How Ted Cruz might get elected despite his personality
Here’s one plausible scenario. It’s worth reading the whole thing, but here’s an excerpt:
…[T]he assumption is that Cruz cannot improve his image among the broader electorate, but that’s hard to know for sure, because he’s never had to do it. While opinions on Clinton are deeply entrenched after her decades in the public spotlight, Cruz isn’t as universally known and has more of an opening to get a second look.
Cruz would enter the general election campaign with a reputation as an extremist, which the Clinton campaign would do everything to play up. But the risk of such a strategy comes if Cruz is able to defy such a caricature during the election among voters getting to know him for the first time.
To quote Shakespeare’s Prince Hal: “By so much shall I falsify men’s hopes/And like bright metal on a sullen ground/My reformation, glittering o’er my fault/Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes/Than that which hath no foil to set it off.”
In other words, Cruz is less of a known commodity to most voters, and he is therefore more likely to be able to improve his image if he can just soften up just a bit.
First, of course, the nomination would have to happen.
Here’s a sample from Salon of the sort of thing you’ll see from the left if Cruz is the nominee. The left will attack any GOP nominee, of course, but there are different approaches for different people. One of the main approaches his opponents will take against Cruz will be that he’s hated by all as well as being way to the right of practically everyone on earth. But the author of that Salon article also seems worried that Cruz will somehow manage to sustain the pretense of being a normal human being, or some approximation of one, long enough to fool the public into voting for him. That fits in more or less with the quote I gave from the first (pro-Cruz) article, as well—the idea that all Cruz needs to do is to prove he’s more or less human and some of the attacks could be blunted.
I also noticed today that in this Powerline post by Paul Mirengoff a quote from a NY Times article on Cruz:
The Times says that some big donors are put off by Cruz’s personality. They complain that even in private, he comes of as sanctimonious and unable to present a persona that’s appreciably warmer than what one sees on television.
I’ve heard the latter point raised by in Washington who are no less conservative than Cruz. It may be a valid insight. But at this juncture, it’s not a good reason to withhold support from the man who stands between the abominable Donald Trump and the Republican nomination.
As Mica Mosbacher, a Cruz fund-raiser and wife of the late Robert Mosbacher, Secretary of Commerce under George H.W. Bush, puts it, “[Cruz] might not be the most fun to have a drink at the bar with, but America needs a designated driver.”
Putting aside the fact that it’s Trump who actually doesn’t drink, and that Cruz does, the metaphor is so apt that Cruz himself made it at a debate last October:
“If you want someone to grab a beer with, I may not be that guy,” he said, when asked to name a weakness. “But if you want someone to drive you home, I will get the job done and I will get you home.”
So, what does America need—a fun beer companion, or a designated driver? I’ve always been immune to this idea of electing someone based on “likeability,” but I concede that all else being equal it’s a wonderful and very appealing trait for a candidate to have, and it can make up for a multitude of sins. Personally, however, I find Cruz not only more likeable than Donald Trump but more likeable than Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and Kasich as well (Rubio was the generally “likeable” one, but he’s gone). So we have a parade of unlikeables this year, which would seem to put whatever it is that people don’t like about Cruz in some perspective.
What is it that they don’t like? I think it’s that he never really seems spontaneous (not to mention the face). He’s always measured and studied and under strict control. I happen to think those are great traits in a president, but I may not be the least bit typical of most voters.
That Times article quoted by Mirengoff also mentions the word “sanctimonious” being applied to Cruz, and that may be a key as well. This is what the word actually means:
1 : hypocritically pious or devout…
2 obsolete : possessing sanctity
So the word “sanctimonious” has, over time, taken on a suggestion of insincerity and even hypocrisy, but originally it merely meant religious or holy. It’s actually not clear whether those being quoted in the Times article as having said it about Cruz meant that found him overly religious–or hypocritical about his religiosity (there’s no indication in the article of the latter; what it seems to be saying is that he won’t compromise his core beliefs, which is the opposite of hypocrisy). For many people, particularly on the left, either one—actual religiousness or religious hypocrisy—would be bad. But my guess is that sincere belief would be worse to them.
