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
Just as we sometimes discover that your first impressions were off—the charm was mere window dressing (which I don’t think true of Rubio or Romney), we sometimes have the opposite experience, viz. that someone we initially disliked and mistrusted, turns out to be a great person on further acquaintance. I’m hoping this will be the case with Cruz and the general electorate.
It is completely obvious. But you fail to draw the obvious conclusion. Trump has already divided and destroyed the Party. You’re right that Trump supporters are not going to flock to Cruz, but believe me – the sane (or, if you prefer, “establishment”) wing of the Party is not going to flock to Trump.
Hillary is going to be President. In a sense, that is Trump’s fault. But the real blame goes on the burn, baby, burn wing of the Party. They decided to burn the Party down, and Trump was their instrument. I hope they are proud of themselves.
Can’t agree. I think Cruz was right to sense that there was a big chunk of voters who couldn’t abide Romney, but who could be won to the conservative side by someone more like them.
He didn’t predict Trump. No one did. And the surprise was that that chunk of voters turns out to be more protectionist and populist than evangelical.
Still. They’re not a monolith. Many Trump fans would go with Cruz (not Rubio or Kasich), I’m sure, if it comes down to him and Hillary. Consider, for instance, that the talk radio crowd fueling Trump would certainly be on board with Cruz.
People here abhor Trump because we’re devoted to conservatism. Trump supporters aren’t into politics like we are.
Electibility isn’t everything, but neither is being creepy looking.
As a point of order, or something, let me just say: we require them to lie. They lie because we really want them to. Rubio’s position (or perceived position) on amnesty is a perfect example of why.
Katie, do you have any examples of this? Rubio has attacked Trump on the issues just as much — if not more — as Cruz has. Yes, he also hurled some insults, but Cruz mocked Trump, too (“Count to 10, Donald, count to 10. I know it’s hard.”).
Which deflections and platitudes has Rubio used in debates? Because on foreign affairs, for example, I see Rubio giving detailed explanations of how we can defeat ISIS, recognizing such facts as, yes, the Kurds will fight, but they will do so only to protect themselves. They will not take on the whole burden themselves. Rubio recognizes that a Sunni problem can be solved only by Sunnis, but that we will have to be involved, too. This is the general consensus of military experts.
Cruz’s non-answer to date has been: arm the Kurds, “carpet-bomb,” get the heck out.
Question: do you believe Cruz can beat Hillary?
Agreed. We both require them to lie, and also require that they not lie “too much”, for various values of “too much”, depending on the perspective of the voter.
Like, in a gun fight? Probably. But I don’t think he’ll beat her in the race to the White House.
Liz, it’s certainly true that Rubio doesn’t only use deflection and platitudes. He’s no mere politician. He’s got policy chops.
But on Gang of 8 questions, for instance, he often deflects and distracts. When it comes to his dwindling chances, he pretends polls are unimportant.
Cruz does this too, sometimes, like all politicians. But whereas Cruz’s basic strength (imo) is command of facts combined with consistency of principle, Rubio’s core strength is charm and rhetorical skill plus basically conservative views.
What amazed me was the way Senator Mondale could strike a pose for the camera just before the flashbulb went off. (This should help date the scene for you.) I was sitting behind the news photographer, and Mondale was giving a speech. He was not looking in our direction, but every time the photographer pulled the trigger, Mondale had struck a nice 3/4 profile pose with his presidential-looking jaw leading the way. It was amazing to watch, but it was also the first time I had attended such an event.
Not only too much, but in a particular way. Some “lying”, for instance, is more like “sketching a hope”. We get that they have to do that.
Other lying is different in kind. Like saying you support natural marriage or will repeal Obamacare, and then doing the opposite once in office.
Cruz is about a year older than Rubio. His oldest daughter is the same age as as Rubio’s youngest.
How does Rubio’s age and familial status affect his ability to conduct foreign policy?
I don’t see him as a neo-conservative Bushie. He clearly believes that America has to be engaged in the world, or the resulting vacuum will be filled by those seeking to do evil. The truth of this has been made abundantly clear by the effects of Obama’s retreat from our engagements and our allies. But I have never seen Rubio advocate any kind of nation-building, nor does he seem to believe that it is our duty to promote democracy everywhere.
I can’t take the poll issue seriously. All politicians do that when their numbers drop. (As an aside, the polling is bonkers this season, as we saw with the Dems in MI, and as we see with starkly disparate GOP polls in FL.)
I disagree with your characterization of his defense on the Gang of 8. I think he should have done more to explain why he thought it necessary to get involved in that bill. He should have attacked the Dem/Chamber of Commerce policies of enticing and encouraging people in. I know this is a major issue for many, but I heard Rubio say loud and clear, over and over, that the border had to be secured before any action to to regularize illegals could be taken. Isn’t this also Cruz’s position?
I agree with this. I do think it’s more likely that traditional Republican voters vote for Trump than the Trump voters rallying to Cruz. It’s a continuum, not black or white, and in the continuum, the traditional impetus to vote and pull the R lever by the right will be a greater pull than the aversion to Trump. I am also on the record stating that Trump would win the general against Clinton. I still think that is true, but I recognize that is a contrarian opinion.
But this just highlights the point I have been trying to make on these forums for weeks now.
Namely this: What Trump has done is show us that there is actually no path for a conservative candidate to win in the current electorate. That split existed in prior elections and Trump just saw it and capitalized on it, making it thus obvious to all. If Trump did not exist and Cruz won the nomination, he would have lost the general just like Romney did and we would all be scratching our heads still. The burn baby burn crowd didn’t do anything except make it obvious that this problem already existed.
We keep blaming Trump, or Cruz or Rubio or the Establishment but fundamentally, the problem is that the Republican Party needs to compromise with itself in order to build that coalition. In order to do that, as sad as it is for me to admit it, we need to incorporate some of the policies and concerns, and temperament, culture and attitude, of the Trump voter. Which means we need to be LESS conservative until those voters are in the tent, at which point we have a chance of changing their minds. I even hate writing it. But it cannot be ignored anymore.
Here is Michael Barone saying essentially the same thing today.
So when I hear people talk about how it would have been better if we had all backed Cruz first, or Rubio first, and consolidated, I get angry as that indicates we haven’t learned anything. Early consolidation around one of the other candidates would have resulted in 2012 all over again, and nothing learned.
This is a healthy (and painful) process.
Especially in foreign policy, experience tells. Life experience. Experience dealing with foreign leaders.
Having young children doesn’t mean you’re incapable of conducting foreign policy. It means you’re needed at home more than someone who doesn’t have young children.
Some people don’t care about being around for their children, but I don’t think Rubio is one of those. Secretary of State is the worst job imaginable from that point of view. Far worse than President.
You don’t, but a lot of conservatives do.
Agreed. People react differently to different sketches of hope, of course. Just as they react differently to different (over)simplifying analogies.
I remember the first time I gave a math lecture to a mostly-lay audience asking my advisor, “How do I make sure the lies I tell them about what’s really going on don’t lead them too badly astray?” He knew exactly what I meant.
People also differ on which kind of lying is most reprehensible. For some, Trump’s language is so obviously fantastic that it seems like less-bad lying than the language of a guy who they believe proposes things equally fantastic when you get into the policy details, but does so in more sober language.
Heck, the willingness to be disinhibited strikes some as “telling it like it is”, perhaps because we all know what it’s like to be inhibited from saying what we really think. Whether the product of the disinhibition is truthful or not seems to matter less to those who read the disinhibition itself as signalling truth. In contrast, the very buttoned-down and circumspect (or at least those capable of very precise use of language, even if they don’t always go for precision) seem “shifty” by comparison.
We need to be more populist. That doesn’t have to mean being less conservative, although there are a lot of people with tunnel vision or self-imposed blinders who will want it to mean being less conservative.
James, I don’t follow every tweet or utterance of the candidates. If he said this then either it’s a contradiction, sabre rattling, bidding, or a value marker. All valid activities (with the exception of contradictions) during a campaign. His website doesn’t mention it, and his debate pronouncements have tended to support what he has on his website: the general problems are currency manipulation, intellectual property infringement, trade barriers to US goods, domestic conditions unfavorable to domestic employment. The solutions to these are all dependent on negotiation and a willingness to walk away or even feel some temporary pain. The exception is the domestic conditions which he addresses with conservative type prescriptions.
