Posted on 01/12/2016 11:36:46 AM PST by Kaslin
"This time I'm actually hearing somebody who's telling me the truth; they're actually going to go in and do something they say they're going to do." -- Ted Cruz-supporter Dave Conger, as quoted in The New York Times, Jan. 10, 2016.
Oh, Mr. Conger, kindly step this way. Which fist I'm showing you has the silver dollar in it? And when that fun is done, shall we consider, you and I, the current availability of the Brooklyn Bridge?
I mock. I know that's not nice. Neither, I submit, is the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency, that awful possibility to be realized through the nomination of a Republican with no chance whatsoever at winning: such as Ted Cruz; such as Donald Trump, with his traveling medicine show.
The New York Times, which wouldn't endorse any Republican right of Elizabeth Warren, can't wait, I am sure, for the second coming of the Clintons. Nonetheless, the Times is helpful in clarifying the -- shall we say -- political naivete endemic in the proposition that a hard-righter, in Times parlance, can pick off enough moderates and independents to actually beat Hillary Clinton. The Times tells us frankly that party "fractures" (righties against establishmentarians) "could help a Democrat win the White House if Republicans do not ultimately find ways to unite."
I couldn't agree more. There's a related issue, however, that suffers from the inattention paid it.
Dave Conger accidentally fingers the issue, which is performance, i.e., "The candidate who says the thing I have been waiting to hear is going to translate words into action." Whence comes this assumption? The American people have endured decades of honest disappointment, some of it generated by the most promising young man of our times, Barack Obama, who was going to heal divisions he has mostly made wider by persistence in policies with marginal support (such as gun control and affordable health care).
A political promise, to put the matter another way, is not quite the coin of the realm. Stuff happens, and you find you can address only so many things. Ronald Reagan was going to abolish the Department of Education. Then new challenges arose. The education department never got abolished. Reagan did other good things, such as cutting taxes and laying the groundwork for the Soviet empire's collapse. It sufficed, more or less.
Wrap Cruz's and Trump's barely visible political experience together in a package; throw in their lack of appeal, thus far, to moderates, independents, and minorities -- and what have you got? A ticket to the Clinton inauguration. How do you keep political promises if you can't get elected in the first place?
The point we can't get our minds around is the near-impossibility of any kind of politician's realizing the varied expectations laid upon him -- or her -- in our varied and multidimensional democracy. It is sometimes hard to know what the American people have in common anymore, aside from a generalized desire on the one hand to be left alone and, on the other hand, the wish to crack the whip over the kind who want to be left alone.
The fly in the buttermilk is, of course, the deep reliance Americans have come to place, since the 1930s, on political solutions for essentially non-political questions, like love and marriage and honesty and personal dignity.
Comparatively few human questions are properly political. Nor are politicians, of whatever political disposition -- not even Ted Cruz, not even Donald Trump -- qualified to address the purely human questions that people under appropriate moral guidance can tackle themselves. That such questions deserve fencing off from politics is the most underrated, under-discussed proposition of any political season.
Instead, Trump -- who couldn't get elected president if his life depended on it -- enumerates all the things we should believe about his political smarts. And Sen. Cruz -- a man more blessed with self-esteem than with mature knowledge of the country he would lead -- lets out his own blasts of indignation. As for almost-President Clinton? All that's left for her to do is smile sweetly -- or maybe not-so-sweetly.
Mr. Muchinsen....Do you not know Hillary is soon to be indicted? I know you will still support her even if she is in a jail cell. Democrats can run a goat and has long as it under the Democratic ticket ....you and other blind lemmings will follow it.
Jeb! .... is that you?
Better get out of your arrogant self important bubble world and start checking the data. Your goddess, Hillary, loses to everyone on the GOP side but the GOP Establishment hero's, Jeb, Kasich and Cristie
How did I just know that the answer to the headline question was going to be “nominate someone other than my preferred candidate(s)”?
Ironically, a Cruz or Trump candidacy may actually mollify this concern, as those on the hard right seem much more determined to stay home if their preferred candidate isn't nominated than those in the center do.
So, as usual, roughly one third of the electorate will vote for the democrat, one third will vote for the republican. It is an overlooked secret that independents often do not tend to break one way or the other -that's why parties put so much effort into turning out their own respective bases. Thus the middle third may be evenly split, but I tend to think that they will ultimately break to some extent for "Not Hillary."
As for "the base" in need of turning out? It is a misconception that these people are ideologues. Some are. But ideologues tend to be the sort of people who do not forget that there is an election going on, or are too lazy to do anything about it. So I do have my doubts that Cruz or Carson would be any more effective at turning out voters.
If you want people to bother showing up to vote, give them someone who they believe can actually win. Luckily, this election is still full of Republicans who can do exactly that.
More Arkancide?
The name of the author is obviously mispelled. The correct spelling is “Munchausen.”
Soooooo, Cruz is a very self-confident man but is a mere child when it comes to leading the country.
And this is what passes for journalism on Townhall? Wasn't Townhall a decent place at one point?
What is a Bill Munchalot? and is she on mental disability?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.