Criticize Senator Ted Cruz’s bid for Republican nomination

Brandeis University's The Justice Student Newspaper ^ | March 31, 2015 | Abe Clark

[2ndDivisionVet]

Texas Senator Ted Cruz set off a media firestorm last week by becoming the first to announce his candidacy for the Republican nomination in 2016. The media has generally described Cruz as a passionate, hard-line conservative and a polarizing figure. Writing for Fox News, Michael Goodwin argued that Cruz has a chance at becoming our next president, calling him “a brilliant man of clear conservative convictions, not muddled by the politics of calculation.” It’s a nice sentiment, but it also effectively illustrates the underlying problem with candidates like Cruz and with our political system in general: being “muddled” by a willingness to compromise is actually a trait we should pursue in a potential president, not vilify. Working on the problems we face as a nation requires considerable “calculation,” or reasoned, pragmatic solutions. What we don’t need is more blanket ideology, no matter how passionate.

In light of the government shutdown of 2013, it’s been made clear that the blatantly dysfunctional nature of Congress is a serious issue. The 112th and 113th congressional sessions, our last two congresses, have been the two least productive—in terms of bills passed—in American history and scored the lowest approval ratings since 1974, according to NBC. Political polarization lies at the root of this dysfunction, because as politicians move further and further away from each other, they lose their ability to find any reasonable middle ground. This undermines our democratic process by eliminating our ability to work together to find solutions to the problems we face. As a senator, Ted Cruz epitomizes the polarization of Congress in his inability to compromise; the junior senator has passed just one bill so far, a unanimously supported, non-controversial effort to stop Iran’s envoy from entering the US.

Possibly our biggest concern in 2008 was health care. A 2009 study from Harvard University found that 45,000 people died every year from lack of access to health care, and those who had no health insurance were 40 percent more likely to die of preventable causes. In response to this awful scenario, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, making health insurance affordable for low-income earners and closing loopholes that allowed health insurance companies to deny coverage. Obamacare was initially a compromise; far more moderate than the single-payer system President Barack Obama championed in 2008, it most closely resembled the health care system put in place by Republican Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. As a system that mandates minimum health insurance coverage and subsidizes it for low-income earners, Obamacare is ironically similar to the plan put forward by Senator John McCain during the 2008 election. But compromises that could potentially save thousands of lives don’t fit neatly within the confines of Ted Cruz’s far-right ideology; Cruz championed the conservative pushback against Obamacare, filibustering its passage and shutting down the government in an attempt to defund the bill. Since then, Cruz has promised to “repeal every word of Obamacare,” bringing us back to the reality of 2008, when health and life expectancy were a matter of finances.

Perhaps most disconcerting about the stubborn nature of U.S. politics is our inability to act in the best interests of the country. Following the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., where a shooter used a legally-purchased gun to kill 20 school children and six adult staff members, a bipartisan coalition of senators proposed legislation that would limit the number of bullets that can be held by a magazine and extend universal background checks to keep assault weapons from potentially dangerous individuals. Cruz, along with all but four senate Republicans and most southern Democrats, opposed all measures to reduce gun violence, with Cruz arguing that the Obama administration tried to use the shooting as “an excuse to go after the constitutional rights of law-abiding senators” and has continued to urge Republicans not to compromise on the issue. Before the vote, polls showed overwhelming support for universal background checks, including 92 percent of gun owners and 86 percent of Republicans supporting the bill. This was an opportune moment for politicians to answer their constituencies bring about meaningful change in public policy and hopefully reduce gun violence in the process. But Cruz is not motivated by a desire to lower the murder rate or decrease the number of mass murders; rather, he is motivated to protect his exact ideology down to the letter, regardless of its effect on the lives of Americans. This is unproductive, harmful politics and the diametric opposite of what we need in 2016.

There’s no doubt that liberals are also at fault for some of our political polarization. Liberal politicians can be just as unwilling to compromise as conservatives, and our twitterization of social politics has eroded conversations down to slogans. But Ted Cruz stands out as a particularly dangerous politician, the type to give ideological objections to pragmatic solutions and shut down our government rather than compromise on health care.

When the time comes to pick a candidate for the 2016 election, I hope Democrats won’t merely endorse a liberal version of Ted Cruz in the future but will instead put forth a candidate who will fight arguments of shallow passion with arguments of substance.

Despite our stagnant Congress, we’ve made some significant progress over the past eight years, bringing health care to millions of uninsured and cutting unemployment nearly in half. However, over 10,000 Americans continue to die from gun violence every year, and millions of Americans continue working full-time while requiring government assistance to live. The biggest challenge for our next president will be to build upon our successes while working to break down the polarization of Congress so we can move toward a more productive future and address those issues we still face.

As a senator, and now as a candidate, Cruz represents an undoing of all the progress we’ve made over the last eight years and a continued barricade to progress and compromise. In other words, Cruz embodies everything wrong with American politics in 2015 and should be ignored as a potential candidate.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Let's all play "Spot The Errors" with this one.

[Berlin_Freeper]

Texas Senator Ted Cruz set off a media firestorm last week by becoming the first to announce his candidacy for the Republican nomination in 2016.

Media CDS.

