Ted Cruz Is Still Talking!

Morning Jolt . . . with Jim Geraghty September 25, 2013 We Feel That Way Too, President Clinton Do you think Bill Clinton was bored listening to President Obama talk about Obamacare yesterday at the Clinton Global Initiative? Ted Cruz Is Still Talking! Go, Ted, go! Love him, hate him, doubt his strategy, embrace his strategy, you have to admire how he's going the distance for what he believes in: Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has officially pulled an all-nighter in the U.S. Senate as he advocated for the defunding of Obamacare into the wee hours of Wednesday morning. Wearing black tennis shoes for comfort, the Texas senator started speaking at 2:41 p.m. on Tuesday and has continued for over 16 hours as of 6:45 a.m. Wednesday. "I will say standing here after 14 hours, standing on your feet, there's sometimes some pain, sometimes some fatigue that is involved," Cruz said on the Senate floor. "But you know what? There's far more pain involved in rolling over…far more pain in hiding in the shadows, far more pain in not standing for principle, not standing for the good, not standing for integrity." Senate rules require Cruz to stand throughout his speech but allow him to yield to questions from other senators. Several Republican senators, including Mike Lee, R-Utah, Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Marco Rubio, R-Fla., helped Cruz with his speech at various points throughout the night. Even Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Tim Kaine, D-Va., chimed in with questions for the Texas senator. Around 3:33 a.m. Wednesday, Cruz beat the record for the longest speech this year, a record previously held by Paul, who filibustered the nomination of John Brennan as CIA director for 12 hours and 52 minutes last March. A Revitalized Conservatism: Still More Than One More Panel Discussion Away Tuesday I went to the Future 500 panel discussion on the Future of Conservatism at the National Press Club. Early on, Future 500 President and CEO Bill Shireman brought up how Republicans talk about environmental issues, frequently emphasizing that the EPA and its various regulations are job killers and lamented, "It's an old frame. It's not that it's not true. But it sounds old-fashioned to young voters, who believe the environment and the economy can both simultaneously benefit." I don't mean to pick on Mr. Shireman, but . . . what if those young voters are wrong? What they have no idea about what kinds of trade-offs are good ones? Obviously, most of them aren't energy-policy experts. A significant chunk of them may not actually pay their own electric or gas bills, and very few of them run businesses or use energy to produce goods. Chances are, they have no idea if the electricity they use comes from coal, hydroelectric, natural gas, wind, or solar. They just take it on faith that the EPA can regulate emissions, both carbon dioxide and otherwise, and businesses will continue to have sufficient earnings to create new jobs. What if there is no third option, no magic-wand solution? What if pop-culture messages -- everyone-gets-a-trophy attitudes in educational, corporate, and pop culture -- have us so enamored of these ideal, win-win scenarios that we recoil from hard choices? What if a certain chunk of the young electorate is resistant to the idea that trade-offs are necessary? What if they're unwilling to listen to arguments that they're wrong? How are we supposed to craft an argument that will be persuasive to an audience that doesn't know about a topic, and isn't interested in learning anything more about a topic? Some politically-active youth don't like to sweat the details. Back when Obama was pushing for military action in Syria, a significant chunk of his base opposed the idea, and another, even larger chunk was just plain quiet. Organizing for Action was notably muted. Obama's grassroots army appears powerful and easy to mobilize, as long as the motivation is "give us free stuff" -- i.e. "free" health care, "free" birth control, "free" Obamaphones, etc. But is it that they're only stirred by asking what their country can do for them, not what they can do for their country? Is it that Obama has built a large, activist base that will show up and attend rallies and knock on doors and vote, but only if it is promised some sort of tangible goodie at the end of the process? For better or worse, that's not what fuels our movement. The conservative message doesn't include free ice cream. Our message is pretty relentlessly that we expect you to take care of yourself, and only turn to government or society as a whole in dire emergencies: If you're an able-bodied adult, we want you to go out and find a job for yourself, and work for a living. We're increasingly convinced that government job-training programs are either a waste of time or hopelessly ineffective. The very best job-training program is an actual job, giving you experience and skill development to help you get a better job later on. We want you to save for your own retirement; we see that the current Social Security system only works if the population endlessly expands and lifespans stay short, and so we would rather replace it all with 401(k)s. We wish we could bring market forces into health care, so that you shopped around for non-emergency medical services, and sought out the best value for the lowest price, creating pressure on health-care providers to keep prices down. We want you to wait until you're married to have children, and once you have children, we want you to stick with your spouse whenever feasible. We want you to recognize that there are some things in life that are more important than your own happiness -- perhaps none more important than the well-being of your children. We want you to have your choice of schools for your children, but it's up to your kids to pick a major and career path that will allow them to earn a living for the rest of their life. We have no sympathy for those with Masters Degrees in Puppetry. The world has evil people in it, both here and abroad, and some confrontations with that evil are inevitable. Fate and chance may require you to take your own protection into your own hands. Ultimately, the quality of your life is up to you. Yes, fate, chance, genes, luck, and the family we're born into play big roles. But ultimately, no government program is ever going to get you to the life you want to live. Here's the big problem: This is a particularly hard message to win with during economic hardship and anxiety. Lori Sanders, a policy analyst over at the R Street Institute, noted that a big reason why Republicans have lost the women vote in just about every presidential race for a generation is that "women are risk-averse." "It's a much more nuanced world that women live in," she said, suggesting that women are repelled when conservatives and Republicans pledge to shut down the Department of Education. When she said that, it reminded me of something Kevin Williamson had written about