Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Myth of Ted Cruz’s Principles
The conservative movement is clearly in a severe, anti-establishment mood. Its origins are easily diagnosed, if not easily treated. It evolved out of the George W. Bush presidency, viewed as a failure by many on the right. After squandering two years of one-party Republican rule in Washington by expanding entitlements and failing to address the long-term drivers of our debt, the groundwork was laid for a new batch of conservatives who would move the party further to the right and put principles ahead of their own quest for power and influence.
So the story goes like this: A group of Washington elites have no desire to move the country’s laws in a conservative direction. Instead, they’re going along and getting along while grasping for ever-more authority. In this version of reality, the Republican leadership, not the Democrats and the majority of the country who voted for them, are responsible for the leftward drift of government institutions.
You might be tempted to mock this view, but there’s strong evidence that indeed, a cunning and ruthless Washington elite uses conservatives for their electoral support — with no intention of pursuing conservatives’ goals. Namely, we have a particular political opportunist, forged in the very cradle of the establishment, who has managed to convince nearly the entirety of the base that he’s the most principled conservative in office.
How can I make such a claim about conservative darling Ted Cruz? I read his book.
The story of Ted Cruz does not begin with his 2012 Senate run. He’s best understood by his time working for the George W. Bush campaign in 2000. He labored tirelessly to become part of the very establishment he would later criticize. In an interview with a Princeton alumni publication in 2000, Cruz said:
“One of the reasons I was so eager to help Bush is the way he has described himself, as a compassionate conservative. That’s how I have always conceived of my own political views.”
Cruz was a very conventional Republican who backed his party, held many moderate positions, and eagerly sought ways to clamber up the ladder of government. In 2004, Cruz contributed to a book titled Reflections on the War on Terror, Defense of the Family, and Revival of the Economy. While many on the right were criticizing Bush for ramping up deficit spending without addressing the long-term drivers of our debt, Cruz wrote that those concerns were overstated. He supported the No Child Left Behind Act, and wrote the following gem:
As President Bush put it in the 2000 campaign, when voters hear “Abolish the Department of Education,” a lot of voters just hear “Abolish Education” and back away.”
Cruz used the same language as Bush on the subject of immigrants: “Americans by choice.” In 2000, he wrote a five-page memo for the campaign urging Bush to secure the border, but show compassion:
“But, at the same time, we need to remember that many of those coming here are coming to feed their families, to have a chance at a better life.”
It can be disorienting the first time you discover just how conventional a politician Cruz is. In a high school bio, Cruz’s plan and ambition are made clear:
Upon graduation Ted hopes to attend Princeton University and major in Political Science and Economics. From there he wants to attend law school (possibly Harvard) and achieve a successful law practice. He then wants to pursue his real goal – a career in politics. Ted would like to run for various political offices and eventually achieve a strong enough reputation and track record to run for – and win – President of the United States.
Criticizing politicians for ambition can be self-defeating. No good conservative should want that much power, but if no good conservatives seek power, our ideals go unrepresented in government. Reality requires us to tolerate a certain level of ambition from our representatives. Yet even by Washington insider standards, Cruz’s ambition was off-putting.
In his book, A Time for Self-Promotion Truth, Cruz said being passed over for a senior position in the Bush White House after working for the campaign was “a crushing blow.” Cruz was angling for a spot in the White House Counsel’s office under Bush the younger. When offered a lower position that he’d hoped, Cruz walked away. Former White House spokesman Ari Fleisher (one of the few members of the Bush team who says he likes Cruz) explained the situation:
Ted’s bosses were very put off by him and by how ambitious he was. And that’s why Ted got basically put in an agency very far from the White House during the transition.
Between a cantankerous personality and an ambition so palpable as to scare men who do little but deal with ambition, Cruz found himself outside the GOP establishment. Not outside of it by choice, or because of ideological distance, but because few who dealt with Ted Cruz liked Ted Cruz.
With the insider track to power now closed off, Cruz needed a different path. Conveniently, his exclusion from any position of relevance in the Bush administration turned out to be a boon. As dissatisfaction with the Republican Party and the “establishment” grew, Cruz had an avenue into national government. It merely required him to overhaul his principles.
