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
Sounds like a hit job to me.
More:
“It’s hard to choose Cruz’s worst piece of behavior, but accusing Senator Chuck Hagel of treason during his hearings to be confirmed as secretary of defense could take the cake. He kept saying that Hagel was corrupted by money from enemies of the U.S., particularly North Korea. Members of his own party were appalled.
He brought his temperament to his campaign. He photo-shopped a picture of Rubio to look as if he were warmly shaking Obama’s hand at the Capitol. Nor were those who know him shocked that his campaign spread a false report that Ben Carson was dropping out of the race in Iowa so that he could pick up those votes. He won dirty. Two weeks ago, he had to fire Rick Tyler, a top aide, for an ad claiming that Rubio was faking his respect for the Bible.”
Sure the media will do this to any Republican candidate, but Cruz is a particularly rich target with his persona and history. Regular folk will be turned off and turn away.
It is what a Cruz candidacy would invite. It would be relentless. Honestly, neither Rubio nor Kasich would have been such easy targets for vilifying.
Bkelley, it will be a bloodbath. I think, sadly, Kasich has a better chance of beating Hillary.
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. “
Is this even remotely true?
You see, Katie, I believe strongly that charisma and its accompanying “electability” is very very important to a general campaign, and that Cruz will lose out because of the lack thereof.
But, then, I don’t think he’ll be the nominee anyway. It will be Trump. And I say that with deep deep despair.
Glad to hear you saying good things about Cruz. I used to have the impression that you didn’t care for him.
It’s amazing to find out that there are people who still haven’t learned this.
We all know it. But Cruz’s lack of charisma, or whatever term you prefer, will make him the easiest mark of the four candidates.
That was my point exactly, Liz. Thanks for clarifying.
Just the opposite is true. Cruz’s so-called lack of charisma will make it harder for baseless charges to stick, because he isn’t handicapped by the desire to be liked by them.
It’s not dependent on whether Cruz wants to be liked. The media will go after him relentlessly and will destroy his chances with moderate Republicans, with Trump supporters, and with independents. This man is not even winning his natural constituency, the evangelicals. They will stay home and Hillary will win.
Yes, it is dependent on whether Cruz wants to be liked. The media will go after every R with whatever vindictiveness is needed to beat them. The substance of the charges is irrelevant. The only important variable is the one under our control, and that’s whether we want to be liked by the media. Cruz is one of the few politicians who understands that. Others have failed to use the evidence that’s been in front of their faces for decades.
This is the type of rationalizing Cruz’s weaknesses into strengths I was referring to earlier.
What matters is what voters will believe and how they will vote.
And that depends on whether the candidates accept the characterization of the media, or go over the heads of the media.
I find that notion quaint. Yes, Cruz will fight back more than, say, Romney did. How will he go over the heads of the media? He has a difficult time convincing people in his own party that he is the right choice. I agree with the man on most issues, and I am grudging at best in my support.
There are not enough conservatives to win the election on those votes alone. After the media is through with him, their numbers will be smaller. I don’t see him getting independents or Reagan Dems, if such people still exist. People will stay home, as they did with McCain and again with Romney.
Then by all means we should reject Cruz and choose the next McCain or Romney in the queue.
I think you’re missing my point, Reticulator, which is that contrary to what Katie asserts, electability does matter. I don’t want another Romney. I want someone with political skill who can attract new voters, because that is what it will take. I mostly agree with Cruz, but I don’t completely trust him, and I do not enjoy listening to him. This is a sad fact. Of course, you can never please everyone, but I have heard this identical complaint over and over, from conservatives and non-conservatives alike. It is a problem he may not be able to overcome.
A. I didn’t say electability doesn’t matter, only that “electability” is not all it’s cracked up to be.
B. Romney was touted by the same Republicans who prefer Rubio as the most electable Republican in the field—maybe since Reagan. Conservatives were told to get over their doubts and their disagreements with his policies; he was the only one who could win. Then he lost.
