Ted Cruz. Leader.

Michael Moeller's picture
Submitted by Michael Moeller on Fri, 2013-10-18 21:09

THIS Objectivist wants to take off his hat and salute the heroic actions of conservative Ted Cruz. His unyielding stance against Obamacare in the face of unrelenting attacks from the statists on the left -- and the statist enablers in the Republican party -- is worthy of the highest praise. I particuarly applaud his refusal to back down and issue mea culpas to slumbering establishment Republicans who placidly capitulate to the statists on the left, and who can only be aroused to attack HIM for attacking Obamacare.

Please read THIS PROFILE in full. Note the attitude and actions of leadership that is so sorely lacking among supposed Objectivist leaders.

"...Cruz doesn't care about being popular or part of the in-crowd. He's comfortable with conflict, and sometimes he even seems like a glutton for punishment. He can't be intimidated or scared off. He doesn't care if other senators isolate him, ignore him or attack him. He doesn't care if they let him into their club. So they have no power over him.

Not that his fellow senators haven't tried, unsuccessfully, to beat him into submission. They gave it a go last week at a closed-door lunch meeting in the Senate's Mansfield Room. According to senators who attended the meeting, and who spoke anonymously to Politico and The New York Times, one Republican senator after another berated Cruz for -- as they saw it -- causing the government shutdown without a plan to end it.

At one point, Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire -- who is one of the GOP senators targeted for defeat by the Senate Conservatives Fund, an outside group that aims to punish those who did not fight the good fight against Obamacare -- asked the Texas senator whether he would publicly renounce the attacks.

Cruz's response, according to someone who was in the room, was short and sweet. 'I will not,' he said...


( categories: )

Pepe

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Do you mean Total Passion or the Mario book? If the former, I'd be keen to learn your reaction (well, ditto the latter as well of course!).

I think I already drew your attention to the generic disclaimer at the bottom of each page. Everyone here speaks for himself. Doug Bandler doesn't speak for SOLO, and anyone who finds his presence here distasteful is free to say so, disagree with him, ignore him, stay away or whatever. My dismay at the age in which we live is based partly on an unease that, supposing blacks' brains were smaller, would anyone be allowed to say so?! My dismay at Doug is based on, so what if they were anyway? Would blacks then not possess volition and reason? It's not SOLO Doug diminishes, but himself, when failing to distinguish the cultural from the metaphysical. Aside from that, he is sounding alarm bells that ought to be sounded. Islamoleftism is an insidious and lethal composite.

I can assure you that Terry is no Binswanger, though he does a very good impersonation at times. My bigger concern with him is his closet Goblianity!

In any event, I often say if we regard the battle for humanity as a contest of ideas, and we want to win that contest, then we have to engage in it. That means taking on the bad ideas, especially since they are often held in good faith. The biggest impediment to progress currently is the comprachicoed Generation Airhead which can't grasp any ideas!

"Authenticism" is as yet merely embryonic. I wouldn't fret about its being "diminished" just yet. Eye

Lindsay

Pepe Estrepo's picture

I second your opinion on Michael Moeller in that he is head and shoulders above the rest
of the people on this forum. Lindsay Perigo is a joy to read and I intend to buy your book
when my daughter returns my Kindle. (I read parts of your book off a foreign Kindle.)

Anyway, what baffles me about your website is that it is so varied, and most of the variation
is of a negative quality. At the same time, you have Binswanger types, llbertarians like Hudgins,
a madman who wants to kill in order to establish libertarianism, and others who seem very
hostile to Ayn Rand and her writings. Talking about racial resentment is important but outright
racism in the mode of smaller brains diminishes your forum and your espousal of Authenticism.
(My guess is that Bandler is drinking or drugging when he writes someof his posts because his post on
Geert Wilders is very good.)

Not doubt you are the jefe of the forum and could tell me to stick it, but I wanted to offer my
opinion because I think the jetsam and flotsam are destroying a great potential.

Linz, I Will CRUSH You!

Michael Moeller's picture

Haha. Just kidding.

I brought up ABOTO in the context of Romney vs. Obama. Obama explicitly said: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." Romney and the establishmentarians are bringing rubber knives, and appeasing the statists. It is time they went ABOTO.

Cruz came to fight, and he has not relented. He is still dug-in. Maybe that changes over time, but I like what he has done thus far.

