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
I sense a lot of jealousy and resentment of Rubio’s for being handsome, well spoken, and likable. I don’t think Rubio got anything easily, I just think he is very talented. His upbringing was not easy, I do not believe. He didn’t go to an Ivy league college. He didn’t inherit a fortune. He didn’t have family connections putting him on a fast track. He earned every office he won and he performed well.
It’s fine if people believe that Cruz is a more conservative guy and a harder worker. But don’t denigrate Rubio for his talent or rationalize Cruz’s weaknesses as strengths. That’s not helpful to anyone.
I would neither say nor think anything like that, Spin. I’m not a policy absolutist. I have sympathies with both immigration restrictionists and the more open borders types. I find the immigration issue vexing and extremely challenging in terms of both policy and principle.
I would say my own general preference is much closer to what I suppose to be Rubio’s real view of the matter than to Trump’s round ’em up and send ’em back rhetoric.
But I resent very much the way Rubio ran on anti-amnesty, anti-path-to-citizenship commitments and then did a complete about face in office.
He ran as a Tea Party insurgent, and then he cozied up with Chuck Schumer. That’s bad. It’s much worse than a mere one-policy difference of view.
I’d still vote for him in a heartbeat over Trump or Kasich, though.
I’d also vote for Kasich (hating it) if he were the nominee. Not Trump.
There’s enough blame to go around. This was a catastrophe with many mothers and fathers.
This can be explained by making a distinction between his actual view on amnesty and his stated view on amnesty.
When you say he could be cast as wanting to take away rights, which rights do you have in mind?
If Trump wins the nomination, it’s a catastrophe. If Cruz wins the nomination, it’s a near-catastrophe with a surprise happy ending.
Wasn’t it also Rubio’s stated position when he ran for Senate? Therein lies the problem for many.
Rubio’s staunch declarations yesterday that he’s not dropping out; that he’s in this for “as long as it takes” are adding to the “empty rhetoric” rap against him.
Of course he’s dropping out. If he loses FL and doesn’t drop out immediately, he’ll be nothing but a spoiler. Many are making a compelling case that he’s a spoiler already, considering that if he had dropped out after Super Tuesday, Cruz would have the lead in delegates today.
Interesting post, Katie. I suspect there is something to the idea that Rubio’s looks and charm meant he didn’t have to work as hard. The flip side of that is that Cruz’ intellect meant he didn’t have to work as hard either. Extremely smart people can be very clever in using words to deflect and misdirect and defend unsound positions or errors of judgment. This happens frequently right here on Ricochet. =)
You’re starting to just sound petty.
Katie, what do you expect him to say? Should he declare before his home-state primary that he is dropping out? In previous states where Rubio did better than Cruz, it would have been easy to see Cruz as the spoiler. Politics.
You now prefer Cruz, and that’s fine. I’ll vote for him if he gets the nomination. But I don’t see him as the perfect candidate, and I don’t think he can beat Hillary. I do think Rubio can.
Cruz’s sophistry is much more dangerous than Romney or Rubio. You are basically blaming them for being wrong. Florida was within 1% of the vote. Well within the ACORN ability to swing it. That wasn’t a lie. LIE another word that has fallen. It has no meaning anymore if you can call what Cruz does honest.
Cruz’s policy is the exact policy he spent minutes railing against spoken in different words. That is sophistry.
The Republican Party has been exposed as completely corrupt this year. I have no idea how I didn’t understand that before, but this is all just a game about power.
The only authentic politicians, if you can call a politician that is Romney, who is you are drawn by some charisma… that is sad because he has none…
And Marco Rubio. He is the absolute only politician who I have seen tell the truth about anything. Trying to actually fix immigration in an honest, straight forward way cost him his career. All of them have the same policy they just lie about it. Rubio refuses to lie about it. They pretend he said things, he didn’t say… and they brought him down with it.
I am certain that this country would have been better off with Romney or Rubio as Commander in Chief.
Cruz is no better than Trump.
Freeven,
If you examine Ted Cruz’s positions, which I don’t believe this OP has, you will see he slices his words very finely. His ethanol position or his position immigration (watch the video of his speech pleading for legalizing the 11 million and then tell me it was trick – he was either lying then or now). Anyway, people who cite the Constitution or the founders often forget that the Constitution was written by many who were deist or agnostic. They wrote of God and natural rights, but they were mostly chastised by the experience of state sponsored religion. So the Constitution is not a document written by God fearing men, in all cases. Ted poses that it was – or postures. He favors certain discrimination based upon religious beliefs – a very slippery slope. His views are likely unconstitutional.
Ted would take away citizenship of Americans who are suspected to be terrorists – a frightening thought. Like his “carpet bombing” comment, Ted works in extremes. He does not moderate himself. His Expatriate Terrorist Act was bizarre and most likely unconstitutional.
He will work hard to limit abortion – and I agree with some of this. But his methods are unconstitutional.
Ted wants the Constitution that he wants, he supports court intervention and legislating from the bench for his positions, and his judgment is bit extreme from time to time.
