Let’s get it out
there. Ted Cruz has a very good chance
of being our next President.
Yes, those shrieks
you are hearing are reminiscent of the sounds of saber-toothed tigers caught in
the La Brea Tar Pits.
How Cruz got
there is the equivalent of a four-wall bank-shot in snooker. He is easily the least likeable major-party
candidate since Richard Nixon, and that may understate his negative
appeal.
But, he’s run an
utterly brilliant campaign, superbly disciplined, always on message. The Cruz people admit they followed Obama’s
2008 playbook—great fieldwork, looking at the whole board, being opportunistic in
picking up stray delegates where they were available. And they have done Obama one better, being
utterly ruthless at the state and local level—targeted hardball, including ballot
challenges, grabbing control of rules committee, and booby-trapping the
delegations.
Yet, for all
that, he’s still the same unpleasant man of whom Lindsay Graham recently said, "If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor
of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.” As funny as that line is (sort of a pity
Graham’s campaign flat-lined before he even announced) it’s shot full of irony,
because Graham has endorsed Cruz as a final bulwark against Donald Trump.
That linkage—Cruz
as the last man standing against Godzilla, is part of what is motivating
Establishment figures to hold their noses and even don hazmat suits to offer
their swords to the Man Who Would Be King. But Republicans can also turn to Cruz because his
positions accurately reflect much of what is mainstream in the GOP. When you look carefully at the domestic policy
proposals of those who ran (with the exception of Rand Paul) there is very
little difference in substance outside of a bit of nuance and the manner of
delivery. Republican orthodoxy is orthodoxy
for a reason—you take the pledge, as it were, and publically accept the Commandments.
So, why not Ted
Cruz? He’s clearly a conservative in a
conservative party, Republicans, even moderate ones, line up behind the choice
at the Convention, and Ted’s going to have the biggest non-Trump block of
delegates?
What I think is
giving pause to many Republicans, what has made them reluctant to grasp Ted’s
robe, is an internal conflict about what it means to run a democracy.
Our system is
not designed to run smoothly. Decision-making is not imposed, rather, the
Constitution is a mechanism built for compromise, for checks and balances
between the branches of government, between the Federal Government and the
States, and between any government and irreducible individual liberties.
The genius of this is that it trades the efficiency
of an autocracy for the “higher use” that can be attained through the
self-interested motivations of a capitalist’s respect for property rights
coupled with a democratic attachment to diverse ideas, cultures, religions, and
political philosophies. Our accomplishments,
both as a country, and as individuals, reflect the dynamic and stimulating
tension that freedom fosters.
But it is messy.
Capitalism is messy—it involves creative destruction, winners and losers, and
some bad actors. Democracy is messy—it encompasses
awkward compromises, unresolved conflicts, and more winners and losers.
Messy scares
people, especially in times of stress. They
may be aware of Ben Franklin’s words about how when you trade liberty for
security you end up with neither, but to their minds, that was 18th
Century thinking when global, economic, and cultural threats seemed less
existential. ,
Republicans
think about messiness and authority differently than Democrats. Democrats are fine with social messiness, but more
autocratic (that’s what redistributionist policies are, autocratic) when it
comes to what they see as economic
justice. Republicans tend to value
clear-cut rules, stability, safety, and order.
When government expresses its power, it should do so to maintain that
order—and they are willing to accept and even encourage some autocracy, particularly as it relates
to law-and order and social issues, to get that.
What is critical
to making this work between the parties, and the respective autocratic urges, is
a combination of good faith, adherence to written (and unwritten) rules, and
the enlightened self-interest that tells you that the shoe can be on the other
foot. It is, interestingly enough, a
very democratic and capitalist response—discussion, bargaining, agreeing on
price, making the deal. 240 years of
uneasy consensus and incredible growth tell us it does work.
Now, seems to be
different. Trump’s candidacy is the obvious
indicator—a very large group of the electorate feels that the system has failed
them, so they reject the process. Trump is
an autocrat—he offers blunt-force trauma to break through the status quo. The institutional GOP rejects Trump because he’s
too noisy and divisive—and because he’s not one of them.
Cruz represents
a different challenge. Ideologically, he
is a paragon of Republican orthodoxy. But temperamentally, he’s an exemplar of a
different type of conservative that has emerged in the last few years, a no-compromise,
deeply authoritarian and often theocratic one.
This type of
Republican is on full display in Sam Brownback’s Kansas, where the legislature
is exploring ways to impeach state Supreme Court Justices that they don’t politically agree with. In Indiana, with new laws essentially banning
most abortions. In North Carolina, obsessing
about LGBT people so much they went into special session to legalize discrimination
against them. Mississippi, which goes
further than North Carolina, in that it also expands the sinners beyond gays to
any out of wedlock sex (hopefully, Alabama Republican Governor Robert Bentley won’t
feel the need to cross the border too soon). Kentucky, which is working on Bible Study
classes in public schools, a new anti-abortion initiative, and my personal
favorite, repeal of all state mining safety regulations.
Maybe that can
work in a conservative state. In Kansas,
in particular, Brownback has simply overwhelmed the opposition with brute
force. But it is high risk, leaving a great
deal of wreckage behind, including unhappy business interests, and aggrieved citizens
with long memories.
Ted Cruz nationalizes
that confrontational approach. He’s not merely a conservative, he’s an authoritarian
change agent unbound by custom, without respect for checks and balances, without
respect for any part of the Constitution he doesn’t agree with, and most seriously,
without respect for American citizens he sees as threats or just plain
political opponents.
And, that worries
the GOP. Yes, they want a more
conservative government. But they also
want to build a long-term governing coalition, and Cruz endangers that. Parties are defined by their leaders. The Democrats have been defined by Mr.
Obama. The Republicans will be defined
by their nominee. Ted Cruz, the GOP
knows, engenders, and earns, visceral distaste.
And yet, it is
going to happen. Cruz is going to take Wisconsin, and Trump will not get enough
delegates to win the nomination outright.
People are getting in line…not with relish, but with resignation.
To paraphrase
the old Goldwater slogan:
In their hearts,
they know he’s wrong.
Michael
Liss (Moderate Moderator)
Please
join us on Twitter.
