Daily Archives: May 5, 2016

What Went Wrong For Cruz. Part II: Persona.

cruz

And now, let me preach to you…

 

Continuing the short series of posts about what went wrong for Cruz (the first part is here) I would like to tackle a second issue: Cruz’ public persona. 

The man is the most similar thing to Reagan appeared on the scene for a long time, but God knows he is not the Gipper.

Where Reagan was charming, personable, and always likable, Cruz comes across as rigid, cold, and rather unpleasant. Where Reagan had a warm, winning voice accompanied by a smile, Cruz has a cold, somewhat shrill, metallic voice wrapped in the attitude of a rigid, old style preacher. I am sure it works well in the religious congregations Cruz was accustomed to since an early age; but it does not help you at all to become President. 

A candidate is more than ideas. A candidate is also an emotion, the way you feel when you see him on TV or hear his voice on the radio. This is particularly true in a world in which women have the vote, but it also has a universal validity that transcends the sexes.

Trump understands this perfectly, and uses this knowledge masterly. He projects an image of manliness and a winning attitude, but at the same time has an approachable, “man of the people” stance he carefully nurtures. He is – and this truly says it all – a Billionaire liked by Walmart employees and factory workers. 

Watch and learn, Mr Cruz. Watch and learn! 

Trump plays to his strengths, and he does so to the full. Cruz seems to rely on the fact that he has the right ideas. Not enough I am afraid. 

Trump is on TV constantly surrounded by beautiful women – who are there, let us look at reality in the face, to show the beauty wealth both attracts and gives birth to -.

You can say it’s not Cruz’ fault his wife isn’t anywhere near a stunner. However, I suspect Cruz would be afraid to enroll the stunner wife even if he had her. I suspect he would rather expect you to listen to his sermon, and be persuaded by it. Trump uses all the cards he has. Cruz thinks he is right, and that’s enough.

Trump is clearly the leader of his wife. Cruz has a tiger executive wife stating she would work with him as a “partner”. Only, she is not elected. One wonders. And don’t ask me who is the manlier of the two, because you know the answer. From their wives you will recognise them. 

And I will give you that Cruz is far more eloquent, and very possibly more intelligent, than Trump; but he squanders that too, with his long sermons, his metallic voice, and his rigid attitude. 

Does Cruz play to his strengths? Does he work on his weaknesses? I have not seen much of it. How many have become President in the age of television, who had not bothered to learn to smile in a proper, sincere way? A winning smile will get you a lot of mileage whatever your shortcomings. Ask Bill Clinton.

Trump played on his strengths, ruthlessly, all the time. Cruz never seemed to me to work on his obvious weaknesses. Trump even “flipped the script” and used all those elements of his persona Cruz would have been too politically correct, or not enough man, to use. Trump is a billionaire and not only he does not apologise for it, but he makes it work for him. He marries (and is father to) stunners, but he does not hide them for fear of incurring the ire of obese feminists; on the contrary, he projects with them an aura of beauty and, ultimately, manliness, success, and power. 

Don’t tell me it does not work, because you have just seen how the race ended. Don’t tell me Trump’s manly attitude will “alienate women”, because this is the usual pussycat crap only pussycat men are willing to swallow. Women like manly men. Listen to this Italian male, and believe.

Men, by the way, like manly men, too; and too many of them have now had enough of limp-wristed Presidents who want to be “partners” of their wife. You can’t be the most powerful man of the Free World, and have your unelected wife as your “partner”. A man who can’t lead his wife wants to lead the free world?

Cruz did not work enough on what, in him, does not work. If he made an effort to minimise his weaknesses I have seen nothing of it. Not only he is no Gipper, but he does not seem to make an effort to become as much of one as he can. 

Watch Trump, Mr Cruz, and learn. 

M

 

 

 

 

 

Cardinal Burke Had Better Shut Up

 

shut up

Cardinal Burke has now given an interview criticising the rather easy target of a fake Catholic university awarding a honour to a fake Catholic. I haven’t even read what the man had to say, as it is irrelevant. 

Honestly: the hypocrisy is breathtaking. 

The very man who has not only decided to shut up about the heresies and blasphemies of Amoris Laetitia, but has accused orthodox Catholics to be the real problem now has the almighty gall to try to remake a virginity for himself by waving the Catholic flag when it is easy and safe.

I have enough of these people. After the 8 April there can be only one criterion to value a bishop or a cardinal: if he has spoken against Amoris Laetitia or not. Silence, excuses, and other subterfuges do not wash now, and will not wash until they stop playing with dolls and speak out against AL.

I am done with this man and with all those who have willingly chosen a vocation that should see them undergoing persecution without even flinching, and prefer to look at blasphemy in silence to keep their (abundant) privileges. I am sick and tired of this cheap orthodoxy that costs nothing, and comes from those who are called to be the very first to pay the price. I refuse to consider this man, and all those wannabe orthodox clergy, as examples of anything but pusillanimity and dereliction of duty.