Hello again. I thought about this post last night, because Cruz is actually quite unlikable to me. I even walked out of the room during his post-debate interview. I don’t know, he just goes on and on about how bad Obama is, and that annoys me because I see left-wing thinking as the problem more than Obama himself. I will vote for Cruz in CA since he will probably be the main anti-Trump candidate, but I don’t want to listen to this guy for 4-8 years if he wins the presidency.
I think I sounded petty to you long ago, B.
You are calling a politician who is trying to exhort and encourage his supporters dishonest for not laying out a cold, hard analysis about the odds. That’s just silly and self-serving.
He could say something like, “If and when I decide to drop out, I’ll let you know. Meanwhile, I’m staying in, because I’m convinced that staying in is the best way to advance the principles and values I and my supporters are committed to.”
He could also say, “I’d like to see Trump drop out. I’d like to see Cruz and Kasich get behind my campaign, because I think it’s the best chance our side has against the Democrats. Nothing is static in politics. Polls are often wrong. I’m taking my chances on the people of Florida, who have stepped up for me against the odds before. Lets see where things stand Wednesday, and let’s remember that the first order of business for conservatives right now is defeating Donald Trump.”
Jeepers, B. You write like empty rhetoric and cold analysis are the only alternatives. Talk about silly.
I had to snip your post due to the word limit.
You didn’t quote me, but I think you were responding to my question about which rights you believe Cruz wants to take away from us. If so, I’m still unclear which rights you are referring to.
You said that Cruz “favors certain discrimination based upon religious beliefs.” Which rights is he going to take away?
You said, “Ted would take away citizenship of Americans who are suspected to be terrorists…” and that this is “most likely unconstitutional.” I’m not familiar with this, so I’d have to learn more before I decide whether its something to be concerned about.
You mentioned “carpet bombing,” but that doesn’t seem relevant to the question of which rights he will take away.
You mentioned that he’d work to limit abortion. Is abortion one of the rights you are worried that he will take away?
Beyond that you mentioned that his “judgment is bit extreme” and that he’s in favor of “legislating from the bench.” Is the worry that he would appoint activist judges?
I’m still unclear as to which specific rights you are worried about Cruz taking away.
Katie, no candidate, none, none ever is going to imply that there is a chance he will drop out of the race. It is stupid politics and total nonsense to expect a candidate to sound equivocal in any way about his chances. Leader exude confidence and put the most positive face on their efforts to inspire those that support him. Seeing this as a defect is again, just silly.
I don’t think you sound petty. Rubio is my guy, and I want him to be President, but it’s high time he got out of the race and threw his support behind Cruz. Not doing so diminishes my belief in his supposed desire to turn the country around.
Cruz has Obama’s experience in the Senate.
He accomplished nothing in the Senate.
He has Obama’s experience in foreign policy.
He has Obama’s command of military strategy (carpet bombing).
He has made more enemies than friends – among the GOP.
He is a stiff, set piece debater – technically good with less appeal – practiced lines and delivery.
He won’t compare well to Hillary for Independents.
His holy roller background is good for winning the nomination, but a negative in the election.
He shut the government down.
He flip flops (see the immigration speech, ethanol, Snowden, metadata)
He plays dirty tricks, but blames subordinates – win at all cost.
He claims to be a true conservative, but people did not vote for Reagan because he was conservative.
Being conservative, a true one, may be a negative in the general election.
People just don’t like the guy.
His physicality is off putting to some (smug, smirk, disingenuous).
This is the best choice we have?
No point in tearing down Cruz, even if his supporters want to crow on the grave of Rubio’s campaign. He is the only option now, so we have to go to war with the general we have, such as he is.
It wasn’t. But it seems to be, now.
Here’s the problem. The left wing and mainstream media will destroy Ted Cruz with a constant barrage of articles like this one. The information in here even gives me pause.
http://bv.ms/1OQ9sM8
duplicate
There is no possible Republican nominee they will not try to destroy.
From the Carlson article in Bloomberg:
“Cruz’s biggest problem, to avoid the L-word, is truthiness. Look him in the eye and get his vote for your bill and learn during roll call that he’s changed his mind. The epithet “liar” has been thrown around during this campaign, but Cruz was an early adopter, breaking a taboo by calling McConnell one — and on the Senate floor. As he crusaded to repeal Obamacare, anyone who warned that was impossible was tarred as a Nazi appeaser.
Cruz went further. Shortly after he came to Washington, he said, “I’m pretty certain Mitt Romney actually French-kissed Barack Obama” and deserved to lose the presidency.
Before he got to the Senate, when he had a minor job with George W. Bush, Cruz’s fingers had to be pried off the handle of his van so anxious was he to have face time with the boss. As Texas solicitor general, he showed no balance. He was so adamant that a kid sentenced to 16 years for stealing a calculator from Walmart serve his full sentence that he took the case to the Supreme Court to be sure the mistake wasn’t corrected. ”