Does the Republican Party have a future without Ted Cruz?

[XenaLee]

Its going to be a grim GOP future without me. They made it pretty clear during the convention that they don't want any upity constitutional conservatives.

And thus, the GOP is the enabler of the birth of a new grassroots movement.   The Constitution Party, open to any and all constitutional conservatives. 

Just as this forum opened its arms in welcome to those of us that felt pushed out at TOS...

the Constitution Party will welcome us as Party members now.

[INVAR]

The more pertinent question that should be asked is not about one man - because real Conservatives do not get wrapped up in cults of personality, we get wrapped up in principles and those who articulate and promote them.

The question that should be asked is: Does the Republican Party have a future without Principled Christian Conservatives?

I think the answer is already being forged.

And that answer is no.

[geronl]

A GOP without conservatives wouldn't last very long, because it would be pointless.

What we have now are two factions of the same party in this country, Trump and Hillary.

[GrouchoTex]

The more pertinent question that should be asked is not about one man - because real Conservatives do not get wrapped up in cults of personality, we get wrapped up in principles and those who articulate and promote them.

The question that should be asked is: Does the Republican Party have a future without Principled Christian Conservatives?

I think the answer is already being forged.

And that answer is no.

Well said.

[MACVSOG68]

It's not "our version."  It's codified law; and recognized in case law and court decisions.

Was George Romney not eligible?

Was John McCain not eligible?

Was Barry Goldwater not eligible?

There were several other figures from the 19th Century in similar situations, as well.  Once again, it's amazing how the propagandists pick and select facts.

I agree its amazing how propagandists pick and select facts.  Obama and Cruz are both natural born citizens given the use of the term at the time of ratification of the Constitution and the intent of the Founders.  My point is that many of those who now embrace Ted Cruz absolutely believed his birth history did not qualify him for the presidency, and those are the same ones who talk about constitutional conservatism.  Before Cruz announced, it was the Constitution; now it's immigration law.  You can look back at the debates both here and TOS if interested.  As an example, one long time member here who is active, believes that Cruz is not constitutionally eligible, but embraces him as a constitutional conservative because as he has stated here, "We've lost that issue, so let's move on".  Yet that issue wasn't lost during Obama's years in his eyes, only after Cruz announced.

[MACVSOG68]

Ironically Trump was one of the more prominent birthers. I guess he's moved on as well.

Indeed he apparently has, though he raised it earlier in the campaign.  His birther issue with Obama, I believe, was primarily the birth certificate issue.  With Cruz, I believe it was his place of birth.  In both cases, Trump was wrong.

[skeeter]

Indeed he apparently has, though he raised it earlier in the campaign.  His birther issue with Obama, I believe, was primarily the birth certificate issue.  With Cruz, I believe it was his place of birth.  In both cases, Trump was wrong.

Agree.

As to your main point, I do not believe there is any statistical correlation between now Cruz supporters and former Obama 'birthers'. If there is please present it.

[MACVSOG68]

The compromises that were made attendant to the formation of our republic were made among people who agreed centrally on principles, most specifically on the rights of man. They disagreed upon a great many things that dealt specifically with form and function, which is to say that they had to negotiate the best way to accomplish common goals with respect to the organizational structure of the proposed government. 


One area in which compromise was achieved only with great difficulty was on the issue of slavery, which resulted in a formulation (the 3/5ths clause) which Northern Federalists quietly intended reduce the power of southern states which the latter mistook as implicit support for slavery itself. But the principle was not dealt with until two generations later, when the matter began to come to an inevitable point of conflict, culminating of course in the Civil War.

We find ourselves I believe in a similar but more vexing situation today, because America is divided into two camps that do not disagree on policy alone, nor upon a single principle, but instead upon all principles of the proper role of government and the organization of a good society.

On one side, we have Progressives who are committed to the complete remaking of our government and our society. That end necessarily implies the "fundamental transformation" of our foundational principles and a recasting of the documents that enshrined them.

On the other side are conservatives who believe in the protection, maintenance and in many cases a return to the principles we have abandoned over time that are found in our constitution that the Progressives have either already succeeded in abrogating, or now seek to do so. In such circumstances compromise is not difficult. It is impossible.

Ted Cruz, I sense, understands this conflict, where many Republicans do not.  When one side is explicitly committed to the destruction of the other and of its foundational institutions, then compromise will only result in the achievement over time, of the destruction so desired. And yes, I know the practical consequences of such an understanding. And no, it will not be pleasant to live through. It never is.

