Derek Hunter wrote a critique of Ted Cruz at Townhall.com. He says he writes it as a conservative and a fan of Ted Cruz. I have no reason to doubt him so I will take him at his word.
But although his goals are admirable and shared by conservatives across the country, he has no idea how to achieve them. In fact, his actions in the Senate, which are bringing him praise from conservative groups and grassroots activists, are harming the cause.
I am open to the possibility that Cruz’s tactics are wrong and that he is “harming the cause,” but I’m not seeing it. In fact Hunter’s assertions seem to me to justify Cruz’s attitude and actions. After making some points that may be plausible (at least are worth considering) Hunter then undermines his entire case while seeming to think he is arguing for it:
What would Cruz have done if he’d successfully filibustered the debt limit increase? He rightly wanted concessions, offsets and reforms, but what was his move when the Democrats and White House said “no?” What if they simply had refused to negotiate?
We don’t have to imagine the outcome. We saw it play out last October. How’d that work out again?
What Cruz doesn’t realize, or hopes you don’t realize, is Democrats and the White House will never negotiate.
Imagine you’re sitting across from al Qaeda leadership to talk peace. They want you and all Americans dead; you don’t want anyone to die. How do you negotiate with that?
Your opening offer is “Don’t kill us and we won’t kill you.” But they view killing us as their calling, and they’re perfectly willing to die. Do you find a middle ground with that? Some people can be killed, just not all? Everyone can have their left hand chopped off? What?
There is no answer because they just want to kill everyone. Progressives will not negotiate because they don’t care how their policies harm people. They believe their goal is noble – and if you have to harm people, trample rights, lie, whatever, along the way, well, that’s just what you have to do. The ends justify the means.
You want to purge the Republican Party of “squishes,” I’m with you. But how about we do it from a position of power?
So if the Democrats are so radical and implacable, then what is wrong with shutting down the government? I don’t get Hunter’s problem at all. Despite the media’s attempt to keep it a live issue, the imploding rollout of Healthcare.gov and the continual circus of disasters that is the Affordable Care Act completely overshadowed the perceived problems with the shutdown within two weeks. In the meantime, Obama admitted that the Cruz-led shutdown obstructed and may have derailed so-called “immigration reform.”
It wasn’t a failure; it may well turn out to have been the thing that saved us!
The Obama Administration is doing things that really hurt the country. Paralyzing them is a perfectly legitimate strategy and I need to hear reasons not to do it if I am going to change my mind. The idea that it will make us so unpopular that we will lose elections is worth considering, but I am skeptical. I want to make sure there will actually be free elections in the future. Obstructing the Obama juggernaut—monkey-wrenching the machine—in order to preserve the Republic is fine by me.
I admit, I wasn’t as enthusiastic about trying to negotiate this time around because the Republicans had already publicly sold out on the budget. It would put us in the position of pretending to be fiscal conservatives when we have already authorized the spending.