There's No Crying in Conservatism

A man crying in public is not a pretty sight. Republicans need to stay dry-eyed and start giving the Democrats something to cry about.

One thing I always admired about the Kennedys was you did not catch them crying.  One of them could be shot, a child could die, a terrible illness strike another down, some huge defeat of all they had fought for could occur, and those lace curtain Irish boys didn’t cry.  The proper posture for an American male politician on this model was either stoicism, anger or anticipatory hope.  Crying was right out.  Ronald Reagan, might manfully (and theatrically) brush back a tear or have a catch in his throat but no weeping for him either.

I have never watched a full episode of the Glenn Beck show and have no particularly negative view of the guy except for one thing-he always seems to be weeping.  At an alarming rate, from promos and the like, he appears to cry for America.  I’m always suspicious of those who can cry on cue and this has put me off.  Which brings me to John Boehner.  I’m a bit late to the John Boehner weep-fest coverage.  Gayle Collins mentioned it and it’s taken off as a meme all over.

John Boehner worked extremely hard for the Republican victories this November.  He has a compelling life story and I thought little of his election night tears as they were a culmination of a lifetime’s work and an unusual moment in history; until he did it again in an interview.

Congressman Boehner never previously struck me as a weeper.  I used to see him at the Hawk & Dove in the 90’s when you could both smoke and drink in bars.  He did both.  He was smart, friendly and would actually come out to the Hill for a drink with staffers and other young Republicans, not just lobbyists.  I never saw John Boehner cry.

So what to make of this recent spate of conservative crying?  It should stop.  Immediately.  A crying conservative is a vulnerable conservative.  Both Bushes were inclined to tear up and I have little doubt it was a sign they were soft on spending.  Implacability, not vulnerability, is the message we want to send.

The great counterfactual example is Winston Churchill.  He would cry frequently.  He was both sentimental and weepy on many an occasion. But not in his speeches and not in formal settings.  Loss of Norway?  No tears.  The Fall of France? No tears.  Dunkirk?  No tears.  Singapore falls without a proper fight? No tears.  The effect of tears on the public man is wholly negative.  If tears are not appropriate for a conservative so inclined when all of West Europe is in Nazi hands, we should not excuse them when marginal rates increase a percentage or two.

They demonstrate a lack of self-command.  We do not want our leaders unable to control their emotions, particularly at important moments.  An inability to control weeping is no different from an inability to control anger.  Either can be devastating in statecraft.

There is no way to get around it.  A man crying in public is not a pretty sight.  It can not be ignored or wished away.  When connected to anything but a death in the family it appears fake, forced or strange.  Weakness and phoniness are not useful messages for a politician.  The Republican mantra ought to be cut spending, cut taxes and cut crying.  Moscow is not the only place that does not believe in tears.  Beck, Boehner and the Bushes all ought to stop it.  Give the Democrats something to cry about and stay dry-eyed yourself.  To paraphrase the Kennedy’s, “Don’t Get Sad, Get Even.”