There is of course nothing inherently wrong with changing one’s views over time. Many life experiences can cause a change of heart and mind. Few will openly admit their transition was prompted by a poll. Ted Cruz is among their ranks.
In A Time for Naked Opportunism Truth, Cruz openly explains his political transition to the hard-right. While exploring the possibility of a Senate run in 2012, Cruz commissioned polls to judge the likelihood of his success and the mood of the electorate:
In our first benchmark poll, we asked a series of questions to assess where I stood compared to Dewhurst. One of those questions would become famous internally in our campaign: Question 10. It asked voters if they would be more or less likely to support me if they knew that “Ted Cruz understands that politicians from both parties have let us down. Cruz is a proven conservative we can trust to provide new leadership in the Senate to reduce the size of government and defend the Constitution.”
Those sentences polled over 80 percent among Republicans in Texas, and were liked by a majority of independents. So was born the Ted Cruz we know today. The man who once laughed off efforts to abolish the Department of Education would come to call for its abolition — not because he had any change of heart, but because it was the way to raise money and win in Texas.
Understanding this helps us make sense of some of the bizarre policy proposals and strategies Cruz has offered over the years. His ambition, and his need to set himself to the right of everyone in politics, help to explain his tenuous relationship with the truth.
Mike Lee joins Cruz in having a perfect 100-percent conservative voting record from Heritage action. The two are often painted as allies in the Senate, true believers acting as a thorn in the side of the RINOs. One can imagine Lee’s shock back in October when he presented a criminal justice reform bill to the judiciary committee, only to have Ted Cruz lie about its contents and impact.
Cruz claimed the bill would lead to 7,000 prisoners being released. He repeatedly referred to violent criminals being let out on the street. Since Cruz graduated from Harvard Law School and argued cases in front of the Supreme Court, we must conclude he can read. Of the two categories of criminals that would have been affected by the bill and might have conceivably gone on to be violent offenders, there were only 3,433 inmates. Of these, many had committed no violent crime, and all faced a review process before their sentences would be reduced. Some violent offences even had their mandatory minimums increased by the law. These facts are readily ascertained when you dig into the issue.
In response, Lee made changes to the bill that would close off these two categories if any potential violent offenders might be released, leaving Cruz no legitimate grievance. Cruz remains opposed to the bill. Ironically, Cruz supported the bill a year ago, when it was significantly more lenient than the current incarnations.
Mike Lee learned the hard way that if Ted Cruz cannot position himself to your right because there is no space there, he will invent it.
Lee is not the only member of the new generation of stalwart conservatives to discover Cruz will lie and shift positions to enhance his own image at the expense of theirs.
In his book, A Time for Talking out of my Rear Truth, Cruz wrote that Rand Paul (90 percent Conservative Action score) let him down on Obamacare when he spoke for a few minutes during Cruz’s 21-hour faux filibuster during the 2013 government shutdown. He said that Paul seemed intent on bolstering the GOP leadership’s attacks to undermine Cruz’s efforts. “I marveled that Rand had decided not to be with us in this fight.”
Cruz described the anger he and Mike Lee felt when Paul suggested there would have to be compromise to make Obamacare less bad. The trouble for Cruz is that we live in the 21st century, and transcripts of these exchanges exist. There was not an ounce of hostility when Paul and Cruz had their exchange on the Senate floor. The two repeatedly praised each other, and Cruz even said “The question Sen. Rand Paul asked was an excellent question.”
Paul further pointed out that Cruz sent Rand a lovely letter thanking him for his help during the shutdown. Cruz’s book paints a picture of Rand Paul that’s 180 degrees at odds with his own statements about Paul’s efforts at the time. In a recurring theme, we must ask ourselves: Which Ted Cruz was lying?
Was Ted Cruz lying when he repeatedly stated in interviews that he supported the Gang of Eight bill and its amnesty, or is Ted Cruz now lying now when he claims it was a poison pill and he was lying in interview after interview when he said he supported it? It’s a strange poison pill that makes a patient healthier, which Cruz acknowledged his amendment did at the time. (Though to be fair to Cruz, he claims he was lying.)
