With Terrific
(or Terrible) Tuesday now in the books, this week’s edition of Syncopated Politics
is brought to you through the collective wisdom of its readers and sponsored by
the letter M.
I would rather
not dwell much on yesterday’s news, Marco Rubio. One look at a map of Florida shows how
complete his collapse was—he was overwhelmed everywhere except for his home
base. His fall was so steep nationally,
and statewide loss so great, that his future in politics has (prematurely, in
my opinion) been called into question.
Rubio’s demise,
once and for all, finally helps “dispel with the fiction” that this election is
about issues and ideology. We are in a transitional period in American
politics, where political philosophy is a classifier, but personality will be
decisive. Rubio, at bottom, was simply a
brand, a form of packaging. His youth and appeal implied openness, but in fact
he was just another ambitious conservative, virtually indistinguishable on
policy from nearly every other Republican who threw their hat into the ring. Ross Douthat made a very good argument that
Rubio’s loss represents the end of George W. Bush-style Republicanism: a more
inclusive, compassionate conservatism at home and an aggressive neo-con
approach abroad.
I think Douthat
is on to something—large chunks of the GOP electorate have abandoned one or
both sides of the Bush approach—but I don’t think that’s the entire story. Rubio’s ideas weren’t just rejected—it was
Rubio himself that was rejected. The
electorate found him to be the wrong person to attain the goals they had set
for themselves. In short, they didn’t think Rubio was up to
delivering.
Of course, that’s
basic political science, and basic human nature. For all the fine-tuning of
message, with focus groups, and polling, and micro-targeting, it is the
candidates themselves who have to carry it off—they need to project an appealing
but authoritative competence. The voters
must hear that, and they must feel it.
“Feel” is a very
complicated thing. I am not even sure
how I feel, other then a sense of watching my cursor frozen over a GIF of a
train wreck. But, over the last couple
of months, as the fields have winnowed down, I have received a lot of
interesting comments from friends and readers.
Very few of those comments have been strictly ideological, besides a
generic “too liberal” or “too conservative.” Rather, many express an emotional reaction—their
thumbnail description, often in a single word or phrase, of the type of person
the candidate really is—and why they would consider voting for or against them.
I’m going to
start with “mogul”. Why are people
voting for Donald Trump? A lot of it has
to do with who he is, or at least what his supporters think he is, and “mogul”
is his defining characteristic. Trump is
fabulously rich. Trump can buy anything, and is un-bought. Trump says what
he wants, and can’t be shushed. Trump listens to no one. Trump bangs heads together, because that’s
what moguls do to get their way. Trump never has to take no for an answer.
Trump will fix things himself, or he will get good people to fix them, because
a mogul is all-powerful. You might not
always agree with him, or might not like exactly how he does it, but retain
(not hire, a Trump is not “hired”) him as President, and there will be results.
The frantic, disjointed,
and too-late reaction of the GOP Establishment to Trump has its roots in a
fundamental misunderstanding of this appeal. Moguls get what they want, period.
Now, from
another friend, the choice “momser” as applied to Ted Cruz. Momser is not a very nice word (you can look
it up) but it seems apt—Ted Cruz is not a very nice man. Care for more rarified
language? George Will said Cruz was the “serrated edge” of conservatism. Pick Ted Cruz because you like the piety he
tries to exude at every public meeting, or because you think he’s a
“Constitutional Conservative” but acknowledge that Cruz makes it a point of
honor that he’s so disliked by so many. Politico reported that even now, when
he’s trying to consolidate support behind him, he still hasn’t reached out to
his colleagues in the Senate. He has
invited them to “join him” but built no bridges. The promise of a Cruz Presidency is a
continuation of that—a momser President, who will be a momser to his enemies,
both abroad and at home. In a profession
that has more than its share of momsers, Cruz seemingly has no peer.
Two more words: Messy
and Mensch. Often used by the same
people to describe both Bernie Sanders and John Kasich. Messy, as in, couldn’t they get a better
haircut, a suit that wasn’t brown, a more put-together speaking style, even a
more coherent ideology? Mensch, because
underneath all that mess seems to be two decent men, authentic, unscripted, with
good intentions, even though they clearly would go down radically different
paths. People are comforted by Sanders and Kasich, even though they might not
want them as President.
How about Hillary? As might be expected, given the complexity of
people’s reactions to her, two other words, “Mahesefa” and, of all things, PTA
Mom.
Let’s start with
mahasefa, which is definitely not praise. It is hard to find a more polarizing
public figure than Hillary Clinton. There
are a lot of people in this country who cannot stand Hillary Clinton—and not
all of them are Republicans. It’s not
necessarily her policies—it’s just purely chemical. Hillary is the Democratic
Richard Nixon for some—it seems inconceivable that anyone could actually feel different
than you do. My mahasefa friend is
Republican-leaning but not ideological—and he sees something in Hillary that is
dark and even evil. Fair or not, that is
the vibe he gets from her. There is no way to convince this supremely practical,
rational man, otherwise.
Now, to the PTA
Mom part, and perhaps the most nuanced and sophisticated reaction to Hillary
Clinton that I have ever heard out of anyone.
Hillary is the parent down the block who started advocating for a local
Pre-K when she first got pregnant. She was
the one fighting for zoning changes when her toddler was in the wrong catchment
area for the school she wanted him to go to. She got a grant for music and art
in kindergarten. She twisted arms for
extra space and smaller class sizes. Demanded a new middle school be built
because of alleged overcrowding. No
stone unturned, every string pulled, every politician schmoozed, every school
administrator cell number in her rolodex, even down to the people at the DOE
responsible for school construction. We
all know these people—women and men—most highly accomplished in the business
world as well—who just don’t stop and don’t mind being unpopular while not
stopping. Often, we dislike them, but,
at the end of the day, the school raised extra money for enrichments, there was
an assistant teacher in the classroom, and there’s a roof garden that will be
open in the Spring. That’s Hillary
Clinton in a nutshell. Elect her
President, and that’s what you are going to get—an often opaque and sometimes
unlikable person who sweats every detail and will get things done.
Who wins? Mogul,
Momser, Messy Mensch, or Mahasefa Mom? Figuring this election out is like eating alphabet soup with a fork. Put it in and see what
letter comes up. Besides, it seems to be
the only dish on the menu.
Michael
Liss (Moderate Moderator)
Please
join us on Twitter.