To be a Cardinal is a great honour exactly because of the great burden the position entails. The magnificence of a Cardinal’s life is, and very rightly so, the counterpart of the duty to set it at naught (if needs be) when the time comes. i will write this again and again: ubi honor, ibi onus. He who does not want to bear the burden is not worthy of the honour. He should be man enough to admit it and ask to be sent to a faraway parish, where he can work as a simple priest; hopefully having the guts to defend truth is his new, far little sphere of influence, and without insulting those who not only love truth before luxury, but are helping him to do his job properly.  

Cardinal Burke is unworthy of his red robe. Not only that: he even blamed us for what Francis did! A slap in the face, this one, that Mueller, Brandmueller, Sarah, & Co. and the other professional blind and mute Cardinals (= all of them) at least had the sense to avoid. Unworthy all of them, but he unworthy the most. 

God knows I liked this man. But the facts shout louder than any sympathy or emotional attachment to a cherished image of “orthodox V II Cardinal”. There are none. I am done with Burke and with all those like him. He has betrayed the cause as he has insulted those who defend it. He has no excuses. 

The Cardinal was weighted, and he was found wanting.

He could now at least have the common decency to shut up.

M  

 

 

 

 

What Went Wrong For Cruz. Part I: Globalism

Georges_de_La_Tour._St._Joseph,_the_Carpenter (1)

No fear of unemployment because of cheap Chinese imports or hunger illegal immigrant wages: St Joseph, the worker.

 

I am tempted to say: nothing went wrong for Cruz. This man gave an overall stunning performance, and brought conservative values at the centre of the political debate in a manner not seen since, I think I can safely say, the Gipper. This, in a world that celebrate sexual perversion and is preparing to persecute Christians for allegedly denying the “human right” to be a pervert and impose your perversion on the normal people who have remained.

However, I thought I would identify four weaknesses in Cruz; or better said, two structural weaknesses of his and two big mistakes he made during the electoral campaign. 

The first is the globalist stance.

I can talk more eloquently than most about the advantages of free trade.  I see them, and I agree with their proponents about them. However, it seems to me that economic advantages do not encompass the whole of the human experience. There is, in the life of a Country, an ethical dimension that cannot be reduced to economic terms. 

If you have three, or even five, percent of the population – people willing and eager  to work – unemployed, dissatisfied, and ultimately cut off from a wholesome dimension of living, this creates a damage that cannot be compensated by the (undeniably present) collective advantage for the economy as a whole in having cheap clothes, cheap steel, and cheap more-and-more-things.

A person (and particularly a man) needs to know that he is a self reliant provider for himself and his family. He instinctively feels  that this is what he was born for: to provide for himself and his loved ones. Getting up in the morning and going to work in the factory, in the mine, in the foundry; working as a gardener, or a cleaning lady – and bringing home the paycheck at the end of the month that pays (or helps to pay) for the mortgage, the children’s shoes and a dignified existence in the fear of the Lord, has a deeply satisfying wholesomeness to it that will never be compensated by having enough handouts to scrape by.

A person (and particularly a man) has the right to know that he will have to compete, in a sane and healthy manner, with the other workers in his village, not with Chinese workers paid one or two dollars an hour, or illegal immigrants ready to work for a wage that allows them to live in dismal conditions.  

It is profoundly unethical to ask these people that they convert into what they are not – software programmers, say – or are content with merely being kept away from cold and hunger from a cynical system that coldly calculates the costs of his handouts against the benefits of having all sorts of cheap imports, decides that there is a collective gain in it, and therefore proclaims it good.  

It is unethical because you can’t blame a man or a woman who are willing to work according to their own inclinations and to the wages the market establishes that they cannot have that job, because the job goes to another person in a foreign country who is ready to work for a pay that it would be unreasonable – or even illegal – to ask him or her to work for. And no, not everyone is born to be an accountant, or a software programmer. It is deeply, profoundly unethical to ask a man born in, say, Pennsylvania – and who would have plenty of work opportunities at home, in a honest market without unfair competition – to move to the other side of the Country in the hope of a job he is not cut for so you can have cheap socks. Pay your socks what is the fair price for socks produced by honest working men and women in Pennsylvania instead, mend them instead of throwing them away, and be glad for the millions of men and women who have the right to a wholesome life.    

To those who do not want to work, we should give nothing to eat. But to those who do want to work we should give the possibility of doing so, in a dignified manner, for a market wage, and according to their own inclinations; then not everyone want to be an accountant; some have a natural inclinations to be gardeners or factory workers, or are perfectly happy with being miners and cleaners.  

I could go on, but you get the drift. 

Cruz did not understand the message at the start, and when he started to see it it was already too late. The man relies, like many statesmen in perfect good faith (in which I do believe, and I deeply despise the conspiracy theories and “man sold to the big conglomerates” rants), too much on numbers and economic theories, and too little on the dimension those numbers and theories will never be able to quantify.  

Cruz never saw that dimension fully. Trump did it from the start. Like, by the way, the Gipper. 

I believe this is the first, and main, reason why the Republican candidate’s name begins with T, rather than C.

M    

 

The “Mass Communication” Reblog

The “Mass Communication” Reblog 

%d bloggers like this: