Posted on 04/05/2015 11:11:21 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Blocking legislation, defunding the government and thwarting compromise is the real mission — and he's winning.
Ted Cruz’s candidacy highlights a fundamental rift in the Republican Party, a rift that observers often misunderstand as simply a tug-of-war between different gradations of conservatism. It is a gulf far more profound than this. Most Republicans recognize that the government must regulate some aspects of American capitalism, providing Social Security, veterans benefits, workplace safety, and basic infrastructure at the very least. But Cruz belongs to a reactionary wing of the party that rejects the idea that the government has any role at all to play in the American economy. Since the 1950s, the leaders of Cruz’s wing have been fighting to take the American government back to the days before FDR’s New Deal.
After unregulated capitalism sparked the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing 10-year Depression, Democrats and most Republicans came to accept the idea that the federal government must protect workers, provide jobs and establish a social safety net to keep people from starving. But big business leaders in the Republican Party loathed these programs. New Deal labor laws required businessmen to obey basic rules about safety, wages and hours, cutting into profits. New laws gave workers the right to unionize, and the right to join in a political faction strong enough to counter organizations of businessmen. At the same time, the New Deal raised taxes to pay for the new social safety net. Republican businessmen howled that these laws prevented them from making and keeping as much money as possible. They were “soak the rich” programs that would “crack the timbers of the Constitution.” The New Deal was socialism, pure and simple, they insisted.
But most Americans saw an active government as the proper response to the conditions of modern industrialism, and reactionary businessmen cried in the wilderness.
In 1951, fresh out of Yale, the son of a wealthy oil man launched a radical movement to break the popular New Deal consensus and take the party back to the pro-business government policies of Herbert Hoover. Speaking for the nation’s wealthy businessmen, William F. Buckley Jr. insisted that government must never interfere with either Christianity or “freedom,” a word he turned inside out. In Buckley’s worldview, American freedom no longer meant personal liberty; it meant the right of the wealthy to accumulate as much money as possible. He excoriated regulation and taxes as “collectivism” that redistributed wealth, and warned that welfare legislation destroyed individualism. Bemoaning the extraordinary popularity of America’s new government activism, he maintained that it was leading the nation to full-blown communism. He called for right-minded Americans to reverse the tide and restore the economic freedom he insisted was America’s fundamental principle. But Buckley and his ilk made little headway at first, for a mere 11 years after the Depression, very few Americans still believed in wholly unfettered capitalism.
Buckley’s reactionary ideas began to gain traction in 1954, when court-ordered school desegregation gave Movement Conservatives the opportunity to break the New Deal consensus by appealing to white racists. Many white Americans who liked the idea of an active government that regulated business and kept old people from starving hated the idea of an active government that protected their black neighbors. Buckley harped on this racial wedge in his new magazine, National Review. Movement Conservatism—Buckley’s creation– picked up momentum after 1957, when President Eisenhower sent troops to integrate Little Rock Central High School. This was the first intrusion of federal troops into the South since Reconstruction, and Movement Conservatives deliberately revisited the racist arguments of the late nineteenth century. They explained that integration was simply a redistribution of wealth because tax dollars, paid by hardworking white men, funded the troops that were defending grasping African-Americans. In 1960, Movement Conservatives in Buckley’s mold backed Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona for the presidency. They articulated their principles in “The Conscience of a Conservative,” published under Goldwater’s name but written by Buckley’s brother-in-law L. Brent Bozell. Those principles are Cruz’s playbook.
In their slim 1960 volume, Buckley and Bozell laid out the tenets of Movement Conservatism. They explained that the laws of God and nature were as fixed and unchanging as the Ten Commandments. Those laws dictated America’s fundamental principle: freedom. The Founding Fathers had deliberately kept the government from “the tyranny of the masses” to guarantee that American freedom could not be compromised by popular demands for government activism. No matter how popular government programs might be, the government could do nothing the Founding Fathers had not expressly enumerated in the Constitution, or it would destroy American freedom. “My aim is not to pass laws,” Bozell had Goldwater say, “but to repeal them.” Movement Conservatives planned “not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution… or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden.” Movement Conservatism’s goal was to destroy the New Deal government.
According to “The Conscience of a Conservative,” American freedom depends on states’ rights. There must be no civil rights legislation, no federal oversight of education, no unions, no taxation for domestic spending. Any government intervention in any of these areas was a collectivism that destroyed freedom. Bozell defended this principle according to his understanding of the Tenth Amendment, which, he insisted, reserved most rights to the states. Explicitly, he took on three issues roiling America in his day. On civil rights, he insisted that all legislation was unconstitutional. Even Brown v. Board of Education, a unanimous Supreme Court decision under Republican Chief Justice Earl Warren, was wrong. “The Constitution is what its authors intended it to be and said it was,” he wrote, “not what the Supreme Court says it is.” Under the same argument, he attacked any federal intervention in education policy. And it was, he said, imperative to reduce taxes. The only way to do that was to cut all domestic programs that used tax funds: “social welfare programs, education, public power, agriculture, public housing, urban renewal,” and so on. Finally, the only way to protect domestic freedom was by attacking totalitarian foreign governments.