It’s of interest to me that criticisms of Cruz and his religiosity often take the form of contradictory pleadings: he’s way way too religions—and besides, he’s a hypocrite and doesn’t really believe all that stuff. Which is it? The attempts to smear Cruz with accusations of sexual affairs with multiple women was and is an effort to prove that he’s a hypocrite. But the charge that he’s not a hypocrite but is in fact sincerely very religious also works well for those predisposed to not like him. For me, the extent of his religiousness would only be an issue if he were not a small government conservative. But since he’s the latter and I don’t see him as trying to impose his religious beliefs on others through government compulsion, I see no problem whatsoever, and whether I share or don’t share his religious beliefs is irrelevant. Hypocrisy is another question; it could matter. But I have seen no evidence that he’s a hypocrite about his religion.
Would Cruz’s personality hold him back from working well with other people in government were he to win an election? I don’t know, but one thing I’ve noticed is that we haven’t heard about a lot of turmoil among those who are working for him in this campaign. That’s not just true lately, now that he’s doing better, but it seems to have been true even earlier in the game, when he was low in the polls. And the Times article says that he’s well-liked by people in Texas who know him:
He is regarded warmly among Republicans in his home state, Texas, where he has deeper personal relations with a wider portion of the donor class…
When Mr. Cruz appeared recently on “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” the late-night host took note of his patience in winning new friends.
“What you did is, you kind of held out until they found someone that they liked less than you,” Mr. Kimmel said.
“There you go,” Mr. Cruz replied. “Listen, it is a powerful strategy.”
I wish Cruz were a more instantly affable-seeming fellow. Having observed him in person, though, I will say that he came across as quite likeable (“likeable enough”) in a casual venue. Would he wear well over time in a general election? I don’t know, but he’s improved his standing over the course of the campaign so far.
Maybe it’s time for me to start a “Ted Cruz” category on this blog.
[NOTE: In that Salon piece, I found the following rather amusing:
Throughout the interview, this wily Ivy League educated lawyer presents himself as the champion of the working class, the guy whose only concerns lie with the single mom who works as a waitress and the dad who lost his job down to the plant and can’t get ahead.
With a change of pronouns, would that not be a good description of Hillary Clinton as well?]
Could not agree more with neo on this point. I will add this as I have been to three of his events and two were very small.
Ted takes the time to patiently talk with everyone after his speech. There was also a lot of hugging for those that wanted it. I couldn’t do that.
He is also a religious guy. He also has a real appellate lawyer/debater/intellectual vibe. Some people don’t like that. He doesn’t have Rubio-like looks and that smile. Get over it.
Cruz is a good man and people are way, way too hard on him.
Would Cruz’s personality hold him back from working well with other people in government were he to win an election?
“At the FTC, Cruz’s agenda could have been written by Milton Friedman.
Cruz promoted economic liberty and fought government efforts to rig the marketplace in favor of special interests. Most notably, Cruz launched an initiative to study the government’s role in conspiring with established businesses to suppress e-commerce. This initiative ultimately led the U.S. Supreme Court to open up an entire industry to small e-tailers. Based on his early support of disruptive online companies, Cruz has some grounds to call himself the “Uber of American politics.”
Moreover, and perhaps surprising to some, Cruz sought and secured a broad, bipartisan consensus for his agenda. Almost all of Cruz’s initiatives received unanimous support among both Republicans and Democrats.
Ted Cruz a consensus-builder? He was, at the FTC.”
From this article:
https://pjmedia.com/blog/what-no-one-seems-to-know-about-ted-cruzs-past/1/
The only people who will find it difficult to work with Ted Cruz are those with an agenda antithetical to constitutional governance.