As far as allies or potential allies go, I agree there should be a different attitude. Admittedly, diplomacy is not one of my strong suits, and I own that.

As far as the Tea Partiers go, they have organized and mobilized in a relatively short period of time. And they have a lot of grassroots support behind them. I am impressed by what they have put in place, but they need to do a better job with candidates, i.e. no more Todd Akins or Christine O'Donnells.

Objectivists have a chance here to influence the direction of the Tea Party (with education) and poach people from the movement, but it seems they would rather criticize and complain, rant and rave. If Objectivists want the culture to move in that direction, they have to start working to move the rudderless mainstream in that direction. Enough with the stomping of the feet at reality because John Galt is not running for office, I say!

Anyway, that's why I posted the links. This is simple rachet strategy. People can work to replace the "Beltway Brylcreemers" like McConnell and work to get candidates with greater consistency and greater FIGHT, or they can sit on their ass and blather about how anything short of John Galt is a compromise. Until John Galt runs, that is simply not an option, and it will never be an option until people start working to move the culture in that direction.

As Rand said, the primary direction of the political candidate has to be one of pro-freedom, and I would add that they have to show a willingness to fight for it. There is no compromise in supporting a candidate whose primary direction is pro-liberty, and qualifying the support by highlighting the areas of disagreement.

And Linz, a violent revolution is get-rich-quick scheme. You've heard all the arguments already, so I don't need to repeat them. I will just add this: if you cannot persuade people to go vote or only garner 1% of the vote, you certainly are not going to persuade them to take up arms against the government. Not gonna happen. Never.

Hmmmm ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

ABOTO is my personal slogan -- Always Be On The Offensive.

Well, that explains a thing or two I've found puzzling over the past couple of years, Michael! Eye

My slogan would be: BOTOWYOTB—Be On The Offensive When You Ought To Be. Romney ought to have been on the offensive, but wasn't—clearly leaned upon by oleaginite blandifiers of his own most repulsive ilk (with which I became depressingly familiar in my misbegotten time with the ACT Party). But not every context is one of combat. Gratuitous bellicosity can antagonise allies unnecessarily, which is self-defeating. Always to be on the offensive regardless of with whom one is engaging is a mistake (it can lead to suit-wearing and morbid grimness of demeanour). Not everyone with whom one disagrees is an enemy. There can be great joy in teasing out good-faith disagreements, as provisionally and tentatively as objectivity permits, genially and with a view to arriving at a truth (or a better understanding thereof) that might previously have eluded one or two or all parties to the discussion. As Rand would say, in such a situation all parties stand to win; it's not a simulation of Fight Club and adolescent testosterone displays. In my view, you, Michael, have a great future in Objectivism (the better OrgOism that you could help create) if you want it, because you're so superior to most of the rest of what's out there ... but I fear you'll sabotage that possibility by being on the offensive at crucial times when there's absolutely no need to be and end up being a rich man's Binswanger. These tips from a geriatric veteran are passed on in the spirit of the affection and admiration you know I hold for you. Please don't illustrate my point by responding with one of your Pamplona impressions! Eye

Reagan was the perfect exemplar of such a level. Time for Choosing has been given pride of place here on SOLO many times. It's magnificent. It's an instance of being on the offensive when you ought to be. Have a look at his speech to the House of Commons, which is another KASS example. And of course, there's "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" There was huge pressure on Reagan to take that bit out. Mitt Romney would certainly have taken it out, in the unlikely event of its ever having gotten in in the first place. Here in NZ, Don Brash and John Key would certainly have taken it out. Now, I wonder if any of the current Republicans, Cruz included, would, when push came to shove, keep it in?

Michael, I think both you and I have a fatal attraction to candidates who say all (almost) the right things but at the end of the day turn out to be opportunistic Nixons. The uncanny similarity between Romney's body language and Nixon's unnerved me; phoneys can't disguise their phoniness. I imagine the vast majority of Tea Party activists are 100% sincere and principled, but will be let down by the oily fair-weather ARINOs (Anti-Romneyism In Name Only) they choose to endorse as alternatives to the Beltway Brylcreemers. As will you and I. That said, I remain impressed by Ted Cruz, especially after hearing him being condemned by George Will today. To be condemned by that Beltway Brylcreemer (you could see the dull semi-sheen of the Brylcreem on his dank, dandruffy hair) is a badge of honour!

