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
What are the facts of the case?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429777/ted-cruz-christianity
http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2016/01/an-nyt-hatchet-job-on-ted-cruz.html
http://ethicsalarms.com/2016/01/12/david-brooks-dirty-hit-on-ted-cruz-how-pundits-lose-credibility/
Note you don’t even have to believe that Cruz is a good person to find Brook’s account implausible.
How plausible is it that SCOTUS would even hear a case that wasn’t about some important point of procedure, and instead was just some stubborn Texans’ digging their heels in on an error in order to perpetrate a vicious vendetta against some kid? On the remote chances SCOTUS would hear such a ridiculous case, what would be the chances of the case being won?
It does seem that way. Sure, we shouldn’t be blind to the fact that the story of the case can be molested like this – and that, if Cruz is our nominee, it undoubtedly will be, many times over. But it’s not a particularly plausible molestation, even if you don’t care much for Cruz.
True, but as katievs has pointed out, they’re gonna do it to whoever the GOP nominee is. I supposed it would be nice to think that Cruz’s history makes the easiest pickings, but I think that’s wishful thinking.
For me it’s not nice to believe that Cruz’s history makes the easiest pickings. Indeed, I hope that claim is proven wrong. Nonetheless, it’s a claim I take somewhat seriously, considering the trusted friends I know who are neither dupes nor liars making it.
But taking it seriously needn’t mean conceding defeat in advance. Rather, I’d like the opposite to happen – for acknowledgement of image problems to be the first step in mitigating them.
I don’t think any of us hasn’t learned that. Yes, they will try. That doesn’t mean that their success with this tactic doesn’t vary with the candidate. I don’t know if The Art Of War included the admonition that if you know where your enemy will attack, you must choose and position your forces to defeat that attack. If it didn’t, I’m saying it now.
You’re right that their success with the tactic will vary with the candidate and his respective strengths and vulnerabilities.
Sarah Palin was successfully destroyed at least in part because she really was deficient in rhetoric, knowledge and experience.
Reagan was just as relentlessly tarred as a war-mongering dunce, but it failed in his case, because he wasn’t.
I have good hope that the reality of Cruz—his abilities, his history, his positions, his associations, etc.—will prove more than up to overcoming the coming media assault.
You never know until the event of course. But to me he seems a better bet than any of the others.