The battle between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz has finally begun. A few thoughts on this long-anticipated fight:
(1) The timing is noteworthy. Whereas other candidates—above all Jeb Bush—have been trying, with limited success, to hit Trump for some time, Cruz has held back. Here’s why: The decision-making process of primary and caucus voters must dictate the timing; they are only now beginning to engage, so now is the time that attacks can really influence the outcome.
Consider, for instance, the late movements in Iowa in 2012, when Rick Santorum came out of nowhere to defeat Mitt Romney narrowly. Consider also 2008. Even though Mike Huckabee had already broken away by this point, there was still notable movement. John McCain was just around 5 points with two weeks to go, but finished with more than 13 points. That might not seem like a lot, but an 8-10 point swing in Iowa in 2016 could be enormously important. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton still had a small lead around this time in the 2008 cycle in Iowa, and John Kerry was still quite far from first place at this point in 2004.
So, it makes sense for this fight to happen late, because primary voters make their decisions late.
(2) It was probably inevitable. Ideally, Cruz would have preferred not to attack Trump, under the hope that somehow the latter would fade away. But it has been apparent for some time that this was not going to happen.
It is foolish to think that Cruz would allow the détente to last indefinitely. The reality is that Cruz and Trump are competing for the same voters, at least in part. If you’re angry at the status quo in politics, fed up with the typical slate of candidates you’ve been offered, and think that both parties are conspiring against you, then you probably support one of three candidates—Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, or Ted Cruz. Sanders is Hillary Clinton’s problem, but Trump is Cruz’s problem (and vice-versa).
This is why Christie and Rubio have mostly steered clear of Trump, and even why Kasich voiced qualified support of Trump at last week’s debate. Eventually, these candidates would have to defeat an insurgent/outsider candidate to win the nomination, but first they have to take care of each other. The only other current candidate who has gone after Trump is Jeb, who at this point is desperate for traction in New Hampshire. He hopes his attacks will bring him the support of those Republicans who intensely dislike Trump. And note that Jeb’s money is almost entirely dedicated to attacking Rubio.
Cruz is the one who has to go after Trump before the field consolidates; the two need the same, anti-establishment factions of the party to line up behind them before they face Rubio-Christie-Kasich-Bush.
Indeed, Cruz telegraphed his intentions regarding the real estate mogul a month ago. His attacks of late have gone far beyond responding to Trump’s birther assault. He is now making a move that looks to have been some time in coming.
(3) Cruz will hit Trump as a liberal insider. To date, the two notable antagonists for Trump have been Rick Perry and Jeb, both of whom tut-tutted the inappropriate nature of Trump’s comments. This is an implicitly “insider” attack—the idea being that Trump holds views that are simply not respectable in mainstream political discourse.
Little wonder that this failed to work, as Trump’s supporters think that those who adhere to “respectable” opinions are the problem with American politics. The inaptness of this assault was manifest in last week’s debate. Neil Cavuto asked Jeb if his attacks on Trump did not implicitly malign Trump’s supporters. Jeb assured Cavuto that they did not, but how else can one take the critique? Jeb has been attacking Trump for the very same statements that have endeared him to his backers. If his comments make Trump a “chaos candidate,” then how are his supporters not “chaos voters?”
Cruz’s attack on Trump looks to be of a wholly different cast: Trump is actually part of the liberal establishment. Far from implicitly castigating Trump’s supporters, this is an effort to provide them with new information, or at least highlight information that has been otherwise overlooked. The theme will be that, contrary to his rhetoric, Trump is in fact the consummate insider.
It is too soon to say if this will work, but it certainly has a better chance than the attacks from Jeb and Perry. It has the (political) virtue of validating the premises that the Trump voters are bringing to the table: that politics is a rigged game; that the average American is losing out to the elites; and that nobody represents the voice of the people, anymore. The question is whether a critical mass of Trump supporters will follow along with Cruz’s next step, which is that Trump is part of this elite caste, and cannot be trusted to deliver the knockout blow to the reviled establishment.
(4) Talk radio’s response will be interesting. To date, talk radio has been largely supportive of Trump, insofar as he has been criticized by the “establishment” for uttering opinions that are not respectable among the political elite. But the Cruz attack presents a whole new challenge. What will they do when the Texas senator points out that Trump has been flaky on all sorts of issues they care about?
I’ve long believed that, with the exception of Michael Savage, who is solidly in Trump’s camp, the biggest figures in talk radio would line up behind Cruz—at least by implication. If that turns out to be correct (and admittedly it may be wrong), look for them to play referee in the Cruz/Trump battle in ways that help Cruz. I doubt they can go whole hog for the Texas senator, but look for them to validate criticisms that come from a conservative or anti-establishment perspective, and dismiss those that come from any other direction.
In other words, I expect their play to look a lot like what Mark Levin posted on Facebook this weekend. Levin’s post falls quite short of an endorsement—in fact it goes out of its way to signal a “friendly” disagreement with Trump— but it nevertheless sets the terms for a Cruz/Trump fight in a way that will only help Cruz.
Jay Cost is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard and the author of A Republic No More: Big Government and the Rise of American Political Corruption.
