Ted Cruz is for real

Alright, let’s go ahead and put out some of the accusations:

  • scheming
  • opportunist
  • Machiavellian
  • self-serving
  • self-aggrandizing
  • will say anything to get elected
  • probably not even a real evangelical (since those don’t come from Cuba)

There are other attacks on Ted Cruz, but these are really the ones that impugn his motives. I am not a Cruz historian, but a lot of this is public knowledge, so that said let’s consider a little of his background…

  • Father was a part of socialist/communist overtake of a sovereign nation
  • Father fled the oppressive regime in Cuba when it was actually in power
  • Father married and had children with one woman before leaving her and marrying again
  • Father abandoned Cruz and his mother in Canada
  • Father then had a religious conversion, changed his life completely and became a lifelong preacher
  • Ted Cruz was an excellent student as young as anyone can remember
  • Ted Cruz has been a staunch conservative as long as anyone can remember

Okay, let’s take that into perspective.  Children cling to their fathers – not my opinion but fact. Boys with good fathers frequently strive their hardest to be the man that would make their father proud.  Whatever else you may believe about Rafael Cruz’ history by the time Ted could talk with him he was a zealot for Christ who had completely abandoned socialism and leftism in general.  Converts make the most dedicated practitioners of an ideology, even if they are not frequently the most educated in that ideology.

Ted’s early experience would have been inquisitive (as most gifted children are) constantly asking his father questions on everything from why hitting is bad to how ants move.  Ted would have been imprinted from an incredibly early age into conservatism and conservative Christianity.  As he grew not only did the early bond with his father (obviously) remain, but his other interactions (his sister and nephew for instance) would have only reaffirmed the truth that a life not following Christ is a tragedy in and of itself and leads to further tragedy.  Those who have interacted with him in life have attested to his conservatism running in an unbroken stream on virtually every area since high school (usually this is attested to in more liberal sources and described as annoying, off-putting, tiresome, loathsome, etc.).  Everything about Cruz’ personal narrative would indicate a man not driven by personal gain, but by ideological fervor.

One of the identifying characteristics of intelligent ideologues is that they adopt an entire system, since piecemeal systems are self contradictory.  Notice that Cruz in office (and in his career in general) has pursued a consistent view of conservatism and Christianity.  Let’s consider very quickly his view on homosexual marriage.  Some conservatives would jump to a national ban (Santorum I am looking your way), but Cruz takes a 10th amendment stance.  The reason this seems genuine from Cruz while it would not from Bush is Cruz’ consistancy.  Whether you follow it or not the thinking would be about as follows:

Homosexuality is sinful by nature.  However, there are a rash of other sinful behaviors and attitudes that the state cannot compel out of existance (lying, greed, lust, etc) without resorting to the worst forms of tyranny.  As such at the national level we need to compare the restriction of homosexuality and legal preference as codified in marital laws against national restriction.  A good guide is the constitution which clearly delegates certain matters to the federal government, but leaves other matters (including basically all moral judgments) in the realm of states.  Thus although I find homosexuality a damnable sin I believe the matter is best left to the states to regulate.

When you look at Cruz stance he takes the entire worldview and applies it to each area he comes across.  Immigration is another example where there is a command to love our neighbors, but even Israel had immigration laws.  This framework would encourage immigration, but not national dissolution through unenforced borders and effective (if not legal) citizenship for anyone who steps onto our soil.  So Cruz could support increased immigration while also supporting deportation of all who have defied our immigration laws and building a fence.  The issue is not about where the people have come from, or even how many, but that they stand in defiance of our laws.  This is also why he can change his position on H1B visas when evidence shows that they are not serving the purpose for which they were intended, but rather push the native born out of jobs in favor of visa holders.  It is not necessarily scheming, but a change of opinion based on facts.

There are many reasons to dislike Cruz, but his motives are almost certainly pure.  You may hate his positions (some feel that way on H1B visas), you may find him abrasive, you may (like me) find his voice grating, you may dislike his tactics (not attacking Trump), you may dislike his inability to compromise (as McConnell does), or you may not like him for some other reason.  However, there is absolutely no evidence that he is pursuing his own elevation.  Every ideology has its opportunists, its partial adherents, its uninformed, and its true zealous ideologues.  Can we please admit Cruz is entirely firmly unequivocally in the last category and is relentlessly pursuing what he believes to be true.  That is:

Cruz is without question deeply committed to a worldview entirely framed by Christianity and Constitutionalism, and will do whatever he can within that framework to advance its cause.


** P.S.  This is why Cruz cannot be bought and cannot bring himself to compromise on most things.  When good compromises with evil only evil advances.  When pursuing compromise how many idols should Solomon have brought into the temple?