The Founders maintained their principles, but did not let them stand in the way of compromise on something even greater.  The 3/5 solution and the future end of the slave trade were the compromise points at that time, though well before the Civil War, additional compromises were entered into through 1850.  Other compromises at the time included a bicameral legislative body to compromise with both large and small states.  If it were today, can you see California and New York (a small state then) agreeing to let Montana have the same number of senators as them?  There were many more not the least of which was a Bill of Rights that many either opposed or opposed in the form presented for ratification. 

These compromises were tremendous at the time from regions that felt they might just be better off without a stronger central government.  Many of today's issues are small compared with those.  Immigration reform is such an issue.  Tax reform is another.  Not every issue is going to be an easy compromise, but hey at least the Congress can get out of the heat, something the Founders couldn't do... ^-^

[don-o]

The compromises that were made attendant to the formation of our republic were made among people who agreed centrally on principles, most specifically on the rights of man. They disagreed upon a great many things that dealt specifically with form and function, which is to say that they had to negotiate the best way to accomplish common goals with respect to the organizational structure of the proposed government. 

Richard Weaver wound classify the founders as gentlemen. More here

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,217438.50.html

Ted Cruz is a gentleman. Donald Trump is a specialist.

[don-o]

The more pertinent question that should be asked is not about one man - because real Conservatives do not get wrapped up in cults of personality, we get wrapped up in principles and those who articulate and promote them.

The question that should be asked is: Does the Republican Party have a future without Principled Christian Conservatives?

I think the answer is already being forged.

And that answer is no.

Point taken. When I speak of Cruz, I do intend the reference to be to his principles and worldview. But, it bars repeating for the slow to understand. We can ALL be reminded that precision is vital for rational discourse.

[Bigun]

The Founders maintained their principles, but did not let them stand in the way of compromise on something even greater.  The 3/5 solution and the future end of the slave trade were the compromise points at that time, though well before the Civil War, additional compromises were entered into through 1850.  Other compromises at the time included a bicameral legislative body to compromise with both large and small states.  If it were today, can you see California and New York (a small state then) agreeing to let Montana have the same number of senators as them?  There were many more not the least of which was a Bill of Rights that many either opposed or opposed in the form presented for ratification. 

These compromises were tremendous at the time from regions that felt they might just be better off without a stronger central government.  Many of today's issues are small compared with those.  Immigration reform is such an issue.  Tax reform is another.  Not every issue is going to be an easy compromise, but hey at least the Congress can get out of the heat, something the Founders couldn't do... ^-^

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

The Anti-Federalists were right: The pursuit of "national greatness" inevitably diminishes liberty and centralizes government. The U.S. Constitution did both, as Sheldon Richman demonstrates in this powerfully argued anarchist case against the blueprint for empire known as the U.S. Constitution.

--Bill Kauffman, author, Forgotten Founder, Drunken Prophet: The Life of Luther Martin

The libertarian movement has long suffered from a constitutional fetishism that embraces an ahistorical reverence for the U.S. Constitution. Far too many are unaware of the extent to which the framing and adoption of the Constitution was in fact a setback for the cause of liberty. Sheldon Richman, in a compilation of readable, well researched, and compelling essays, exposes the historical, theoretical, and strategic errors in the widespread reification of a purely political document. With no single correct interpretation, the Constitution has been predictably unable to halt the growth of the modern welfare-warfare American State. I urge all proponents of a free society to give his book their diligent attention.

--Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Professor, San Jose State University; author, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War

"No state or government can limit itself through a written constitution, no matter how fine the words or how noble the sentiments they express. It is one of the many virtues of Sheldon Richman's book that it shows how this is true even of the American Constitution, which despite the promises of its designers and the insistence of its defenders down the years, made limited government less and not more likely."

--Chandran Kukathas, London School of Economics

“Richman delivers an accessible, incisive, and well-grounded argument that the Constitution centralized power and undid some of the Revolution’s liberating gains. He rebuts patriotic platitudes but avoids the crude contrarianism so common in libertarian revisionism written for popular consumption. He does not romanticize America’s past or overstate his case. Radical and nuanced, deferential to freedom and historical truth, Richman rises above hagiography or demonization of either the Federalists or anti-Federalists to produce an unsurpassed libertarian exploration of the subject.”

— Anthony Gregory, Independent Institute

“[A]fter reading this book, you will never think about the U.S. Constitution and America’s founding the same way again. Sheldon Richman’s revealing and remarkably well-argued narrative will permanently change your outlook. . . . Richman . . . [is] one of this country’s most treasured thinkers and writers . . . . [H]e draws on the most contemporary and important scholarly research, while putting the evidence in prose that is accessible and compelling.”

