It Is Not Only Trump

This week, Ted Cruz, once touted as a principled conservative, endorsed the most unprincipled man in the United States: Donald Trump. In a Facebook post laden with his trademark piety, Cruz wrote, “After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee.” In the wake of Cruz’s endorsement, a variety of journalists, pundits and writers opined on the event. While there were a number of insightful reactions, it was the consternation of The Atlantic’s Russell Berman that affected me the most.

The Texas senator announced his support for the Republican nominee late Friday afternoon in a Facebook post, writing that the possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency was “wholly unacceptable” and that he was keeping his year-old commitment to back the party’s choice. Cruz listed six policy-focused reasons why he was backing Trump, beginning with the importance of appointing conservatives to the Supreme Court and citing Trump’s recently expanded list of potential nominees. Other reasons included Obamacare—which Trump has vowed to repeal—immigration, national security, and Trump’s newfound support for Cruz’s push against an Obama administration move to relinquish U.S. oversight of an internet master directory of web addresses…Yet if there are six reasons Cruz gives for embracing Trump, there are another five for why his endorsement is the most stunning about-face of any of the Republicans who once opposed the real-estate tycoon.

In “Five Reasons Why Ted Cruz’s Endorsement of Donald Trump Is Stunning,” Berman does a fantastic job at articulating a sentiment that many people across the political spectrum must feel right now. However, I wonder if the article’s thesis—that Ted Cruz voting for Donald Trump exists as an astonishing act—is compelling only because Berman ignores the realpolitik tactics that Cruz has employed throughout his political career. Throughout the election cycle, Ted Cruz provided us with numerous examples of his willingness to do whatever it takes to accumulate power and influence. The clearest example of this cunningness was Cruz telling Iowa primary voters that Ben Carson quit the race. What saddens me about Berman’s analysis is that it exemplifies a tendency that many writers, liberals and conservatives alike, display when describing Cruz’s actions this cycle. Throughout this election cycle, many have been prone to ignoring Cruz’s abhorrent behavior simply because he is not Donald Trump.

Looking at Ted Cruz’s record, not only do people in the political beltway turn a blind eye towards Cruz’s political machinations, they extol him despite Cruz’s blatant racism. A particularly good example of this propensity is Jeremy Carl’s “Lion Ted” (a headline which plays on Donald Trump’s “Lying Ted” coinage). In the aftermath of Cruz’s provocative RNC speech—one in which he snubbed Donald Trump, refusing to give him his endorsement—Carl, along with many other writers, praised Cruz’s supposedly intrepid, as Carl states, “stand for conservatism.”

In this case, the simplest explanation for Senator Cruz’s behavior is also the best one: He didn’t endorse Trump because he didn’t think Trump was worthy of endorsement. Donald Trump insulted Cruz’s wife, (presumably) planted false tabloid stories about him in the National Enquirer, and suggested, completely baselessly, that his father might have been involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. Beyond these outrageous personal insults, it is clear that Trump’s conservatism, such as it is, has little in common with the limited-government, pro-federalism conservatism of Senator Cruz. Does that mean that Cruz might not have endorsed Trump were it obviously politically advantageous for him to do so? Of course not. Cruz is a political animal — he isn’t Ron Paul searching for the most extreme way of standing by his principles with no regard to their practical consequences. But those close to Cruz felt that strategically, the political implications of his move were unknowable. While a Rubio-style soft endorsement would have been politically much safer, ultimately there were presumably enough unknown unknowns about the politics that Senator Cruz decided that the best course of action was simply to do what he felt was right and hope, without any guarantees, that the politics would eventually work out for him. Ultimately, Cruz’s performance in the hall outlined his strongest political quality: his courage, a virtue that, ironically, he shares to some degree with his Trumpian nemesis.

While Carl does acknowledge that Cruz may have been partially motivated by self-interest, ultimately, he makes the mistake of undeservedly praising Cruz for “his courage.” And it is not only that Carl’s analysis is retroactively proven wrong by Cruz’s recent endorsement. Though he should’ve seen the RNC speech as a deceptive political move, not a sincere defense of conservatism, that alone is not why his article fails. Even before Cruz’s endorsement of Trump, one should have questioned how Carl, or any other journalist, could actually think that Cruz was not a noxious politician in his own right. Is the guy who called for the carpet-bombing of ISIS-held territories really worthy of adulation? Just because Trump’s racism is extremely dangerous, should Carl have ignored the fact that Cruz called for “law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods[?]” Indeed, as the title of this post suggest, it is not just Trump who is worthy of condemnation. Though I acknowledge that the press must look at Trump as a unique threat to democracy, his evil should not result in the public celebration of bigots like Ted Cruz. Rather than heap praise on to the Senator from Texas, we should hold him accountable. If we do not, we are in serious danger of letting devious figures like Ted Cruz take control of the levers of power.