Ah. I thought you meant it could be an issue for him as President. I don’t think he would accept Secretary of State. He is definitely a family man. Cruz is, too, but his wife is an ambitious career woman, whereas Jeanette is a stay-at-home mom.
That’s a strange way of looking at things. People vote their mind, and that’s only “requiring” a candidate to tell you lies if a candidate thinks winning is the only thing and the truth doesn’t help his case.
Personally, I think truth is almost always more effective anyway. in Rubio’s case, if he really had a change of heart then a sincere mea culpa would go down smooth coming from a good looking guy most people want to like. But he hasn’t really changed his mind, so a forthright admission would be more welcome than awkward evasion.
To my point that Cruz may well turn out to be more electable than anyone would have predicted (going by first impressions and “affect and mien”), he apparently blew away Frank Luntz’s polling group last night.
More here.
The hell of politics is that who wins and by how much influences what the truth will be. If campaign “promises” function more as opening bids than as statements of what’s possible, voters quite sensibly may not want to hear literal promises – literal honest predictions about what the candidate believes he’ll end up doing.
My experience is that a literal-minded honesty can be a hassle for all concerned, unfortunately. Now, perhaps others are born with a less literal-minded sense of honesty to begin with. But for those of us born with it, it can be unhelpful not only to our own interests, but also to others’.
If a politician apologizes that apology will be used against him to the end of time. Better to just move on and let one’s deeds speak.
I’ve been saying many of the same things you say, and I agree with you. However, I disagree on a few pieces:
1) the idea that Trump is not a conservative is overblown. Overblown so much that he must be a fascist or a progressive in reality. The positions that he’s consistently communicated as represented by his campaign website are least significantly overlapping conservatism. Even his trade policy. Protecting US interests against non-free practices by our partners does not equal central planning.
2) I don’t agree that Trump proves a conservative can’t win the current electorate. Rather I think it proves that white papers and just the right positions aren’t nearly enough – you need someone who can connect. I think it proves more that none of the candidates were the “right” one able to make broad connections to diverse groups of voters. I also think that the disconnect between party leadership and big chunks of party followers was large and neglected for too long.
Concrete examples of my own sense of honest and dishonest politicians:
When Cruz says he will “carpet bomb ISIS” into oblivion, I don’t take him to be announcing military policy, but repudiating Obama’s disastrous Rules of Engagement and minimalism in recognizing ISIS as a force of evil in the world. I really hope and expect that a President Cruz wouldn’t carpet bomb Syrian cities, regardless of collateral damage to innocent civilians. I think it’s a hope justified by his general political philosophy and ethical principles.
Same goes for when he says he will “abolish the IRS.” I don’t take him to mean he will literally abolish it, but rather that he will gradually render it comparatively insignificant.
On the other hand, I thought Rubio’s about-face on amnesty was a real betrayal of his supporters. I thought Mitch McConnell deliberately misled Kentucky Republicans when he promised to repeal Obamacare and fight other aspects the Obama agenda.
Some “lies” are short-hand, hyperbolic expressions of real views; others are pretenses, meant to deceive.
I’m not talking about being literal. I’m talking about admitting what you think is best whether or not it’s popular, not adsmitting what you’ll likely end up doing.
In this particular case, they’re one and the same anyway. Rubio will not end up abandoning his immigration position or else he would have a long time ago.
And other people get the exact opposite sense of which is pretense and which isn’t. It’s a funny world, innit?
I agree with these two points and its well said, with one caveat. On the second point, I would point out that there really hasn’t been a conservative who could make that connection since Reagan. I think the reason for that is because there are a few key parts of the conservative platform that will just never work for the Trump voters. Trade is one. I don’t think these voters, for cultural reasons, would accept an overtly religious candidate either. Remember, Reagan used the evangelical movement, but personally, he was very quiet on his own religion. Other reason is that the individuals we put forward are culturally foreign to these voters.
You know why he does that? Because if he tells you how he really feels about immigration reform, you will say “Nope, he’s nothing but a rino communist thug, won’t vote for him.” One policy issue disagreement, and he’s dead to you. The royal you, I mean.
The funny thing is, half the people who don’t like Rubio because of Gang of Eight tell me that his view on amnesty has always been Amnesty and Path to Citizenship. And the other half told me he said one thing, but did another. So which is it? I dunno…