when and how African-Americans began growing politically and emotionally attached to the Democratic Party: As I have shown at some length, it was the New Deal rather than the Democrats' abrupt about-face on civil rights that attracted black voters. The last Republican presidential candidate to win a majority of the black vote was Herbert Hoover, and the majority of black voters were Democrats by the 1940s — a remarkable fact, given that the Democrats were still very much the party of segregation at that time, with future civil-rights enthusiast Lyndon Johnson fighting laws against lynching. African Americans remain more intensely supportive of New Deal programs such as Social Security and the minimum wage than are whites, even when their personal financial situations ensure that they are unlikely ever to earn the minimum wage or depend upon Social Security. That African Americans' attitudes toward economic issues are strongly influenced by their historical experience of economic exclusion is consistent with other aspects of black life beyond political-party affiliation. For example, blacks are notably risk-averse when it comes to personal financial decisions. Blacks are much less likely to invest in stocks than are similarly situated whites. They invest relatively less in risk-involved instruments such as stocks and bonds and more in risk-mitigating instruments such as life insurance. (That is one of the reasons that affluent black households often end up less wealthy than white households with identical incomes and education levels. Women exhibit similarly risk-averse investing behavior with the same result.) Risk aversion is the reason that many Americans — black, white, and other — are made anxious by proposed changes to the welfare system, even when they themselves are unlikely ever to need it. They view the welfare state as (that inevitable phrase) a safety net. And that is what the plantation theory gets wrong. Democrats are not buying black votes with welfare benefits. Democrats appeal to blacks, to other minority groups, and — most significant — to women with rhetoric and policies that promise the mitigation of risk. In short, our message is, "you have a responsibility to take care of yourself" at a time when A) some of our fellow Americans never developed the ability, skills, or inclination to take care of themselves or B) they may want to, but the economic environment -- layoffs, sluggish hiring, stagnant wages, employers preferring part-time workers -- makes them feel less capable of self-sufficiency than ever. A recurring theme was, "people (or the voters) don't care what you know until they know that you care." Steve Bannon of Breitbart.com, recoiled a bit from this argument declaring, "I do not agree that we have to be the party of empathy, because that is the path of becoming a slow walk to Statism." Discussing a gathering of under-25 Latinos at a social event in Texas, the Libre Initiative's Brittney Morrett lamented, "They think we [conservatives] don't care. They think, 'whatever the Democrats are putting forth, it's going to help me because they care about me. Whatever the Republicans are putting forth is going to be bad for me, because they don't care about me.'" Oh, we do care. But we care differently than the folks on the Left do. It's the difference between the care of a daddy and the care of a sugar daddy. Whether a Democratic officeholder ever admits it or not, their love is entirely transactional -- you vote for me, I keep the government there to take care of you and spread the money around. Our love, like a parent's, can include some tough love, but that stems from having higher expectations. We want all American children to fulfill their dreams. We want them to thrive, and prosper, and get a good education, and form strong, happy families of their own. What leaves me and a whole lot of other conservatives with our eyes bulging in fury is that somehow the litmus test of 'caring' has become whether or not we support the status quo of giant social-welfare programs that have failed generations of poor Americans. We want them to feel the satisfaction and pride that comes from working for a living, instead of the quiet humiliation that comes from voting for a living. (By the way, does the "people need to know you care" dynamic work in reverse? Because I'm pretty sure the candidates and officeholders on the Left don't care about me. In their eyes, I'm the problem. I'm a married white male in a suit rapidly approaching middle age. They see me as some fountain of money they can turn to fund all of their vote-buying crony capitalist ventures -- and if you put a few drinks in them, they would probably say whatever money I've made has been through exploiting the proletariat.) Comments You Hear at Every Panel Discussion, and What They Really Mean Panelist: "Why don't we ever talk about [topic]?" TRANSLATION: "The moderator didn't ask about this, but it's my favorite topic, so I'm going to go on at length about it." Panelist: "As I said earlier…" TRANSLATION: "I am out of new material, and I think some people in the audience weren't paying attention the first time I said it." Panelist: "If I could just jump in…" TRANSLATION: "I'm tired of sitting here and not talking." Audience member: "I have a three part -- well, I guess it's more of a statement than a question…" TRANSLATION: "I should have been invited to speak on the panel and I'm miffed." Audience member: "And one quick follow-up…" TRANSLATION: "I am never giving back this microphone." ADDENDA: Boy, maybe Buzzfeed is on to something. Check out how viral yesterday's post on the train wrecks of Obamacare went, complete with four animated 'train wreck' gifs. 800 Facebook likes, Tweeted 158 times as of this writing… NRO Digest — September 25, 2013 Today on National Review Online . . . ANDREW JOHNSON & STERLING BEARD: The Texas senator gives a marathon speech in the defund-Obamacare fight. Cruz Control. ANDREW STILES & JONATHAN STRONG: Senate Republicans have already committed to defeating Ted Cruz's strategy. Cruz Contra Mundum. ANDREW C MCCARTHY: Republicans pose on defunding Obamacare, then vote otherwise. No Honor in Gamesmanship. LEE HABEEB: Each time Islamists murder Christians, the media treat it as an isolated episode. Islamist War on Christians. SLIDESHOW: Meme Watch. To read more, visit www.nationalreview.com Why not forward this to a friend? Encourage them to sign up for NR's great free newsletters here. Save 75%... Subscribe to National Review magazine today and get 75% off the newsstand price. Click here for the print edition or here for the digital. National Review also makes a great gift! Click here to send a full-year of NR Digital or here to send the print edition to family, friends, and fellow conservatives. Follow Tweet Listen Send National Review, Inc. Manage your National Review subscriptions. We respect your right to privacy. View our policy. This email was sent by: National Review, Inc. 215 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10016