The “Ted Cruz is smart” trap: Why this garbage is false — and dangerous (Preemptive Palin on him?)

The Texas senator convinces all of his enemies to praise his intellect. Here's why they're wrong -- and should stop.

Even Ted Cruz’s critics seem to concur on one point: whatever else you might say about him, the man is very smart. Mother Jones magazine has called him the “thinking man’s tea partier.” Josh Marshall, in a mostly withering assessment, made the same obligatory concession to his being an “incredibly bright guy.” Jeffrey Toobin’s recent, ostensibly critical New Yorker profile of Cruz is full of quotes about his being “the smartest guy in the room,” his “sophisticated” constitutional views, and the “extraordinary” erudition of his senior thesis.

Cruz likely finds all of this very pleasing indeed. In his interview with Toobin, Cruz quotes Sun Tzu, saying that “every battle is won before it’s fought. It’s won by choosing the terrain on which it will be fought.” In getting those who despise him to genuflect to his intelligence, Ted Cruz has already won one battle. Jeffrey Toobin may lace his piece with dismissive sneers, yet somehow he still contributes to the ever-growing heap of liberal respect for Cruz’s mental acuity.

But there’s no reason to keep this up. For one thing, it doesn’t seem especially true. It can’t really be that we think Cruz has a sophisticated mind, given that the only thoughts he produces are angry pants-on-fire platitudinous drivel. Even those who lavish praise on his oratory seem to agree that his heat-to-light ratio nears the infinite, and that “thoughtfulness” and Ted Cruz cannot exist in the same room. His only memorable quotes appear to be cheap jokes, and the most notable speech of his entire career is not his own, but Dr. Seuss’. Nobody who has witnessed a few minutes of Cruz’s piece of senatorial performance art would have thought to label him a thinker, were it not for the preexisting consensus that he is one.

Cruz has become notorious for using distortive, misleading rhetoric that no sober-minded individual could apply. Cruz says Obamacare’s “intent is to destroy the private insurance business,” despite the fact that the whole progressive complaint about Obamacare is that it is a massive windfall to insurers. He says a campaign finance amendment attempting to rein in spending literally “repeals the First Amendment.” But even more alarming are the straightforward factual errors. He has mistakenly claimed that most premiums have risen under the Affordable Care Act and that states with gun control have the highest murder rates, among other elementary blunders that earned him a rating on PolitiFact of 10 falsehoods for every one truth.

One may respond that Cruz is shrewd and knows better, that these are calculated political lies by a devious plotter. But for a savant merely playing an imbecile on television, Cruz is strangely inept when it comes to policymaking. He has alienated all of his colleagues, and wants to revive the gay marriage fight at a time when it couldn’t be more unwise. His major act of strategic maneuvering over the government shutdown proved a colossal high-profile failure, the result of which was that as his name recognition improves, his favorability ratings actually drop. Even the Wall Street Journal has labeled him part of a “kamikaze caucus” that is dooming conservatives’ prospects. If Ted Cruz’s misstatements are deft politicking rather than idiocy, then where, one might ask, are the successes?

Ultimately, though, the most damning evidence against Cruz’s intelligence may actually come from his law school roommate and college debating partner, David Panton. “Ted’s views today politically are almost identical to when I met him,” Panton said. “There’s nothing he says today that I didn’t hear in college.” That assessment, spoken about anybody, should be convincing enough evidence for shallowness of mind. Can there be such thing as a learned person who has discovered nothing new since freshman year?

In fact, the stories about Cruz’s younger days show the marks of someone profoundly insecure about his intelligence. Quizzing others as to their SAT scores, wanting to limit his law-school study group to graduates of the “H-Y-P” schools (a charge Cruz has denied), an unrelenting and discomforting argumentative aggression: He’s missing only a Mensa application to complete the full package of desperate IQ-dork self-affirmations.

Of course, a chorus of people from Cruz’s student years has vouched for his brilliance. No less a heavyweight than Alan Dershowitz has commented on Cruz’s precocity at Harvard. Now, one could somewhat unkindly argue that Dershowitz, too, has in his career relied on people’s confusion of credentials and bluster for depth of intellect. More to the point, though, is that the evidence put forth doesn’t support the claim. Nobody doubts that Cruz has the gift of gab, and can be formidable in an argument. But sophistry is not philosophy, and being the loudest, most driven, and most shameless guy in the room does not necessarily make one the brightest.

Any definition of intelligence is destined to be highly contestable. Yet it is hard to imagine a plausible one that does not include large measures of critical thinking and self-scrutiny. As Bertrand Russell put it, it’s always a central problem that “the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” Intelligence necessitates doubt, for doubt is the origin of wisdom. One whose mind is clamped shut cannot be intelligent, and yet Ted Cruz does not in his life ever seem to have taken on board a single challenge to his worldview.

In fact, the consistent overgenerous assessment of Cruz’s brains may stem from a deeper problem with the values of the elite legal community. If Newt Gingrich is “a stupid person’s idea of what a smart person looks like,” Ted Cruz is a lawyer’s idea of what a smart person looks like. Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post puzzled that someone she had been assured has a “sharp legal mind” could be so blisteringly lacking in common sense. But success in the legal world does not depend on common sense. Ambition and confidence can more than make up for it. Law schools pose as Socratic institutions, where preconceptions are left in tatters on the lecture-room floor, but in practice they reward sparring ability far more than reflection and careful scholarliness (the haphazard, un-peer-reviewed world of law journals can attest to the legal academy’s prioritization of argumentative formalism over a sober-minded quest for enlightenment). A person with one or two core principles, and a ruthless willingness to bend any truth that gets in the way, can do very well for himself at law school. Certainly, this requires skill. But it would be a sad day for the progress of human knowledge if we called it intelligence.