I think it’s reasonable to suppose that key to his losing was the fact that he was unreliably conservative.
Cruz is unattractive physically; his mannerisms grate; he’s not as smooth or appealing as Rubio. But he’s actually highly principled, capable, and consistently conservative. That has an appeal of its own, especially when Hillary Clinton is the alternative.
I’ve heard the same thing, and that made me desperate enough to actually watch a few video clips of him – something I hardly ever do. My conclusion is that these people are wrong, but most likely they are consciously or otherwise internalizing the message portrayed by the media. Since I don’t watch television I am going to see this differently than others do, and am going to act accordingly.
Others can live in their artificial world, but I am not going to join them.
Well, saying “electability isn’t all it’s cracked up to be” isn’t the same as saying it doesn’t matter.
Electability does matter. It is ill-defined, however, with candidates being deemed “electable” turning out not to be so – and therefore, conversely, some hope of the “unelectable” turning out to be more electable than thought.
Lacking an important trait makes it harder, but not impossible, to pull off success in a field. Not all mathematicians, for example, are good at arithmetic, which is a handicap, but not an insurmountable one if other skills compensate. Admittedly, lacking that “popularity contest” element in politics – particularly in a bid for the Presidency – is a far worse handicap. But clearly, having that “popularity contest” element isn’t everything, either, or Rubio would have done better.
I’m not sure what you mean by “artificial world.” My impression is my own, based upon my own experiences of watching him over the years. I’ve watched him on the Senate floor, doing impressions, at debates, at rallies, etc.. I watched the “Leaked” video which was well done but still not wholly convincing.
In my non-expert view it comes down to this: can he count on conservatives and moderates to stay with him, and will he have any success with independents and Democrats?
Consider for a moment Rubio’s answer at the debate on social security, and compare it to Cruz’s. They were almost identical in wording and intent. With me, they’re preaching to the choir, and yet I found myself annoyed at Cruz’s formulation. Anecdote. I know. But it is an undeniable Cruz problem.
Agreed. I always say it’s a perfectly reasonable thing to factor in to personal decisions, but it’s so subjective as to make it counterproductive as a subject for general discussion and debate.
Putting all immediate considerations aside, one reason I’d like to see Cruz win the nomination outright is to put to the test the theory that Republicans lose because they don’t put forward sufficiently conservative candidates. If Cruz can win the general, with his perceived lack of likeability and charisma, it would be an interesting data point in that ongoing discussion.
As one of the few people who instinctively disagrees, does looking at him this way help?
I can’t pretend that I’m not a little odd for finding something unusual or striking about a face more interesting, and therefore more attractive to me personally, than purely conventional good looks. But Cruz’s quirks of mouth, nose, and eyebrow remind me so powerfully of a puffin’s that I can’t find them ugly.
Yes, you’re right. I should maybe have said he’s not conventionally attractive, which doesn’t mean that he’s in no way attractive. The fact that he doesn’t seem to care much about his looks is, to me, a definite plus.
And I see what you mean about his face being interesting. I think the Ted Zeppelin and Motley Cruz pictures are hilarious. It wouldn’t work with Rubio’s face.
I can’t say I see the puffin in him, though.
Anyone who knows the facts of this case knows how absurdly untrue that characterization is. It is a blatant smear.
One must approach this article assuming all the other assertions are similar smears until proven otherwise.
No, it’s not even remotely true. Not a “kid”. Not sentenced to 16 years “for stealing a calculator from Walmart” (that should be a pretty big tipoff right there). Most importantly, Cruz did not take the case to the Supreme Court to keep him in prison. The issue was a technical legal one, which Cruz won and for which he was roundly praised as a matter of criminal justice. The facts of the case are molested beyond recognition, as is the nature of Cruz’s involvement. This is such a wormy hit job, the author should ever be tarred by it.
Margaret Carlson we know has long been a rape-enabling toady. But note too the judgment of David Brooks, who reveals himself to be either incredibly scummy, or incredibly incompetent.