Ted Cruz: David, Goliath, and Saul

So, I was thinking today about [mc_name name=’Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’C001098′ ] and I think the story of David and Goliath is an apt comparison.  First thing to note is that the Philistines basically had Israel under their thumb.  Nobody was even allowed to have a sword without Philistine approval.  There were two swords in the whole kingdom, the third would be forcibly removed from Goliath (and used to sever his head).  Remember that David was offended that nobody was willing to go out and fight Goliath, and he volunteered.  Saul upon hearing this suited David up in Saul’s own armor and with Saul’s own sword (by the way, the armor must have fit – David was a big guy).  Saul did this to preserve his own status no matter the outcome:

  • David wins, Saul takes credit.  I mean, everyone just saw someone Saul’s size and in Saul’s armor kill the Philistine using Saul’s own sword.  David?  Who’s that?
  • David loses, Saul points and says something along the lines of “Thief!  You did not have the authority to run out there and pretend you were me!”
  • No matter what Saul was never in danger, David was the one who faced the risk.

Yet David shunned the royal clothes and weapons, took his own weapon of choice, and fought.  After this Saul lost total respect as the women sang “Saul has killed his thousands, David his ten thousands.”

Now moving away from the real spiritual aspect of David and Goliath (the role of God’s anointed king) let’s just build an analogy to the present situation.  McConnell, Boehner, and others have been completely caving to the Democrats for years.  Decades.  Any thing that conservatives want from government only comes with Democrat approval.  No weapons are allowed without the Democrats allowing it.  We get saddled with program after utterly failed program and never is anything rolled back.  The best we get is an agreement that we only give half the loaf away now with the assumption that the other half will wait for a political cycle or two.

When [mc_name name=’Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’C001098′ ] was running in Texas there was a feeling (at least by my peers) that he would turn out to be just another politician saying one thing but doing another.  He said he would fight, but so does everyone else who ever campaigns for anything.  In the house though he refused the royal clothes and sword of show votes and compromise.  He used new tactics and weapons and remained a conservative even when it cost.

It feels to me like we have a group competing for the role of Saul pretending to lead, pretending to be conservative, speaking and looking how we want while giving in to every demand of the opposition.  I would include Bush, Rubio, Fiornia, and Trump in this category.  Yes, living under Saul was better than Eglon, but Saul was no David.  The two who would be David are Carson and Cruz.

However, also recall that when David went to battle he already had the experience of leading sheep and fighting bear and lion.  I deeply trust Carson’s integrity and dedication.  However, I personally do not believe that Carson’s experience has prepared him to stand up to the members of his own party who would beg him to compromise, those who would say that not giving $700B to GM, Solyndra, and Merrill Lynch would end society as we know it.

If we are going to choose someone to stand against Goliath (played by Hillary) and to beat back the Philistines (Washington elite of both parties) shouldn’t we choose someone who has demonstrated the willingness to do so previously?  We may not approve of the weapons (as I am sure Saul did not like the river stone approach).  However, I can think of no instances where Trump stood for a cause he believed in against all odds even knowing that it would fail because it was the right thing to do.  Ditto Carson, Rubio, Bush, and Fiornia.  I see no offense on their part at the lack of anyone standing up.  If we want someone who will stand against handing money to abortionists, someone who will stand against crony capitalism, someone who will stand against “free college” shouldn’t we choose someone who has actually demonstrated the willingness to stand in the gap previously, not just someone who says he would have?