— Jeffrey A. Tucker, Liberty.me and Foundation for Economic Education

I am also coming more and more to this view of things!

[MACVSOG68]

@Bigun, you do understand who Sheldon Richman is?  From the book:

Sheldon Richman is a senior fellow of the Center for a Stateless Society (c4ss.org), chair of the Center’s trustees, and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com.

Antiwar.com features such notables as Pat Buchanan, Noam Chomsky, Julian Assange, Cindy Sheehan and a host of other far, far leftists as well as anarchists.  A stateless society simply cannot exist among other societies, unless it has absolutely nothing to offer a challenging society like land, natural resources, people or a medium of exchange.  I'm a bit too old to make a move over to the leftist-libertarian-anarchist movement.  I'll stick with the Republicans and hope they can keep the true left at bay for another Obama term.  And I doubt even the most ardent anti-federalists at the time of the Constitution would have embraced those "ideals".

[Bigun]

@Bigun, you do understand who Sheldon Richman is?  From the book:

Sheldon Richman is a senior fellow of the Center for a Stateless Society (c4ss.org), chair of the Center’s trustees, and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com.

Antiwar.com features such notables as Pat Buchanan, Noam Chomsky, Julian Assange, Cindy Sheehan and a host of other far, far leftists as well as anarchists.  A stateless society simply cannot exist among other societies, unless it has absolutely nothing to offer a challenging society like land, natural resources, people or a medium of exchange.  I'm a bit too old to make a move over to the leftist-libertarian-anarchist movement.  I'll stick with the Republicans and hope they can keep the true left at bay for another Obama term.  And I doubt even the most ardent anti-federalists at the time of the Constitution would have embraced those "ideals".

There you go again trying to infer something I NEVER said!

I know very well who he is and disagree with him in most areas but the subject matter of the particular book I referenced isn't one of them!
 

[geronl]

@Bigun, you do understand who Sheldon Richman is?  From the book:

Sheldon Richman is a senior fellow of the Center for a Stateless Society (c4ss.org), chair of the Center’s trustees, and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com.

Antiwar.com is way left.

[libertybele]

This is a great opinion piece!  I believe that the Republican party died the night that Trump was nominated as the presidential candidate. IMHO Trump's purpose in running for president was twofold; deny a Constitutional conservative the nomination and further splinter the Republican party.  He has accomplished that objective.  We came very close to getting our country back under Cruz and I think that is what we all need to remember and hold on to; even if you were a Rubio, Walker, Kasich, or other supporter.  We came close.  Whether you agree with Cruz or not, or whether you think he is too conservative or too religious (yes, some do), the fact of the matter remains he's the glue that's keeping any hope of taking our country back alive. He is the only hope for our democracy within a Republic. He has been the voice of the people and has stood up to the Washington cartel. The Kingmakers would rather have Hillary or Trump seated as it ensures their corruption can continue; further lining their pockets and maintaining their political seats.

Does the Republican Party have a future without Ted Cruz?

I left the Republican Party two years ago because I thought it too difficult to support Republicans in general after watching former House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (F, 42%) sell out the country repeatedly; and because I saw an organized effort to thwart conservative Christians from election.

Republican Country Club types populated the party’s ranks and liked the energy and enthusiasm people like me brought to the party in 2008 and 2009, but they didn’t want to talk about limited government, or pro-life issues. Many were baffled that so many people would be upset about Obamacare, as many of them lamented that they wished the Republicans had accomplished something like it; they were genuinely upset the Democrats beat them to it.

Campaign for Liberty types came into the party a short while after me, and they too didn’t want to talk about being pro-life, but their influence promoted Ron Paul, who was also very much against what I considered to be my wing of the party — the Reagan and Lincoln wing. Mentioning either great Republican president in their company made them very, very upset, indeed.

So I thought of the party as primarily made up of these three factions — well, four, if you count the party apparatchiks. They are the ones responsible for arguing in any manner necessary in order to keep the factions together while simultaneously undermining each of them to produce certain outcomes.

Ain’t politics grand?

With the close of the Republican convention where they picked a nominee that holds few conservative values, it is the Reagan and Lincoln wing of the party that is being snubbed through an unholy alliance between the country clubbers and the C4L types. Yes, while country clubbers proudly stood for Gerald Ford and Ron Paul trashed Ronald Reagan, it’s certainly not Trump that has been put in the position that Reagan had been; it’s Cruz, from my wing.

So let’s get this straight. Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%) is either the future of the Republican Party, or there is no Republican Party in the future.