It did not matter if the majority of Americans disagreed with this worldview. According to Bozell, American progress depended not on regular people applying their “average intelligence” to the day’s problems. What moved society forward was “the brilliance and dedication of wise individuals” who apply “their wisdom to advance the freedom and well-being of all of our people.”
Goldwater missed the nomination in 1960, but his supporters got him the 1964 Republican nomination after mainstream Republican Nelson Rockefeller spectacularly self-destructed. For all the Movement Conservatives’ elitism, its stalwarts insisted that they represented a majority of the American people. Apparently, they did not. The Goldwater candidacy went down in flames. More than 60 percent of the American electorate opposed Goldwater and gave Democrat Lyndon Johnson a supermajority to pass the Great Society legislation that expanded the New Deal. Movement Conservatives could not gain significant national power until they convinced social conservatives and evangelicals, as well as white racists, that an active government gave their hard-earned tax dollars to women and minorities. Even then, leaders like President Ronald Reagan, who repeatedly raised taxes and actually was willing to compromise on some issues, could not take the hard line that true Movement Conservatives wanted.
Cruz, though, brings back the Movement Conservative principles of Goldwater’s day. Cruz is a firm adherent of state’s rights: He wrote his undergraduate thesis at Princeton on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and led the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Center for Tenth Amendment Studies. The positions he takes reflect that stand. Cruz publicly supported North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms, famous for his fervent opposition to civil rights legislation, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. Two years ago, Cruz told the Heritage Foundation that America needs “100 more” like Helms in the Senate.
Cruz’s position on the Common Core and the Department of Education also echoes “The Conscience of a Conservative.” Cruz has vowed to repeal “every word of the Common Core,” a vow that has perplexed observers who point out that Common Core is a set of standards voluntarily adopted by states rather than a law. He has also vowed to scrap the Department of Education, a promise that pundits dismiss as red-meat rhetoric for his conservative audiences. But these are not frivolous promises. Cruz’s stance reflects the original insistence of Movement Conservatives that the federal government must stay out of education policy.
Finally, Cruz’s repeated obstruction of the government is not political posturing. He showed his hand in 2013, almost as soon as he took office, when he led an insurgency to shut down the government. This was a suicidal strategy for a party trying to prove that it can govern, but a necessity if the goal was to end the domestic activism that America has relied on since the 1930s. Similarly, Cruz’s insistence that he wants to repeal every word of Obamacare is consistent with the Movement Conservative worldview. Such a broad federal program is a prime illustration of the sort of New Deal government policy Movement Conservatives loathe. Pundits have dismissed Cruz’s promise to abolish the IRS as a silly feint, but it is not. Taxes fund domestic legislation. Get rid of taxes and you can kill domestic spending. As Cruz explained to Fox’s Megyn Kelly when she challenged him to explain what he had accomplished: “What we’ve accomplished over and over again, in many instances,” he said, “is stopping bad things from happening.”
It is an error to dismiss the Cruz candidacy as quixotic. Political observers make the mistake of thinking that he and his ilk are simply at the far right of the same political spectrum that the rest of the country reflects. They are not. Most Americans, Republicans as well as Democrats, accept some version of the New Deal. They believe the government must regulate modern capitalism so that hard-working individuals can rise. Republicans and Democrats often disagree on how to accomplish that goal, but members of the two parties share a basic view that the government has a role to play in society. Many Republicans believe they can work together with Democrats to hash out legislation. These are the people Cruz disdains as “the mushy middle.” In contrast, Movement Conservatives like Cruz believe that rich businessmen are society’s proper leaders and that any government activism to level the economic playing field destroys freedom. They believe their view is absolutely right; to compromise on anything would lose everything.
Cruz does not have to win the White House to win the war. So long as he can grab headlines and whip up voters, Movement Conservatives can continue to hold enough congressional seats to continue to block legislation and defund the government. Then they can do as Buckley hoped: stand athwart history and make it stop.
*****
Heather Cox Richardson teaches nineteenth-century American history at Boston College.
Any time they say “Goldwater” they are pissing their pants thinking “Reagan”... This is a good thing, there is not one pair of clean underwear in any given group of democrats when the topic of “Ted Cruz” comes up.
So I have to believe that few have actually ever read much conservative literature. This leftist harpy proves once again that conservatives know far more about liberalism than liberals know about conservatism.