Cruz’s outsize ambition means that this narrative makes a difference. So long as those who oppose him nevertheless dutifully incant praises to his intellect, Cruz has them right where he wants them. Josh Marshall summed up the opinion surrounding Cruz as “Arrogant ***hole, Super Smart.” But who cares about being called an “arrogant ***hole,” so long as they admit you’re super smart? ***holes finish first, don’t they? That kind of consensus makes the haters seem petty and lets Cruz keep playing the scholar. The key is to admit what is obvious from a few minutes of listening to him. The man is arrogant, but he doesn’t actually seem very smart.

If the loveliest trick of the devil is to convince you he doesn’t exist, the most incontestably brilliant trick of Ted Cruz is to convince you of his incontestable brilliance. There’s no need to keep falling for it.

Did you know that General of the Armies Dwight Eisenhower, the man who successfully managed the greatest amphibious invasion in history and followed that up with the successful "Crusade in Europe" all the way to the unconditional surrender of Germany, was really too stupid to be president of the United States?

I was solemnly assured of this reality as a young child in two election campaigns by supporters of Adlai Stevenson who was regarded by every liberal who drew breath to be light-years smarter than poor bumbling "Ike," the general who could seldom contrive to put together an intelligible English sentence.

Why do liberals persist in arguing that all Republican candidates for the presidency are stupid (with the exception of Richard Nixon who was evil) while all Democrat candidates border on genius? Are you old enough to remember that John F. Kennedy was a speed reader who could read a book in an hour? I remember that, I also know that it was false. Nixon, actually, was a man possessed of a much higher IQ than John F. Kennedy. We were told that Presidents Ford, Reagan and both Bushs were really not very bright, in fact quite stupid. But Barack Obama is a near genius who dazzles his staff and administration with his brilliance and in fact is so intelligent that the presidency bores him. Likewise, Bill Clinton knew the details of matters better than his briefers. So the man who was stunningly intelligent was stupid enough to endanger his presidency and his country by being fellated under the Presidential Desk and masturbating into the oval office Annex sink.

Why liberals behave this way is obvious from Bill Clinton, liberals put little or no value in a candidate's character, they cannot after all if one looks at the characters of their elected presidents post-World War II:

John F. Kennedy: pathological womanizer, cynic, drug abuser;

Lyndon B. Johnson: indiscriminate womanizer, corrupt, demagogue;

William Jefferson Clinton: pathological womanizer, rapist, serial abuser of women, proven by his own DNA to be a perjurer, corrupt, demagogue;

Barack Obama: Liar, communist, race baiter, hater of America.

Unable to present candidates who can run on their character, the left resorts to fantasies about their candidates' intellects and to traducing the intelligence of their opponents such as we see in this article concerning Ted Cruz.

But there is a deeper more visceral need in leftists to exaggerate the quotient of intelligence one way or another depending on the political affiliation of a candidate and it has to do with a whole series of psychological needs of liberals.

First, Dennis Prager is right, our politics are influenced by our judgment whether man is essentially good or not. That decision, usually quite unconsciously made, comes as a direct result of whether we believe in God or not, especially the Judeo-Christian concept of God. Liberals overwhelmingly do not believe in God and they substitute a fixation on pseudoscience which they proclaim to be actual science. In a world without God, man is God and character, as defined to be alignment with God's Order, is irrelevant and certainly inconvenient.

Second, the the saying is quite correct, the man who does not believe in God will not believe in nothing, he will believe in anything. This vacuum has to be filled and the leftists' psyche invariably fills it with a superhero. That is why failed socialism is never blamed on the inherent fallacies of the doctrine but on the wrong socialists being in charge. This time our candidate is the right socialist and socialism at last will be properly managed. Hail Caesar!

Third, the nonbeliever is a nonbeliever because he is a God player and to believe in God inconveniently gets in the way of this lust for infinite power. The left ceaselessly whores after the new Messiah who will play God on a grand scale. To leftists bent on social engineering, society is nothing more than a giant Skinner box and the man in control of the levers in that box controls society. They want a godlike player to play God.

In the service of this soul sickness, leftists have no regard for matters of character and are quite free to lie and slander in order to elect their Messiah who will finally bring us utopia. We see this phenomenon egregiously at play in this article by this puerile author.

It was a huge mistake to outlaw spanking in schools.

Robinson cites Senator Ted Cruz’s assertion that “states with gun control have the highest murder rates” has “earned him a rating on PolitiFact of 10 falsehoods for every one truth.” The murder rates will occur irrespective of the amount of gun control. Even if a gun control law reduced firearm-related murders and suicides, it would mean nothing if people intent on committing murder and suicide achieved their objectives by other means. Also, the statistics report all gun violence and do not differentiate deaths due to self defense. In states with the highest gun ownership, the use of guns to commit violence is discouraged. Washington, D.C. has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. And yet again, the gun murder rate remains dramatically high, the highest in the United States in fact.

This tells us that Senator Ted Cruz has looked at the gun-control issue with a perceptive mind. It is Nathan J. Robinson who failed to look at the statistics with a perceptive mind.

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.