No, it’s not just one man. Cruz isn’t the only one from my wing, but he represents, almost perfectly, the values and policies that formed the party to begin with and the founder’s vision of America. Those who attack Cruz attack the founding of the nation and the ideals that make America special, and in doing so, move us toward a repeat of the centuries-old curse of government as our master, instead of the people being the master of our government. The voice of history must be heard.

Right now, our nation is divided because the election of Barack Obama was a turning point in our history. When no media sources vetted then-Senator Obama, conservatives certainly did, and alarmed the countryside. His presidency would mean change in a radical way. And radical it has been. The Alinskyites, Obama and Hillary Clinton would sow division and class warfare, tighten the clamp on our industries and spend enormous amounts of our tax dollars on welfare and entitlements, transforming our nation from one of hope and capitalism into one of hatred and violence and hopelessness. These Marxist ideologues have degenerated the population extremely quickly. It is clear that there aren’t enough people who recognize how very terrible things have gotten, and how this radical agenda has redefined America.

But the beacon of light comes with knowing history, and championing true American values broadly defined as conservatism. This election year didn’t get a lot of that type of talk; it instead talked about the size of someone’s hands or cheap shots and silliness.

As this nation moves forward, there’s going to be serious talk by serious people about how to restore America, and it’s going to come from the Reagan and Lincoln wing.  We are going to be a burr under the saddle constantly agitating and irritating those who refuse to stand for the principles of America and we will get stronger and stronger.  Politicians will become more and more frustrated by always being compared to Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, and the people will see who’s right and who’s wrong.

But more importantly, Americans must realize that the only way to save America is by saving it themselves, understanding that freedom and liberty does not come from government, but from the rights bestowed on us by God.

When the desire for freedom and liberty outweighs the false sense of hope some politician will fix things for you, then and only then can we restore America.



- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/07/does-the-republican-party-have-a-future-without-ted-cruz#sthash.hznlCyU0.dpuf

[MACVSOG68]

There you go again trying to infer something I NEVER said!

I know very well who he is and disagree with him in most areas but the subject matter of the particular book I referenced isn't one of them!

Well, you thought enough of the book to post a pic of it and a promo for it.  So I assumed you were pushing it especially after your ending sentence.  There's really not a writer anywhere who we cannot find a single statement to agree with, including Karl Marx.  Did you have a point about the Constitution and the anti-federalists issues with it?  Or perhaps we're moving off topic.

[libertybele]

Cruz has already planned to run again in 2020.  Perhaps as a result of this a new party will emerge with Cruz leading the way?  As another poster had suggested in another thread; perhaps he is better suited to run for the Constitution Party.  I think the timing is going to absolutely perfect.

[catfish1957]

Cruz has already planned to run again in 2020.  Perhaps as a result of this a new party will emerge with Cruz leading the way?  As another poster had suggested in another thread; perhaps he is better suited to run for the Constitution Party.  I think the timing is going to absolutely perfect.

Sadly we have a small core of those who didn't sell out...   Lee, Cruz, Sasse.   Win or lose, the GOP rats are going try the gouge eyes out of anyone who didn't support the orange turd.  A Constitution Party with principled conservatives would be great.

[Mod2]

Threads merged.

[Bigun]

Well, you thought enough of the book to post a pic of it and a promo for it.  So I assumed you were pushing it especially after your ending sentence.  There's really not a writer anywhere who we cannot find a single statement to agree with, including Karl Marx.  Did you have a point about the Constitution and the anti-federalists issues with it?  Or perhaps we're moving off topic.

Do you know what that book is about?  I STRONGLY suspect that you do but MUST try and twist what I said around to suit YOUR purposes!

I did post a picture of it and a promo for it because I a have come to agree with the premise of the book! NOTHING more than that!

[MACVSOG68]

Do you know what that book is about?  I STRONGLY suspect that you do but MUST try and twist what I said around to suit YOUR purposes!

I did post a picture of it and a promo for it because I a have come to agree with the premise of the book! NOTHING more than that!

To the contrary, I think it would be interesting to read your point about the Constitution and anti-federalists in your own words.  You were responding to me in that original post.  I'd rather not read the whole book if you can just make some salient points...even one about the virtues of a society contemplated by the author, which is where the author comes from ideologically.

If his point is that it was a counter-revolution, as the short synopsis reads, I suppose anything that rebuilds from chaos is a counter.  The Articles adopted two years after the beginning of hostilities were an organized counter, and not ratified until almost the end of the war.   While I haven't read the book, I did read all the Amazon reviews of it, as well as much about the author, and am curious as to how your review might read, assuming you did read it.