And a second point to those advocacy groups that are so passionately engaged. In my view if this committee rejects this amendment — and I think everyone here views it as quite likely this committee will choose to reject this amendment — in my view that decision will make it much much more likely that this entire bill will fail in the House of Representatives. [Emphasis added.] I don’t want immigration reform to fail. I want immigration reform to pass. And so I would urge people of good faith on both sides of the aisle if the objective is to pass common sense immigration reform that secures the borders, that improves legal immigration and that allows those who are here illegally to come in out of the shadows, then we should look for areas of bipartisan agreement and compromise to come together. And this amendment, I believe if this amendment were to pass, the chances of this bill passing into law would increase dramatically. And so I would urge the committee to give it full consideration and to adopt the amendment.
We certainly know Cruz supported amnesty during his time on the Bush campaign. This means his repeated claims during the debates that he never supported legalization do not fly, even if you grant his “I was lying” defense on the Gang of Eight. Which is more likely, that Ted Cruz was always, secretly, a principled immigration hawk despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, or that he saw an opportunity to position himself to the right of Marco Rubio (94 percent Heritage action rating) and seized the opportunity?
Every time Cruz attacks his fellow Republicans (generally for holding positions that he himself held shortly before), his profile rises among the base, and his fundraising explodes. Following the shutdown, Cruz’s fundraising doubled from the previous quarter. As Cruz burns his party around him, no new one rises to take its place. His most frequent targets aren’t the moderates of the party, but the true conservatives. As long as Ted Cruz is the only voice in the wilderness fighting the government Leviathan, then only Ted Cruz can be trusted by the base, and only Ted Cruz is worthy of donations and support. Mike Lee was unable to turn his joint support for the shutdown into almost any fundraising. You are either Ted Cruz, or you are the problem in Washington.
How Cruz intends to make any lasting changes in government when his actions so frequently damage the allies he need to enact such change is only an interesting question if you believe that Ted Cruz is acting out of principle, not opportunism in pursuit of the presidency.
Cruz’s sudden conversion to the right-most possible position of any given issue is not seamless. He often miscalibrates, or abandons conservatism entirely to support the more popular position.
When the Trans Pacific Partnership came into focus, many on the right doubted that Barack Obama could share an ideal with them and began to wonder what secrets had been buried in the deal. In reality, every president since perhaps Hoover has taken steps to enlarge free trade. Democratic and Republican administrations alike have always improved our economy by pursuing trade deals with an ever-larger group of countries.
Conservative populists eventually began to speak out against the deal, some out of distrust for Obama, others out of a misguided belief that protectionism helps American workers more than it hurts them. Cruz was naturally there to bend on principle and seize the opportunity. His current stance is that he opposes the deal as it contains secret immigration provisions. Again, we must conclude from Cruz’s legal career that he can read, and therefore know that he is lying. The text of the TPP is readily available. It is based on numerous existing trade deals that the United States already has in place.
A principled conservative would support free trade even when it is unpopular with his base.
Cruz’s position on taxes is even more bizarre. He wishes to abolish the IRS, and repeats this mantra at every campaign stop and every debate where he has the opportunity. Abolishing the IRS is not impossible. The Fair Tax proposal contains a plausible plan for no longer requiring a federal tax collection agency. A national sales tax that replaces all other taxes and uses existing state sales tax collection agencies could plausibly exist without an IRS. If only Cruz had simply copied and pasted this plan as his own.
Cruz has proposed a value-added tax, famous for making taxpaying enormously more complex for corporations and making the tax burden invisible to those who pay it. Aside from the obvious complaints — such a tax will not replace an income tax, but will end up existing alongside it, as in Europe — the complexity of a VAT would almost assuredly require an IRS as large as it is today or larger.
When pressed on this question, Cruz has acknowledged that there will still be an agency that handles tax responsibilities. This reduces Cruz’s promise to one of renaming the agency. This has not stopped Cruz from repeating his abolish-the-IRS mantra to his loyal fan base, who love the way Cruz lies to them.