Cruz will be attacked on two fronts; his religiousness and as an extreme reactionary. Both can IMO, be easily dismissed.
1) “I am a deeply religious man with no desire whatsoever to impose my beliefs upon another. Each of us must find their own way. Provided that it does not impose upon other people’s rights, I believe in the individual’s right to the pursuit of happiness”.
2) “I believe in constitutional governance and the rule of law. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Lincoln would find no area of disagreement with me. I am on the side of anyone who embraces our country’s greatest men’s beliefs”.
As others have pointed out, and as you alluded to here, Neo —
Ted Cruz doesn’t really need to be likeable. He just needs to be more likeable than Hillary. And, quite frankly, that’s a low bar to clear. Cruz can play hardball when he has to, but Hillary is just plain nasty. And Americans don’t tend to like nasty.
In other words, if it comes down to Cruz vs. Clinton, his job will be to keep his cool while getting her to lose hers. Based on past performance, for both of them, he should be able to do that in his sleep.
More important than “likeability” perhaps are the social issues that the Democrats will spend a lot of time on, especially abortion. Which Cruz is against even in cases of rape. That’s a stand that a large percentage of Americans oppose — 75% in a 2011 Gallup poll.
Daniel in Brookline is right, Cruz will not have any difficulties when it comes to being more ‘likeable’ than hrc. And, he will run circles around her in a debate which even the msm will not be able to cover up. The msm will not be able to do what Crowley did with Romney.
Ann:
He’s personally against it. But he hasn’t suggested he would do anything about it in terms of the presidency. The most he could do, actually, would be to appoint a tough SCOTUS justice if he gets the opportunity. He has stated that he believes states should decide, which is my position too.
By the way, Rubio had essentially the same position as Cruz.
Yes, I know, Neo. It’s just that the Democrats are going to concentrate on his beliefs, not his lack of intention to enforce them as president. And, yes, it was a problem for Rubio too.
Ann:
Agreed. There’s no question it will be War on Women time. No question.
As a general rule, nothing unhinges people more than someone else’s religious devotion.
Democracy
+
the quirks of human nature
=
the pathological fear that someone out there thinks he’s morally superior to me.
That’s why hypocrisy hunting is our national sport. Any time a pastor, for example is found to have done something wrong, you can hear the sighs of relief. It’s like that thing we were all told in elementary school that people tear each other down in order to make themselves feel better about themselves. In the case of hypocrisy hunting, it’s more like accusing other people of being on our level in order to prevent them from looking down on us.
A War on Women! Really? Any Republican should be able to kill Hillary on that one. “Of course there’s a War on Women. Bill Clinton is a four star general and Hillary is his chief of staff. Teddy Kennedy is looking down on them and send his regrets for being unable to participate.”
As for abortion, why isn’t it pointed out over and over that most are performed on poor black women in the ghettos? The number I remember is that half of all black pregnencies are terminated. That’s eugenics or genocide depending on how inflamatory you want to be.
Doesn’t matter who the GOP nominee is, we know the political Left, abetted by their media allies, will find ammunition to attack him. All that matters is how effectively the candidate counters.
I would put my faith in a cool head, with the debate skills to think on his feet, rather than a demonstrated hot head with a thin skin.
From Pride and Prejudice: “One has all the goodness and the other all the appearance of it. Not exactly apt, since Trump is an ass.
Oops, forgot the end quote.
Oldflyer:
“Doesn’t matter who the GOP nominee is, we know the political Left, abetted by their media allies, will find ammunition to attack him. All that matters is how effectively the candidate counters.”
It takes an activist social movement to compete in the arena against activist social movements.
Does the Cruz campaign have a competitive ctivist social movement supporting it?
Oops. Fix: Does the Cruz campaign have a competitive activist social movement supporting it?
