StSA–Cruz, That Speech, and His Comparative Prognosis

With the Democrat nomination probably sewn up in the (slightly horrifying) form of Hilary Clinton, it’s not a surprise that all the attention is on who the GOP nominee will be. While there are 10 or 12 people expected to declare their intention to run for President, there’s only really one who has officially tossed his hat in the ring: Ted Cruz.

A first-term Senator from Texas, Cruz has been a sort of rising star for a few years now, and is mostly known among low-information voters as a key player in the government shutdown of 2013. For those who have been paying a bit more attention, the fiery rhetoric and uncompromising religious principles of the Senator are those traits at the front of one’s mind.

Regardless of how one sees him, his announcement at Liberty University this week was nothing if not expected. But as much as I like the Senator on paper — fixing the tax code, doing away with the disastrous Common Core, abolishment of Obamacare, etc — I do have some reservations that keep me from being as enthusiastic about Cruz as I’d like.

The first is probably trifling, but still stays in the back of my mind — Cruz’s past occupation as a lawyer. Now, there are thousands of good, honest, upright, hardworking lawyers out there, or so I’ve been told. But it is a profession favored by Presidents, probably due to the fact that lawyers tend to like being paid attention. That’s not a bad thing, mind. But it does bring me to a major niggling doubt:

Why does Ted Cruz want to be President? Read that sentence 3 times: once with the emphasis on “Why”; once with it on “Ted Cruz”; once with it on “President”. Is it, like he says, that he wants to make life better for Americans? I don’t doubt that at least part of it is — that’s the Christian side of him coming out, I suppose, with the whole “do unto others” and “love thy neighbor” edicts. But why now, when he’s only been involved in national politics for a few years? Why Ted Cruz, who isn’t as well-equipped, financially speaking, as old political men like Jeb Bush (and please don’t take that as an endorsement of Jeb. Please). And why President?

Another qualm I have might be superficial, I grant you, but I find it important. I read Ted Cruz’s announcement before I heard it; I was at a school thing when it came out, so I could only read, rather than watch. And I was mildly impressed by it; while a little heavy on imagining and less heavy on the hows, that’s not really what an announcement of intent if for, I’ll grant. It was overall a good window into the political views of Cruz, views that have been presented on the floor of the Senate again and again.

And then I heard it. And…I really wasn’t left with a lot of confidence in him, honestly. Yes, it was delivered without a teleprompter — but only in this political climate, where the commander-in-chief can’t speak to a group of kindergarteners without reading it off a screen, would that be a huge deal, rather than a given. But honestly, the all-knowing almost-smirk coupled with the numerous agonizing pauses (seriously, man, just finish a sentence), didn’t inspire me to back him anymore than I already was, having read the speech.

The speech took me 2 minutes to read. It took 32 minutes to watch. That’s a rather large discrepancy, I’m just saying.

It’s probably well known that I have 2 favorites for the 2016 race, with neither one being Senator Cruz. And they have experience on him, to be blunt. Senator Cruz is a one-term senator from a very red state; can he actually walk that line between bipartisanship and rolling over (a la the disastrously gullible Rubio vis a vis immigration)? Before that, he was involved in law — which is possibly the most isolating bubble in the country.

Can he stand up to the executive experience and political savvy that Wisconsin’s Scott Walker has? Can he beat the hard-working-yet-philanthropic, no-nonsense demeanor of Kentucky’s Rand Paul?

I don’t know the answer to that. And I don’t know how well Walker or Paul (or any of the myriad other prospective candidates) will stand up to Cruz’s sob-worthy backstory and infectious energy.

But what I do know is that this primary season is shaping up to be even more interesting than I thought it could be.

And that’s something to scream about.

StSA–Julius Caesar

The other play in the running for my favorite Shakespeare play (and certainly the best of his tragedies), Julius Caesar is a masterpiece for many reasons, but the one I’m interested in is its rhetoric. Thus, even though we have the great Caesar, the ‘honorable’ Brutus, and the ‘lean and hungry’ Cassuis, my favorite bits of the play always include Antony and his speeches.

Antony manages to turn the public’s opinion with possibly the most sarcastic speech in the history of sarcastic speeches, to bring about the death of those who killed Caesar, and to still make me root for him throughout all his political machinations. Even though he expresses contempt and ridicule for those who killed Caesar, he is still able to recognize virtue in Brutus (whom he previously derided as an “honorable man”) and gives us my favorite Shakespeare quote of all time:

This was the noblest Roman of all

All the conspirators, save only he,

Did that they did in envy of great Caesar;

He only, in a general honest though,

And common good to all, made one of them.

His life was gentle; and the elements

So mix’d in him that Nature might stand up

And say to all the world, This was a man!

Beautifully written, and electrifying to hear if you’re lucky enough to have a capable actor playing Antony.

Of all Shakespeare’s tragedies, Julius Caesar is one of two that doesn’t attempt to cloak itself (to great effect, 9 times out of 10) in a veil of utmost misery; to make you feel that nothing could ever be right again. Instead, it produces a feeling that the errors of men drive the world, for better or for worse. We don’t know how Rome would have turned out if Caesar had indeed been crowned king; we don’t know what tornadoes that butterfly might have created. But Shakespeare’s job isn’t to explore that; it’s to lend an air of humanity to an event (and its subsequent events) that achieved an almost mystical quality by the time we got to the 1600s.