Ted Cruz is playing a character for an audience of conservatives who feel betrayed by the George W. Bush Administration. There was a time when I overlooked his incessant lying and self-promotion, because his commitment to the role made him a useful vote in the Senate. But you have to wonder how committed he’ll be to the part when Question 10 of his poll is put before the general electorate. It will respond differently from the Texas electorate. Will he flip as quickly as he did to protectionism? If not, will he continue to fundraise by tearing down the people he’ll need as allies if he’s to do things like repeal Obamacare?
We can confidently say that Ted Cruz is driven by ambition, not principle. One might reply that this is true of all politicians. Perhaps, but when did the argument for Ted Cruz become that he is no worse than other politicians? Why should we get into the tank for a political opportunist only because he trashes other political opportunists?
We despise every other politician for talking a good game but failing to get anything done. Why would we exempt Ted Cruz?
Published in Elections, General, Politics
I’m surprised that the author, who “can’t stomach” Cruz’s lies any longer, left out the worst one of all – when he campaigned for Senate based on the pledge that he would oppose de facto amnesty for illegal immigrants, then promptly joined a cabal with several progressives to advance legislation doing exactly what he promised to oppose.
Oh, wait . . .
^This
I would add, this commitment needn’t always be a matter of personal virtue. If you’re a scientist or mathematician, for example, your commitment to the principles of your discipline comes from having trained your mind to think a certain way, not from being outstandingly virtuous (indeed many in math and science are not).
That Cruz has spent a long time training himself to think a certain way about the Constitution renders him less likely, in my estimation, to deviate from that training than another man of similar ambition, even if the ambition were as overweening and black-hearted as some fear (and I’m not convinced it is, though his ambition is clearly exceptional).
It’s become increasingly hard for me to avoid getting that impression, too. For example, it’s not hard to formulate hypotheses other than the following in order to explain Cruz’s history:
Indeed, the claim that the only possible explanation for Cruz’s path to “principled outsider” status is that he proved such a hateful man that the insiders wouldn’t have him strikes me as far-fetched enough to be implausible.
There seem to be other, equally plausible explanations, including disenchantment with insider politics after seeing it firsthand; always having been a cantankerous outsider at heart, but wanting to first acquire insider experience; simply realizing the outsider niche was available…
That personal animosity and frustrated ambition may have played a role in the path he chose is certainly not out of the question, but neither does it rule out other, less dastardly, motivations.
And yet, I’ve read his book, and know his politics changed because of a poll.
^ Seconding this.
Should Cruz not win the nomination, or win it, and lose the general election, he will return to the senate. I’m asking all of you to turn a more skeptical eye to his antics in the future.
He certainly didn’t maintain portions of the brand such as Free Trade. Until now you have mostly seen Cruz in contexts where he needs to maintain the brand.
A poll confirmed that marketing himself a certain way would be a good idea. It doesn’t mean that marketing himself that way is proof that he isn’t that way at all. Marketing can lie, but the success of a marketing strategy isn’t proof of its falsehood.
From what I understand of his work as Solicitor General of Texas, it seems unlikely that one poll result caused him to adopt the pretense of principles where there had been literally none before.
Frank: I doubt anyone here believes he is some ‘savior’, or even a near perfect candidate. None of them are. But, if he does turn out to be the best alternative to Trump, are you going to spend the next few months actively undermining him in an effort to make sure we are all “skeptical” of him?
BTW: he’s more likely to loose the general (should he get the nomination) if the GOP voters spend time talking about his ‘antics’ and calling him ‘creepy’ and ‘Nixonian’. Thus my question: what are you hoping to achieve by this post?
I’m with Lily in asking, what is the end game here? Frank, says to eliminate the “savior” perception of Cruz, but I honestly don’t see that in the support here at Ricochet (it may be apparent elsewhere). What I do see are people making a pragmatic decision about defeating Trump. Cruz has been maligned for a long time now both here and in the MSM so that most of us are aware of his general negatives though we might be ignorant of the specific details. Really, there isn’t much time left. Cruz, warts and all, is the only viable option at unseating Trump.
Frank, on Facebook, I summarized your post as follows: Cruz may be conservative, but he’s not as conservative as he claims to be. He hasn’t been so hawkish on various issues consistently, but he’s moved hard right to because he sees it as a path to winning the Republican nomination, and potentially the Presidency.
