**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

Wuf, list three apprehensions you have about a Cruz presidency.

Man that's a tough one. I support him to the degree that I do because I agree with his policies so much that I don't have apprehensions. I don't think that it's a coincidence that the person whose political ideals seem to line up the most with my own (Thomas Sowell*) was an early Cruz endorser.

Even with something like the idea that maybe as President he would play the Washington game and overly compromise like virtually everybody else does, I just don't think he would. He knows that his strength comes from not doing that. His supporters, in near entirety, want somebody who will stand unwavering against the Washington juggernaut of ever increasing federal power. For example, we would rather see Senator Cruz filibuster 4 years straight of any SCOTUS nominees coming from Hillary Clinton than to lay down swords and confirm somebody who is just going to make things worse. The Washington wisdom is that this can't work because "voters want to see things getting done", so they think compromise has to be made. But no, Cruz supporters want a guy who will use his fullest powers to stop bad things from happening, not act like principles need to be compromised.

I'm gonna have to think about if I can come up with some solid answers to your question. I don't have an apprehension that Cruz would ultimately be a flip flopper like the rest of them, and if I did, I wouldn't support him nearly as much as I do. On policy, I like everything. His tax plan isn't the best there ever was, but I would be astounded if he could get that enacted since it would be remarkably better than any tax system the country has had in modern times.

My only real apprehension is he wouldn't be able to do what he says he will. But I don't think that answers your questions satisfactorily. It just makes me look like a fanboi who thinks Titanium Ted can do no wrong.


*It should be noted that Sowell is not totally anti-state; whereas I am. It's just that when you have a government monopoly that's not going away, my thoughts align with his more than any other famous person I know of.

[boost]

But no, Cruz supporters want a guy who will use his fullest powers to stop bad things from happening, not act like principles need to be compromised.

I know it sounds good, but what does the end game of a full bore "no compromise" approach look like? Like, let's assume your (and Cruz's) thoughts on policy are 100% the best possible, but there is a good chance that "no compromise" will see none of them enacted-- are you under the impression that this produces an equal or better world than one in which compromises are made and thing get done?

we would rather see Senator Cruz filibuster 4 years straight of any SCOTUS nominees coming from Hillary Clinton than to lay down swords

You don't see how strategically unsound this is? I mean, this is happening right now, and if they stick to their guns they'll lose Congress for sure. It's such an easy play for Obama.

[wufwugy]

I know it sounds good, but what does the end game of a full bore "no compromise" approach look like? Like, let's assume your (and Cruz's) thoughts on policy are 100% the best possible, but there is a good chance that "no compromise" will see none of them enacted-- are you under the impression that this produces an equal or better world than one in which compromises are made and thing get done?

No change is worse than bad change. Even so, change would still happen, just that the side that would be compromising is the other one.

Over nearly a century, the country has seen a steady increase of one side compromising principles in favor of the other side, specifically the limited government side has been losing an overwhelming majority of political battles to the big government side, and it's largely due to a lack of trying from the limited government side. Some of this ties into your next question, so I'll go there.

You don't see how strategically unsound this is? I mean, this is happening right now, and if they stick to their guns they'll lose Congress for sure. It's such an easy play for Obama.

The Trump phenomenon exists because Republicans have been doing what you've called strategically unsound. The Cruz following also exists for that reason. If you listen to conservative radio or conservative bloggers or commenters, you'll see that they think of the Republican elite worse than anybody. The left has got nothing on their hatred for the Boehners and McConnells and * cough* Rubios *cough* because of the millions of campaign promises they made that they swiftly betrayed when Obama and Harry Reid asked them to. 75% of the GOP voting base is voting against not sticking to their guns.

We've done this before. It was 2014. The media, all the Democrats, and the entire GOP elite said Republicans had to give in to Obama's agenda and act like upstanding statesmen who would compromise away citizens' liberties in proper form, but the rebels in the party, namely Ted Cruz, were so adamant about not losing the battle that they shut the government down. The GOP elite, Democrats, and media cried and bemoaned how this would doom the GOP in the 2014 elections just months down the road. But then the elections came and there was a grand conservative sweep, with Republican politicians knocking Democrats out of the most solid of blue states (like Maryland) and getting a greatest House majority in many decades.

The consultant class was wrong. Laying down arms and giving into more government to take away peoples' freedoms doesn't actually win elections. It loses elections and gives rise to guys like Donald Trump. Had the GOP elite not pat themselves on their backs for the 2014 conservative wave of which they had nothing to do with and then immediately start bending over for the Democrats for the next year, Trump would not have had such an opening.

If the GOP elite lays down arms on the SCOTUS nominee and Obama gets somebody through, conservatives will vote against them in droves. Masses of conservatives are already warning they will do this. If the GOP elite sticks to their guns, they'll get base turnout in their favor. Base turnout is what wins elections. It's not the independents and moderates like the standard pundit narrative says. Romney won those and still lost the election. It's all about energizing the base and convincing potential voters why your message is the best message.


This is why I don't think it's unwise to think President Cruz could get most of his agenda done. He knows that you don't back down, you reform the electorate to your supporters, and you spread your message to any who will listen. And when you do that, they will come, and against all the odds exclaimed by the jabberwocky pundits, you'll get reform passed. It's what Reagan did. Everybody thought he couldn't win until he did (in a landslide). Everybody thought he couldn't get his reforms through until he did. He did it by not kicking his principles to the curb and instead taking the message to the people.


So, yeah, I'm saying that I think the GOP would win in a tsunami filled with giant Washington-cartel-bloodsucking octopi if they had totally shut down Obama's and the Democrats' agenda. But they didn't. They gave him and the Democrats more than they even asked for. 'Tis the story of a GOP elite that wants to be a part of the Washington culture. They keep asking, "Are we cool yet?". They're the awkward kid that just moved in from a different town who just wants to fit in. They were never as good with girls or as good at expressing themselves or as much of free spirits as all the progressives around them. They're awestruck. They just want to be liked. The Washington Cool Kids tell them they have to give illegals special treatment or else they won't be liked. The Washington Cool Kids tell them they have to give a leading state sponsor of terrorism hundreds of billions of dollars or else nobody will think peace is their thing, man. The Washington Cool Kids tell them that they can't fight Obama and instead they have to fund his agenda for the rest of his term with no strings attached or else they won't get any dates for the prom.

[wufwugy]

I know it sounds good, but what does the end game of a full bore "no compromise" approach look like? Like, let's assume your (and Cruz's) thoughts on policy are 100% the best possible, but there is a good chance that "no compromise" will see none of them enacted-- are you under the impression that this produces an equal or better world than one in which compromises are made and thing get done?

It should be added that I don't support a "no compromise" position so much as I advocate not compromising principles. You never get everything that you want, but inherent to the idea of compromise is that you get some of what you want. There is pretty much no universe in which a Clinton SCOTUS nomination would have any positive effects on the trajectory of law. The country's strength has been highly dependent on its federalism, but under all the Democrats and most of the Republicans, it has been steadily turning into a unitary state. A compromise on a Clinton SCOTUS nomination would be like compromising to only drive towards the cliff edge at 30 mph instead of 60 mph. Both are taking you off the cliff.