[__rvx86]

But these are the same types who WOULD support a far-left Ted Cruz...worse than Warren?

[a fool in paradise]

Tell President "I won" that he lost the mid-term elections and must bow to the popular electorate in this country. He's more willing to negotiate with the Taliban, terrorists, Communists, et al than he is willing to negotiate with the GOP.

Harry Reid never considered the bills passed by the Republican led house. Barry now stands alone as THE Party of NO.

[urbanpovertylawcenter]

Abe Clark, not anyone’s definition of your average douche bag.

[DaxtonBrown]

Ummm. it’s okay for Obama not to compromise, but when ted does it, it is evil.

[nopardons]

Never forget that Bandeis also unasked Hirsi Ali, to speak, because she just isn’t on the right side, what with speaking against the Muslim terrorist and female mutilation.

[Vendome]

“... in general: being “muddled” by a willingness to compromise is actually a trait we should pursue in a potential president”

Really?

So, show me a few instances where the current resident has exemplified this “so called” trait...

[P-Marlowe]

As a senator, and now as a candidate, Cruz represents an undoing of all the progress we’ve made over the last eight years

Music to my ears!

Cruz 2016!!!!!!!!!!!

[Deagle]

Ah, if not for the negative statements and just plain awful reviews by the leftist media, what would we have to talk about...heh. They just provide the fodder for rebellion!

[2ndDivisionVet]

If Mr. Obama has been in office for eight years, isn’t his time up?

[nathanbedford]

when health and life expectancy were a matter of finances

Which is exactly as it should be. The allocation of resources should be done by the free market wherever possible. Some people make intelligent choices and extend their life expectancy, others are imprudent and leave themselves bereft of the resources needed to obtain healthcare. If we intrude the government into this process we generate unintended consequences, we subsidize profligacy and punish frugality.

The way we allocate goods and services in a free-market economy is by giving every individual a choice and a vote. The individual as consumer casts his vote by spending his dollars or refraining from spending his dollars and so directly exercises influence over the market. His influence, of course, is not perfect or complete but it is far more perfect and more complete than it is if it were reduced to a one-time appearance in a voting booth to elect someone else to make that decision for him for the next two, four or six years.

Finances are also indicia of worthiness. Poor people are often sick because they made bad choices concerning their finances and they tend to make bad choices about their lifestyle. Losers make bad choices. So what Obamacare does is doubly harmful: it distorts the market by punishing frugality and rewarding profligacy and it also relieves the imprudent of the consequences of their actions. In other words, if a hypothetical alcoholic such as Frank Gallagher were to be given a new liver he is enabled to continue his drinking at public expense.

As Obamacare and leftist nostrums in general distort the marketplace, Nathan Bedford's maxim kicks in: the remedy for failed socialism is invariably more socialism. So not only will the government tax more and spend more to solve the problems they've created, the government will restrict our liberties in order to compel behavior. It will tell Frank Gallagher that he may not drink or it will tell the obese they may not eat because to treat their alcoholism or their diabetes will drive up the costs of healthcare. Once the government assumes the right to intrude into the marketplace and allocate healthcare instead of allowing the marketplace to do it, the government pretends it has justification to take away liberty. So we lose the right to smoke, drink soft drinks, eat carbohydrates, or enjoy a traditional school lunch.

The process of allocation of resources by the government does not stop with distorting the insurance marketplace or with depriving us of our liberties, inevitably the government will deprive us of healthcare-the very excuse for Obamacare in the first place. The government will decide whether the aged get new hips, whether stage IV cancer patients get expensive drugs, whether Frank Gallagher gets his new liver. Sarah Palin's death panels are simply inevitable and in the view of the left, desirable.

Yes, health and life expectancy should be matters of personal liberty because to deprive us of our liberty to finance our own health care is indecent.

[Candor7]

The article pans the deaths in Sandy Hook without even mentioning the 2nd amendment. If any teacher or adult there had been carrying, the kid wouldn’t have gotten past go.

Why are these left liberals so stupid?

[2ndDivisionVet]

"...where a shooter used a legally-purchased gun to kill 20 school children and six adult staff members..."

If you'll remember, Adam Lanza didn't "legally purchase" those firearms, his mother did. He murdered her and stole them.

[nopardons]

That he did and anyone still attempting to use the Sandy Hook killing spree as a way to knock Cruz, is a mental midget.

[Candor7]

That is correct, the spin continues. Poor Adam Lanza ( sarc.)

[a fool in paradise]

Obama was the one who put the shutdown in place.

And then Obama was the one who shut down publicly visible landmarks and open spaces out of spite. He spent money to erect “Barrycades” and he’d planned to do so before Ted Cruz ever fillibustered.

[a fool in paradise]

2 years as a Senator.

[2ndDivisionVet]

You think Abe is counting that or is just a dumb*** who sucks at math like he fails at writing?

[OneWingedShark]

Ummm. it’s okay for Obama not to compromise, but when ted does it, it is evil.

There is a saying: compromise between good and evil always is to evil's advantage.

If you're operating under the assumption that Obama is evil, and Cruz is good, then applying the above Obama's compromising benefits evil just as Cruz's compromising does.