I then asked: is that really so terrible, by comparison to Trump or Clinton?
You’ve answered: Cruz cannot get elected, and he will continue to do damage to the party, making him worse than Trump.
I then asked “What damage has he done to the party, and how will he continue to do this damage.”
Anyone who’s got a comment here can go ahead with it, since Fred gets mad if we discuss things on Facebook and not on Ricochet.
There are a variety of opinions of Cruz here on Ricochet, ranging from the belief that Cruz is a great guy – really quite decent for a politician – all the way to Cruz is a stone-cold sociopath (like maybe the only reason he isn’t a serial killer is that he doesn’t like the sight of blood).
For those who do believe that Cruz falls on the more evil side of the spectrum, it might seem that those willing to put up a spirited defense of Cruz do so out of some deluded notion that he’s a saint, just as those who think of Cruz as falling on the more good side of things sometimes misinterpret any criticism of Cruz as an unfounded accusation that he’s more evil than evil.
But as you say, few of us seem at either extreme. Most of those here willing to support the guy don’t seem to think of him as a plaster saint, and most of those opposed to him don’t seem to see him as evil incarnate.
No one is perfect. Reagan did not punish Hizballah when we had people killed. The US has never punished them for that.
If the beef with Cruz is that he is A. Not perfect. B. Self-Interested, and C. A typical man running for office, then, it is not much of a dig.
Frank, you may not want this to be about Rubio, but clearly, it is. Many people who might have supported Rubio now support Cruz because one the Gang of 8. (I might add, I liked Cruz more than Rubio before that). The symbolism of the Gang of 8 overwhelms just about everything else. Saying that Cruz is totally unprincipled, or no more principled than Rubio is not going to erase the massive mistake Rubio made with the Gang of 8.
Go8 is Rubio’s big sin. It might not be reasonable, it might not be fair. Heck, Rubio might be more conservative than Cruz. But Rubio has the big symbolic “treason” or what ever other emotional laden word you want to use. It is there and he has done little to undo it, and a lot to reinforce it.
Clearly, you get that the symbolic is important. Your post is a direct attack at the symbol of Ted Cruz as a fearless, principled conservative standing up against “The Establishment”. You understand that destroying the symbol very much hurts Cruz. Cruz supporters will see it that way, even if at a subconscious level.
I would put it to you that it does not matter. The Symbol of the Go8 is so strong, that Rubio cannot over come it. Again, that may be totally irrational. Who we vote for is not going to be totally rational. It should be a mixture of emotion and reason.
If there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the two based on reason, then emotion will play a part. I know many people against Cruz because they don’t like his face. Or his speech. Personally, I think Rubio looks like a teenager and not a President. It is going to factor in.
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the arugments, but I have not see many Cruz supporters act like the Trump supporters (and I mean ones I run into in real life). The Pro-Cruz crowd know their guy is flawed, but they like him more than the other guy.
By al means let’s get deeply utopian about our only hope as we approach decision time. And by the way his tax proposal abolishes the irs., it just doesn’t eliminate book keepers. There’s a difference.
Great find. Very convincing, indeed. Forgot all about this forgettable Far Left economist. What seedy sectors of the Internet have you been traversing, Claire? (so I can be sure to avoid them)
There’s no “may be” about it.
Rubio is going down in flames. Kasich thinks that third-place finishes are victories. Both are scheduled to lose their home states in less than a week with Rubio behind over 15 points in the polls in his home state.
There’s a chance to rally around the one candidate to stop Trump and this is type of article we get on the front page?
From now on I’m always going to assume that Ricochet contributor Frank is pro-Trump.
And that’s why I stick to the R 2.0 group on Facebook. Ricochet has become the comments section on YouTube…
Come, Spin. It’s not that bad.
Well, maybe not, but you see my point.
I will certainly vote for Ted in the general, but if I were voting in Florida on 3/15 and were a Cruz supporter, I’d be voting for Rubio, because giving Floruda to Trump is really a foolhardy move.