Julius Caesar is breathtaking in its clear-cut, realistic portrayal of humanity and of the nature of man. We still have politicians like Cassius, a few like Brutus, and perhaps one or two in a century like Caesar. We have Rhetoricians like Antony, able to sway the public at will while still being admirable people in and of themselves, and we have opportunists like Octavius, who can be great, provided they’re pointed in the right direction.

Shakespeare is often dismissed as arcane, impossible to read and even harder to comprehend. But his writings are just as pertinent today as they were over 400 years ago.

And I think that’s something to scream about.

StSA–Partisanship

There’s this article talking about how millennials, as a generation, are largely up for grabs, politically speaking. And all I could think reading it was how this is the fundamental misinterpretation that’s gonna leave politicians and analysts alike scratching their heads comes 2016. Millennials aren’t up for grabs–because more and more, we don’t believe in ‘grabs’ in the first place.

Partisanship is one of those things that has just never made sense to me–call me crazy, but I believe in choosing the best man for the job, no matter the letter next to his name (unless, of course, the ‘D’ stands for ‘dead’. Dead people can vote, but we’d never elect one to office).

But how, you wonder, can millennials be a force for change in voting, if they can’t even pick a side? Well, as I am wont to do, let’s turn to TV for an illustrative example.

There’s an episode of Community (which everyone should watch, btw) where two of the main characters, Annie and Britta, are fighting over the ‘proper’ way to campaign for a cause. One disagrees with the other’s methods, and soon it ends with the two wrestling in a pile of mud/oil, wearing exceptionally tight t-shirts.

Yeah, go find it on youtube. I’ll wait.

Anyway, while the two of them are duking it out, a bystander yells “there’s no one on the other side of this issue!”. He’s right, of course; and for more things than whatever the cause of the week was.

Politics is about devising the best way to get from Point A (where we are now) to Point B (the ultimate society). And the fundamental difference between two political parties (or two sides of the political spectrum, or two different people) is how they think we need to get to Point B.

Liberals believe it’s through big government; Conservatives believe it’s through small government. Everyone else tends to fall somewhere on this spectrum, and can be in different places, when regarding social vs fiscal matters.

Independents are so busy lauding themselves for being ‘above’ big-party politics that they’ve never produced a single viable candidate. Libertarians (big L) are no better; apparently, to be really free, we need no borders, anywhere, ever. And as far as I can tell, Communists are so involved in the struggles of the proletariat that they forget (or ignore) that their system of government only benefits the Communist leaders.

No one is anti poor, or anti fuel, or anti prosperity, etc etc. What the big two parties don’t get, when they’re busy wetting themselves, screaming to millennials about how the other party is “anti-insert-good-thing-here”, is that “there’s no one on the other side of this issue”. We want to get to the same place — an ideal society. We’re just a little less unified in our definitions and our methods.

To borrow (and subsequently bastardize) an equation from the laudable R. Stacy McCain (down at theothermccain.com, check out his series on feminism), politicians tend to be:

1. Crazy
2. Wrong
3. Crazy and Wrong

The third kind are easily identified. Not only are they absolutely out of their minds, but they can be proven to be so. Has anyone ever listened to post-2000 Hilary Clinton and thought her a down-to-earth, cerebral speaker?

Same with Joe Biden; not only is he absolutely, gallingly wrong when he speaks, you get the sense that he’s like your grandpa: old, kinda out of it, and really not all there (or maybe that’s just my grandpa).

Those politicians that are just ‘wrong’ can be slightly tricky; after all, they sound so rational, right? Until you start to think about what they’re saying, and how you know it’s not true.

Our current POTUS falls under this banner, as does Elizabeth Warren (regrettably [and hilariously] dubbed “Fauxahontas” after the story of her claims of Native American heritage came out and subsequently fell flat). The biggest problem with politicians that are wrong, is that they often know they’re wrong, and they don’t care as long as it’ll sound good to the public: see GruberGate.

The crazies are ones you have to watch out for, but not be super guarded against; after all, you just have to repeat their speeches to yourself, and you realize that they’re a few plums short of a fruit pie.

These are the Ron Pauls of the political world, and anyone who even remotely agrees with them on anything is forced to proclaim “YES I AGREE WITH HIM BUT NOT TO THE SAME EXTENT AND NOT ON EVERYTHING I’M NOT CRAZY” from the hilltops. (Side note, that’d make a fantastic slogan for Rand Paul 2016 –Rand Paul’s office, hit me up.)

((The problem with the crazies, of course, is that while they’re definitely nuts, they also have an annoying habit of being correct.))

So with all of this confusion about who’s right (if anyone is), and who will keep their promises (a shrinking number), is it any wonder that those who have grown up in this politically hostile environment don’t trust those who push us to vote straight-ticket?

We’ve grown skeptical that one side or the other is pro-freedom, or pro-environment, or really pro-transparency, because lies, deceit, and plain awful politics come from both sides of the aisle (and from the Ron Paul supporters chained up outside).

We’re trying to get to the best possible society. There’s no one on that side of the issue. I believe that small government, gun ownership, and people living up to what they promise to do is the way to get there. But though that makes me politically conservative, it doesn’t mean I have to vote straight ticket R — or that a millennial with views opposite to mine has to vote straight ticket D.

Millennials aren’t up for grabs, because you guys have shown us that those little letters next to your name don’t mean jack, most of the time.

You know what works with those of us who came of age right as the economy stagnated, as college costs soared, and as the world became more dangerous, more detrimental, and more disparaging of our generation?

Authenticity. That’s how we’re ‘up for grabs’. Tell us what you’re gonna do, tell it straight, and then do it — and no more than what you said you’d do.

And if that happened? Well…that’s be something to scream about.