The objections I see to Cruz online from people with a variety of political perspectives are very intense and not always about his politics though they tie into his politics. Mainly people are upset by how he looks and there are all these crazy memes out there on FB about his face and how he is the “Zodiac Killer”. This, even from people who are right-leaning. It is strange from right leaning people but the ones I am thinking of are not always conventionally right wing but new to the conservative classic liberal right or more alt-right. They still may vote for him over Trump (except the super alt-right ones who seem to like Trump) but they have reservations because of what they think is a leaning toward theocracy. I don’t see any evidence of theocracy anywhere with Ted Cruz, unless you think being pro life is theocratic or being pro religious liberty is theocratic. Or I guess, defending the ten commandments in a public place. Apparently, there were other religious statues there as well so the ten commandments were not alone. Any way, the ten commandments are kind of universal in a way and who can really argue with them? But any way, I digress. Mainly I see these crazy things about his face being “scary” and making people “shiver” and they have to catch their breath because they are terrified looking at his face. I am not kidding. I think that is over the top but it worries me as far as “electability” is concerned.
The stuff about his looks can be really crazy and I have seen lefties, in this case, carry on for lines and lines of comments about how weird he looks or the secret meaning of his eyebrows! How he must be a troubled man because of his mouth or eyebrows… again, over the top.
I do think Cruz has a striking face that can be seen as either homely or handsome – which is unusual. I like his face but I like his views.
I do think he comes off maybe a bit calculating and needs to loosen up but he has a bit. Some of that may be inexperience, he is young after all and has not been in politics that long. He is very measured in his speech and a talented politician I think, he is very smart and — it shows. I think once people get to know him, they may warm up to him.
One of my friends said that when she reads his views, she thinks, “well I agree, or — I can’t disagree with that…” And she is surprised. She’s not clearly identified any where politically but goes more right than left except on social issues. She also is put off by his face.
Very strange and strong reactions people have to him and of course, the left hates him since he really does represent everything they are against.
I do concur with others here that Hillary is not exactly Ms. Likable. In fact, few like her, even her supporters seem a bit lukewarm and talk about calculating — well, HRC makes Cruz seem spontaneous. He does have strong core principles, which anyone can see, but as for her…
It all depends on whether or not he scares everyone with the religious talk, which puts people who are not evangelicals off. In a general election it may not play well.
So I meant to say, in contrast to Hillary, Cruz may come off as quite likable.
Ligneus: Thanks for the PJ article on Cruz. It was so informative and I posted it to my FB page with tags for my classic liberal friends to see it. I think it just shows what an amazing candidate he really is and how people just are not being informed about what he really stands for and what he has done.
I liked in the comments how one person noted how many organizations Cruz had been in in college and how popular he actually was.
liberty wolf
So I meant to say, in contrast to Hillary, Cruz may come off as quite likable.
Or at least likeable enough.
I cast my first vote for Ted Cruz in the Republican Primary in 2012 after a Yellow Dog Democrat asked me if I were voting for the Teabagger. Anyone who riles up a Demo that much must be doing something right.
Cruz would destroy Obama in a debate.
One of the obstacles Mitt Romney never overcame is that he clinched the nomination early but couldn’t spend in full campaign mode because he wasn’t officially the nominee. That allowed the leftist machine months of defining him without effective counters. If the 2016 nominee is chosen at the convention, not only will the inattentive public get a look at him (sorry Carly, it’s not going to be you) the most positive setting, but he’ll be able to immediately counter attack.
I keep hearing that Cruz is “unlikeable.” Not that it matters to me (the race is for the presidency, not for Miss Congeniality): I’d vote for Bill Lundquist of OFFICE SPACE if he promised to restore the US as a limited-government constitutional republic. But, just for the sake of argument, what makes Cruz so unlikeable? I’ve never noticed it, and compared to Queen Cacklepants even Bill Lundquist is Mr. Likeable.
Bilwick:
I attempted to answer that question in the post.
But I don’t find him unlikable, either. Nor do I particularly care, although it matters in terms of the voting.