TV and negative advertising work – ask Mitt Romney who killed a man’s wife in the Midwest when he rapaciously bought a company and closed the plant leaving the employees without healthcare!!! Without healthcare!!!! Can you believe it? Well millions of voters did.
Yes, ask Mitt Romeny who was defined by the Obama campaign and was unable to respond due to campaign finance limitations. He was tapped out from the primaries and the Republican Party could not respond – all before the convention ever took place. Game, set, match.
If TV and negative ads do not work, then someone needs to stop spending over $billion this year.
Ed G.
Sorry, but I like simple summaries and detailed explanations — ha, ha. But you point is a good one. Fairer deals make some sense – but if you have ever had the bad fortune to read such deals, and they are all but impossible to understand, then you would know they often are fair in total but harm one group over another. It is what it is. See the implementation of NAFTA, by which I was educated.
Can you name a Cabinet department that Cruz has maintained a consistent position with regard to and that has a related policy he mentions on his website? I’m under the impression that the only correct answer is “the VA”. Whatever the issue, Cruz has been on both sides of it.
Cruz is good at the shibboleths, but he’s not consistent, active, or detailed in his policy advocacy. Almost all of his legislative contributions have been symbolic.
Threatening companies with confiscatory tariffs as an explicit effort to force them to locate in America is old style lefty protectionism. The trade deat concerns may or may not be. We can’t tell, because all that Trump (and Cruz) say when they’re asked what the problem is is that they’d make them “better”. If they made them substantially different, they’d be breaking a mold mostly set by Reagan with the Israeli and Canadian FTAs and then just about completed by Bush ’41 and Clinton with the NAFTA. Since then, the number of important details that differ from trade agreement to trade agreement has been very small.
Maybe Trump and Cruz think that the Trade Promotion Authority bills that gave the authority to negotiate the agreements need to be rewritten, such that different sorts of agreements can be drawn up, but if so neither mentioned any specifics or suggested any Amendments to that effect.
When some of the defenses of policy are explicitly about putting up tariffs to keep businesses at home and none of the problems with free trade deals (which have most of their impact in making trade tariff free and free from protectionist non-tariff barriers) are made explicit, the implication is given that what’s being talked about is old style lefty protectionism. To be specific, Cruz would return us to the situation before the JFK round of the GATT talks, at which point average US tariffs fell below the 16% he’d apply, while Trump’s plan is less detailed, but appears to be sone what less vigorous; I guess it depends on how old you want to go with “old style”. Neither candidate appears to be suggesting a return to the 1920s, as some suggest, at least not in the first retrograde leap.
Or not. Do you have first hand information or are you repeating rumors recycled from when Rubio ran against Charlie Christ?
Whose purpose does that serve other than Democrats whispering against the one guy they don’t want to run against.
Cruz is definitely strong in the area of law as it applies to the Constitution. Cruz is weak on foreign policy. An indication of that is he basically parroted Rubio’s answer on dealing with ISIS in the Florida debate. Trump is a disaster on foreign policy. That doesn’t bother some voters because we have become used to foreign policy disasters during the last 7 years.
Now if Cruz wins the nomination and election I would suggest that he name Rubio as his Secretary of State. If Rubio wins the election I would suggest that Rubio nominate Cruz as a Supreme Court Justice.
If Trump wins the nomination, never mind I hate to think about that scenario.
Charisma is a nice place to start. It gives me my first impression of a candidate, and it’s nice to like a candidate. But it’s also often window dressing; it doesn’t tell me what’s going on inside the person’s head. On the other hand, it’s hard to stay with a candidate when he’s just plain not likeable. I don’t like Cruz’s personality for a number of reasons, and he’s certainly not charismatic for me. Eventually I need to look at character (I won’t give up on that) and substance. I let go of wanting to “like” the person. But lots of others (particularly in the general election) want to like the nominee. It’s really too bad regarding Cruz. When I see him interviewed, one-on-one, he’s much more approachable, less arrogant and preachy. If he could just convert that to his public presentations.
I’d also point out that for a long time, I didn’t like GW’s personality. Eventually I got past that. Not sure if that was good in the long run or not.
You go to war with the electorate you have, not the electorate you want.
Trump supporters were never going to be the Cruz base. Most of them would stay home if Cruz were the nominee. Stylistically, Cruz is everything they abhor.
How is this not completely obvious to everyone at this point?
Think about it this way. Many Cruz supporters here and elsewhere despise Trump. Why is it that if you flip it, all of a sudden Trump supporters flock to Cruz? How do they all of sudden become Ted’s missing “base” when Ted’s current base hates the candidate that they have chosen to back? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Someone who sees Trump as a straight shooter and is pushing for moderate to left economic solutions would in all likelihood see Cruz as a slippery politician who would continue to harm them with his theoretical conservative solutions. The group whose number one reason for supporting Trump is that he is a businessman with some success would not all of sudden back the career politician without any record of building anything. That’s insane.
This is one of the more obvious conclusions I have been able to draw from this election. The numbers are not there for a true-blue conservative candidate from the political class. But many who see Cruz as a savior are just not capable of admitting that these Trump voters had Cruz as a choice and rejected it. They think they were Cruz voters “snaked” by Trump.
I definitely hope Rubio will be on the team somewhere. Personally, I’d be thrilled with a unity ticket. But I want John Bolton for State.
I find Rubio’s knowledge of and seriousness about foreign threats impressive. But, conservatives are divided on the underlying approach, philosophically, with a big faction finding him too like Bush and friends. And, he’s young. And he has young children.
It’s true. All good politicians are salesmen, and at some point, the importance of selling their products will outweigh a bit of fast-and-loose with the facts. All we can do is find the person who does this least, or who is closest, at his or her core, to what we actually believe.
This isn’t always a bad thing. When politicians find that their message isn’t connecting with voters, and they don’t have the salesmanship to tack a little as they sail confidently into the wind, what you get is Jeb Bush, and in many cases, out goes the baby with the bathwater.
But it does get to be a bad thing, if the politician is crazy delusional.
Which is why the spectacle of Donald’s press conference the other night, in which he was surrounded by Trump Wine, Trump Steaks, Trump Magazine and Trump Water is so disturbing.
In an attempt to refute Mitt Romney’s claim that many of Trump’s business ventures have failed, Donald trotted out four products, none of which he, or his company, owns, and none of which are for sale to the public under the Trump brand.
Did this faze The Donald?
Not a bit. He lied his way through it all. And, boy howdy, did he commit. Yes, he owns everything. Yes, you can buy everything, even the steaks (in their inconveniently, ironically named “Bush Brothers” packaging).
Does he believe himself? You bet he does. And his supporters ate it up.
This was a little much, even for the press, and there are now some dainty rumblings emanating from the bowels of the media. The linked article also mentions Trump Airlines, the sale of which Trump described as a “great deal,” (in reality, after defaulting on its hefty debt, the business was sold to USAir) and Trump University (currently facing a $40 million dollar fraud lawsuit).
Now, I couldn’t care less if Donald Trump wants to use his own money, or even that of other gullible people, to further his own ends, as long as his right to do so stops, as the old saying goes, where my nose begins.
When he stands a chance of being elected President, however, that’s not the case.
The OP is right. “Electability isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. ” If it were, and if conventional wisdom were right about that, we’d have had at least four years of President McCain, followed on perhaps with four years of President Romney, who’d now be up for reelection.
This year is different. This year, apparently, the gold standard for electability, on both sides, is world-class, unashamed, delusional lying.
And that’s a doggone shame. For us, and for the country.