In the end, though, I remain persuaded, the 1776 solution is the only tenable one.

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

Romney has always been a plastic suit, so he willingly acquiesced to "blandification". He *should* have been demanding his advisors figure out ways to not only punch back, but to go on the offensive. ABOTO is my personal slogan -- Always Be On The Offensive. Romney was haplessly fending off assault after assault from his backfoot.

In any event, this doesn't hit the mainstream news, but there is a war going on between the Tea Party and the establishmentarians, and it is ready to play out in next year's primaries. Tea Party Groups are going to primary Lindsay Graham, Mitch McConnell, and other comfortably corrupt establishment types. The Establishment is going to return the favor, as the Chamber of Commerce-type business groups are going to primary Tea Partiers, presumably in the House because none of the Senate Tea Partiers are up until 2016. But they have already admitted they have their sights set on Mike Lee.

I think it has gotten worse since the Defund strategy, as the Tea Party groups are already heavily mobilizing against McConnell, Graham, et al, and the establishmentarians (eg. Americans for Tax Reform) are calling the Tea Partiers "terrorists" and such. Juicy.

For my part, I want to see the rotted establishment core of the Republican party get knocked off, particularly McConnell and Graham. Where there is a good limited government alternative that isn't a religious nut, I am going to back him with money and whatever else I can.

Matt Bevin is running against Mitch McConnell. He's a businessman and looks pretty good on the issues. Lindsay Graham is also being challenged by two decent candidates, and hopefully the Tea Party will coalesce around one candidate so their vote is not split.

There is some fighting to do in the primaries to help shift the Republican party from statist-enablers to a limited government alternative that FIGHTS. I was watching Reagan's "A Time for Choosing" speech recently, and he can will both barrels loaded. I recently saw an article by some liberal in The Daily Beast that Tea Partiers comprise 49% of Republican primary voters, so I think these races can be won. I think some of the BIG statist enablers can be knocked off.

Here are some of the Tea Party groups that have mobilized for these races. I have to give the conservative Tea Party people credit, they are organized, active, and fighting in the trenches -- things severely lacking in OrgOism. People can check out races and see if there are candidates worthy of their support:

FreedomWorks.

The Madison Project.

Senate Conservatives Fund.

Heritage Action for America.

Club for Growth.

Personally Good but Philosophically Close to Hopeless

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Ted Cruz seems to be a man among boys and a semi-libertarian among conservatives. But is he properly principled?

Does he ever call for the legalization of drugs and prostitution? Does he ever advocate the privatization of the schools and roads? Does ever ever champion the termination of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all forms of gov't charity? Does he ever say that the 1930s New Deal and 1960s Great Society were morally wrong and practically unworkable?

This is simple stuff. And in my view it's 10 or 100 times harder to carry the political day if you don't say this pro-freedom stuff clearly, cleanly, and consistently. Mere calls for "small gov't" and "more freedom" only go so far. You have to explain yourself better.

Cruz doesn't. He has no known plan. He criticizes the status quo, but has no publicly-articulated positive alternative. He almost certainly needs to say his libertarian stuff very softly and only occasionally. Then he can go back to mindless bellyaching about "da gubimint", followed by more bland calls for "small gov't" and "more freedom", which will bore but reassure the majority.

But at some point Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, or somebody needs to be principled, and have a known agenda, and openly outline their plan. The public today is ready to accept this soft libertarian viewpoint, in my judgment. But they won't accept Cruz or Paul if all they offer is the usual ambiguous hints, winks, sarcasm, indirection, and suggestions in a libertarian direction.

Cruz is KASS

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Let's hope he continues to resist pressures to Romnify him. At every turn we see the blandification of the good, whereby it becomes a tool for evil. Romney allowed Obamarx to get back in by failing to confront him with his lies and treachery. He called Obamarx "disappointing" rather than "disgusting." Boehner and McConnell wave the white flag of surrender. So-called Objectivists distinguish "Islamism" from Islam, and fixate on economics when the entire culture is fucked. And so it goes. Cruz would appear to be an exception, an exception-taker to the cult of compromise and worship of weasel-words. May he hold his nerve!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.