In other words, a typical MSM article circa 2015.
They really do think they are entitled to their own facts.
Exactly! It is like this woman wanted to tell a story and facts be damned.... she was going to tell her damn leftist story.... Unreal....
Liberals never stray from their mantra that more and more money will solve all education problems. Despite the fact that studies have shown money has had virtually zero effect on scholastic test scores and grades. Billions upon billions of dollars have been wasted on crackpot liberal theories and modes of "education."
“Liberals never stray from their mantra that more and more money will solve all education problems.”
You certainly don’t need to tell me. I’ve already started a DOZEN Russian families on how to teach their kids math (here in Houston), and now the Chinese are (finally) getting interested...so lots of their kids too.
The LIBERALS have left the playing field WIDE OPEN now. Two generations ago, a kid that studied as hard as my kid would make the 90th percentile, now it’s the 99.5%. It’s simply TOO EASY for parents ready to take control.
But needless to say, very few are. And the ONLY ONES that seem to have ANY INTEREST at all are the parents that were not born in this country.
I didnt read one line of the article because I don’t read the shit published by the likes of “Salon” and “Huffington Post” or any other left-wing, journalistic rag. The headline reaffirms the fact that Ted Cruz has them scared out of their perverted minds.
That’s why I NEVER read articles posted on here that are in “Salon” of “The Huffington Post”. Makes me have to increase my blood pressure meds.
When I see an article title like this one, before I click, I try to guess the source.
This one was pretty easy to guess.
Not big enough, dude. Not nearly big enough ...
When you put the core comment in context, it shows how perverse they are in their fear. "Oh noze! Dey wants to make us whole and helfy agin!"
The Cruz Factor.
The Cruz Tide........
Cruz Tide
Roll’n Roll’n Roll’n
Roll’n Roll’n Roll’n
Roll’n Roll’n Roll’n
CRUZ TIDE !
YEAH !
YEAH !
Keep Roll’n Roll’n Roll’n,
Though the main sreams ( media ) lying,
Keep those donations move’n,
Cruz Tide.
Through left’s lies, smears, and bully’n.
The left’s Hell’s gates arising,
Executive orders await’n for repeal,
All the things were missing,
Lerner, Hillary, the media should go to prison,
Are waiting at the end of my ride.
Move’n up, Move’n out, Move’n out, Move’n up.
CRUZ TIDE !
Just like baboons trowing their own crap ( feces ) with impeccable aim.
Alice in Wonderland journalism to be exact.
LOVE BOLD LETTERS, And no, not meant be to shouting, but excited, enthusiasticlly gunho ....
MAY THEY VET TED CRUZ FOR US.
.... THE TED CRUZ TIDE IS A RISING AND THEY DON’T KNOW IT YET THAT THEY ARE HELPING TED CRUZ.., because they can’t help themselves.
They are doing the job for us by vetting Ted Cruz.
Great generals not only uncaningly know the next move of their enemies ( George Patton : Rommel ? I READ YOUR BOOK “
But legdgonary great generals get inside the heads of their enemies and cause their enemies to make bad decisions, mistakes, and manipulate them so that they fight on the battle field of their own choosing.
Great legdgonary generals stay 5 steps ahead of their enemies.
In a good way, Ted Cruz is a calculating SLY FOX MAGNIFICENT BASTARD !
We have I think the same vision and I will shout along with your excitement and demonstrated enthusiasm... I HEAR YOU LOUD AND CLEAR!
STRAIGHT AHEAD... I see other candidates facing the same obstacles as Cruz, the difference being the others try to navigate around obstacles, go right around it here, go left around it there, backtracking and/or changing mind when politically expedient.
Cruz sets himself straight through the obstacles paving the way for we the people to follow, that is leadership, he knows something; the enemy projects themselves fearsome, Cruz knows they are in fact weak and most fragile, there is no foundation only a mix of Marx, Stalin, Lenin and assorted isms with no aggregate to keep it all from crumbling.
Cruz knows his enemies both within and without, you just need to STAND in their face they will collapse as they have had for so long no substantial resistance they have no experience or knowledge of how to oppose one who is unshakable, unmovable, truly constitutionally and morally principled, a strategist who utilizes psychological warfare with a smile to degrade and diminish their dissent, it is to the politically astute exciting, amazing to watch and to STAND with him as he leads.
Thanks for the opportunity to rant, I’ve been saying the same sorts of things about Cruz consistently and if we are to see the restoration of our Republic we must constantly do so, there comes a time I believe when it is prudent to place all your eggs in one basket, I think this is such a time, we have too little time to diddle around with various wannabe’s there is now IMO only one choice... Cruz 2016!
” no aggregate to keep it all falling apart “ a concrete man ?
Yes, the left has no real foundations to stand on, only a organized reblerousers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.