Brittle and Awkward

There’s a fascinating little piece in the Times today looking at Ted Cruz’s life as college debate wunderkind as a foreshadowing of his presidential campaign and later public persona. Is past prologue? Believe it or not, yes!

Jason Horowitz finds a young ideologue who was extremely bright when it comes to logical reasoning and brain puzzles but awkwardly short on what psychologists now call emotional intelligence – with the latter often undermining the former in his quest for ultimate debate glory.

The overall picture fits with the almost unanimous recollections of college friends I went back and spoke to as Cruz rose to prominence since 2012. One of the things I often gets pressed on with Cruz is, people ask, “You keep saying he’s so smart. He doesn’t seem that smart to me.”

In the last few decades psychologists have developed a considerably more refined theory of intelligence. There’s logical reasoning, word puzzle intelligence that Cruz unambiguously strives at. Then there’s creative intelligence, emotional intelligence and numerous other intelligence spectra.

The latter one was one which consistently seemed to be Cruz’s undoing in the wonderful world of college debate. He was a guy who could build air-tight arguments that muscled debates in directions he could dominate. But humor wasn’t his forte and more notably it was something his opponents often used to throw him off balance or undo him.

Judges and opponents were, the article reports, put off by his “emotional zeal” and grandiosity.

A few choice passages …

Regarded as a powerful speaker who depended on overly prepared, or “canned,” cases, Mr. Cruz could be foiled with humor. His emotional zeal, no matter which side he was arguing, rubbed more experienced judges the wrong way. So did his stilted speaking style and standoffishness on the debate world’s vibrant social scene, where kegs flowed at Friday night parties. His raw ambition sometimes soured the student judges, as well as the audiences who voted in championship rounds, on him.

One new fact I didn’t know. “When his peers learned of his intention to run for president of the parliamentary debate league, they held a late-night meeting in a hotel to recruit a protest candidate, who eventually won.”

Then this …

“Nobody was better at setting traps,” said Austan D. Goolsbee, a Yale debater who became a leading economist for President Obama. He recalled Mr. Cruz’s attempts to control debates with carefully constructed arguments that always seemed to anticipate his opponents’ rebuttals.

But Mr. Goolsbee and other top debaters on the circuit who frequently beat Mr. Cruz discovered it was easy to get under his skin, especially with humor. “It would unravel him,” Mr. Goolsbee said.

And then this, just this …

Mr. Cruz’s own attempts at humor sometimes missed the mark. In one debate, he proposed a method to detect infidelity, in which God should “give women a hymen that grows back every time she has intercourse with a different guy, because that will be a ‘visible sign’ of the breach of trust,” according to a recollection by David Kennedy published in a Harvard debate team reunion booklet in 2001.

What better way to endear Cruz to female debaters or just normal people than an odd speculation/fantasy about a new feature of women’s bodies in which a part of the female anatomy (the mechanics and location of which at least the younger Cruz appeared not to fully understand) regenerated to notify guys they were cheatin’ hos? How good is that?

The debate circuit is rife with stories like this. Here’s a portion of one unprompted email I got from a one-time competitor not long after Cruz took office …

Now, to be fair, Ted was an excellent debater. [Redacted]

But Ted never quite got to the top because the best Princeton debaters (Bob Ewing, Chris Ray, Shawn Halpert, and Stacy Stoller) chose not to debate with him. As I said, he was a horrible person.

This is a really good article because it shows where Cruz came from and also how his antagonists then and now exploit these weaknesses. The Times inevitably has to pull its punches. But the story is there, albeit it somewhat muted and between the lines.

Dear Reader,

When we asked recently what makes TPM different from other outlets, readers cited factors like honesty, curiosity, transparency, and our vibrant community. They also pointed to our ability to report on important stories and trends long before they are picked up by mainstream outlets; our ability to contextualize information within the arc of history; and our focus on the real-world consequences of the news.

Our unique approach to reporting and presenting the news, however, wouldn’t be possible without our readers’ support. That’s not just marketing speak, it’s true: our work would literally not be possible without readers deciding to become members. Not only does member support account for more than 80% of TPM’s revenue, our members have helped us build an engaged and informed community. Many of our best stories were born from reader tips and valuable member feedback.

We do what other news outlets can’t or won’t do because our members’ support gives us real independence.

If you enjoy reading TPM and value what we do, become a member today.

Latest Edblog
  • |
    August 11, 2022 4:22 p.m.

    Federal judge orders DOJ to confer with Trump lawyers and report to him by 3 PM tomorrow about how to…

  • |
    August 11, 2022 3:41 p.m.

    A new episode of The Josh Marshall Podcast is live! This week, Josh and Kate discuss stunning developments in Kansas…

  • |
    August 11, 2022 3:15 p.m.

    Two significant takeaways from Garland’s presser. Garland personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant and carry out the…

  • |
    August 11, 2022 2:20 p.m.

    We’re awaiting a statement from AG Merrick Garland currently scheduled for 2:30 PM eastern. Presumably this is about the incident…

Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Investigations Desk:
Reporters:
Newswriters:
Director of Audience:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: