One of my good friends has a brilliant mind… and “anger/rage issues” that have damaged and even severed many professional relationships over the years. I do not try to change this person and do not offer advice unsolicited, but the one time I was asked for insight and advice, I said this:
“People you work with, up down and lateral, will remember, over the years, two things about you. One, what did you all do. Two, how did it feel to work with you. And the ratio is about 20/80. I mean it. 80% is how did it feel to work with you. They remember that the most. Not so much the details of what you actually did. And if the feeling was negative or problematic, you’ll never know the future doors that will be closed to you. The future hand not extended. The future offer of project collaboration or a consulting gig not offered. If you can live with that, then sure, don’t change. But the soft cost of not being liked is actually HUGE, professionally. I cannot convey how huge it is.”
And this is where I think Cruz’s candidacy is about to be damaged, and quite possibly doomed, by the birther issue. Literally, it’s pretty clear. Is Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz eligible for POTUS? The clear majority of Constitutional scholars say Yes. Some say “it’s unclear, actually.” And we rubberneck and snicker, as Cruz’s rivals (some more brazenly than others, Trump leading the charge) “go there” and use the birtherism cudgel to try to deliver Cruz’s candidacy some injurious body blows.
If I were a GOP-voting Cruz supporter in the Iowa Caucus, I’d be noticing two problems. One is birtherism itself. It is indeed highly likely that a court-based challenge would rule in Cruz’s favor. But is it 100%? The seeds of doubt have been planted because if his eligibility is not 100% rock solid, it’s not 100% rock solid, and do we really want to go with a candidate who introduces that possibility of trouble during the General Election contest?
But here is the 2nd, and possibly more important, piece I’d be noticing. The soft yet brutal cost of being disliked by almost everybody. Reince Priebus, GOP Chair, keeping both hands in pockets when he could be helping to catch Cruz from a stumble. “Uh right i’m not getting involved in that, ok, next question.” Similar from Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader, who tells us there will be no pro-Cruz Senate resolution on this issue as there was for John McCain in ‘08. Various other GOP spokespeople are either going on record to say “no comment” or “it could be an issue”— and there seems a notable dearth of influential people coming to Cruz’s defense, except for Rush Limbaugh yelling at a troublesome caller or two on his collapsing radio program.
As an Iowa GOP Caucus participant, I’d be noticing this, and thinking of what it portends for Ted Cruz if he were the GOP nominee, and if he were very likely facing the Clintons and their vast national network of friends, allies, rock-solid support. I’d be having serious doubts that the GOP network of relationships and allies would stand with Ted Cruz as solidly, as committedly, the way they have stood with the past several decades of GOP nominees. And I’d be calling that a problem.
Next week well see some new polling out of Iowa. It will be interesting to find out whether this birtherism flap for Cruz seems to be hurting his candidacy there. My prediction is it will; he will slip in the polls, Trump will be back in the lead, and possibly another candidate or two will get a bump. Not just because of birtherism in and of itself, but because of the recognition that Cruz is vulnerable. Vulnerable not only on the literal birtherism “are we 100% sure this guy is eligible?” question, but on the level of relationships, allies, support. If Cruz had been liked as he gained influence in the Senate, this thing would be being pushed back HARD by his colleagues and friends. It’s not. And if Iowa Caucus participants notice that, and understand what it portends, they might well back away from Cruz.