As to people overdoing their criticism or defense if Cruz, I think it’s legitimate to note that he is probably posing as something more hardline than he actually is and will likely disappoint those who’ve bought into this image. I also think it’s valid to suspect that he’s so overdone this image as to make himself difficult to elect in November. I don’t think it’s acceptable to say he won’t be able to lead a reublucan congress or that he’s done irreparable harm to the party.
Conversely, the constant comparisons of Cruz to Ronald Reagan and citations of the resistance Reagan experienced during his rise are so over done as to be nauseating. Cruz is no Reagan. He is not Nixon either, although Nixon is probably a closer comparison than Reagan. When Cruz supporters say he will pursue strongly conservative policies, try to restore respect for Constitutional governance, and show political courage in those fights, I think they are very right.
The open question, though, is whether he actually has the political skill to win those fights rather than doom them with his lack of charm and scolding, prosecutorial approach.
As a Cruz supporter, let me give a concilatory note. Rubio supporters believe Rubio would be a better general election candidate, and I think that is very likely true. The polls do indicate that this is true, for what they’re worth. It’s also possible that Rubio would be a better president than Cruz. Personally, I think Cruz could be a really great president (I think he’s an outstanding man), but that’s just my intuition. It really does worry me that Rubio will suffer long term damage to his reputation if he stays in too long, since he’s young and talented and the Republicans are stronger with him than without him.
Put simply, I’m not asking Rubio supporters to concede that Cruz is the better man. The only thing I’m asking Rubio supporters to concede is that as of March 8th the only viable conservative candidate remaining is Cruz.
I think Cruz is the most viable at this point, but I don’t think he could win Florida, so it’s probably best that Rubio try to win there.
Katie, I’m not sure if you mean me since I know I posted about both of those things — but I at least certainly did not use those words and wouldn’t have.
(And my main concern about Florida is still what it was — that it should be a major conservative concern to try to prevent Trump getting those votes. If he does not win those states, he will find the path to the nomination difficult. I suspect neither senator is inclined to deal with the other, but it would be in both their political interest — and the country’s — to come to terms.)
Cruz should be offering Rubio VP today. Announce that now and I think they would win Florida and maybe Ohio too. Get Kasich out and you can drop the maybe.
I don’t know about all those people — I really know very little of Greg Abbott — but I am clinging to the fact that Jay Nordlinger and David French both know him personally and speak highly of him.
There’s a difference between someone who is a complete opportunist solely for personal ambition and someone who at least believes himself that he has principles, even if he’s willing to play games with them, who wants to do something for the good of the country.
And in a weird way — and I really do hate that I feel this way — I read this article and think that maybe this guy with his Nixonian streak and his sense of timing and strategy just can beat Clinton after all. Maybe.
Done. I’m ready to get behind Cruz even though I think Rubio is our best chance to stop Felony. This is all crap sandwich because conservatives have to beat Trump before finally getting around to beating Felony, and we may very well end up with a candidate insufficient to the task. Or with Trump, whose only recommendation (for conservatives) in the general is, “He’s not Felony.”
What a stinkin’ mess.
For my part — as in the fuller quote — I’m not under any illusions that he’s not going to flip-flop freely when it suits his purposes. Just that he is going to have to be very careful in doing so, and that he will have to deliver his base — that would be us — some wins. Probably the Supreme Court.
In short, I mean I think he probably would be a more conservative president than Bush. Or Trump. Or Kasich.
Is there a cult around Trump? I thought his, ahem, flaws (putting it as gently as possible) were self-evident even to supporters.
Most of what I hear from Trump supporters is, “he’s not as bad as he seems according to people who know him.” And, “he’s really stickin’ it to the establishment.” And, “he’s a patriot.” Which may all be true, but is hardly an argument for his ability to do the top two most important tasks: 1) beat Felony, and 2) govern conservatively. The third most important task is providing coattails in the House and Senate, but I’m not sure any Republican is going to save our grass in that regard this year.
Yes, both seem plausible.
Good to hear.
Also good to hear.
Given that he’s managed to get this far despite his peculiar personality, I suspect utter doom is unlikely. But yes, whatever causes so many people to find his demeanor unsettling is definitely not an asset.