Monday, February 08, 2016

Rubio and Cruz

1. Some voters act as though supporting a candidate means defending everything they say and do. I notice that some Cruz supporters excuse everything he every said or did, or unquestioningly accept his ex post facto explanations. That's very credulous.

Rational voters can separate out defending someone's candidacy from blanket support for whatever they say or do. It's possible to support someone's candidacy despite disagreement with one or more of their positions or policies. 

Indeed, it's important to reserve the right to criticize positions/policies of a candidate you otherwise support. I don't issue any candidate a blank check. 

For instance, I might support a candidate even though I disagree with some of his policies. That doesn't necessarily mean I give up those issues. If he becomes president, it's still possible to block those particular policies at a legislative or judicial level. It becomes a question of when and where to fight.

2. Some voters raise fake, frivolous objections to a rival candidate. This is where they are reaching for anything they can use against the rival candidate. These are not objections they consistently raise. If their favorite candidate did the same thing, they'd give him a pass. Or if it were a different election cycle, they might swap those out for different objections. For instance, opponents of Rubio complain about his missed votes. They say he's not doing the job he was paid to do. But there are several problems with that complaint:

i) There's more to the job of a legislator than showing up to vote. His job includes meeting with constituents. Serving on committees and subcommittees. Intercede with other gov't agencies on behalf of his constituents. 

ii) Many votes are just symbolic votes. Unless his vote is required for passage of a bill, or for the bill to pass by a veto-proof majority, missing a vote is not intrinsically significant. 

iii) Let's compare Rubio's missed votes to Cruz:

Rubio: 
14.1% 
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/marco_rubio/412491

Cruz 
13.8% 
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/ted_cruz/412573

So Rubio misses votes 0.3% more often than Cruz. Clearly that's a frivolous objection.

3. Another phony issue is that he's too scripted in debates. But when you are limited to 30-60 second answers, you need to have compact, prepared answers to predictable questions. 

4. A basic problem with raising phony objections is that it gives equal weight to frivolous objections and serious objections. But that's a way of saying serious issues don't matter. If you treat frivolous objections and serious objections equally, then you really don't care about the issues. You really don't care about ideology. But I do. 

Here are some serious, substantive criticisms Rubio:


If you wish to find fault with Rubio, talk about something like that

5. There are roughly two considerations:

i) Is Republican candidate A better or worse than Republican candidate B?

ii) Is Republican candidate A (B, C) better than the Democrat candidate?

You could have two Republican candidates who are both better than the Democrat; one Republican candidate is better than another, but the better candidate is less electable. So you have a twofold comparison; two considerations you need to balance: Which is worse? for the Democrat to win, or for a Republican to win, who's better than the Democrat, but worse than one (or more) of his Republican rivals (who have little chance of winning)? 

I know some Christians bristle at those comparisons, but reality constrains our field of action. Suppose I said that if you wish to draw water from a well, you should use a bucket rather than a pasta strainer. Some Christians would respond by saying "That's pragmatic! That's worldly wisdom!"

6. Oftentimes, the debate is cast in terms of Cruz as the intrinsically better candidate, but we must settle for Rubio because Cruz is unelectable. An unfortunate, but necessary compromise. One problem I have with that way of framing the issue is that I not only have some genuine reservations about Rubio, but I have some genuine reservations about Cruz. I doubt he's quite the knight in shining armor that some of his supporters imagine him to be. 

i) Take his position on SSM. In an interview, shortly after Obergefell, he said gov't officials should simply ignore the ruling:


I like that. But I can't help noticing that his initial reaction to Obergefell wasn't that hardline. Initially, he proposed a Constitutional amendment: 


I have a default suspicion about Republicans who propose Constitutional amendments in the culture wars. I think that's often a decoy. It's a lengthy process that usually goes nowhere. So it's a proposal that doesn't cost the politician anything. A diversionary tactic creating the pretense that a politician has taken meaningful action, when it deflects attention away from meaningful action. Placating social conservatives with symbolism.

I'm also curious about the timing. Between his initial, weaker response, and his later, tougher response, Cruz's mentor, Robert George, came out with a public statement saying officials should disregard the ruling. 


Right after that, Cruz came out with a public statement saying officials should disregard the ruling. Hmm. Is that just coincidental? Or was Cruz waiting to see how other conservative opinion makers-would respond, then struck a more confrontational rhetorical pose after they did? Is this putting a wet finger to the wind? Did he sense that his first response might be perceived as too weak?

But that's not all. The Lawrence decision laid the groundwork for Obergefell. If you wanted to oppose SSM, it would be more strategic to draw the battle lines sooner, before the homosexual lobby got so much momentum. And Cruz had an ideal opportunity to do so. The Lawrence decision involved a Texas anti-sodomy law, and Cruz was Texas attorney general at the time. He was uniquely positioned to right that battle. Yet he didn't get involved, and there's prima facie evidence that his inaction might be related to his courting gay donors. 


7. Then there's his position on illegal immigration. There's prima facie evidence that he's shifted position for political expediency:


At one point Cruz proposed an amendment to legalize immigrants, but deny them citizenship, although he now claims that was a poison pill. 

However, one can easily see legalization as part of a long-range strategy. If it's too controversial to begin with outright naturalization, you break it down into increments. You lead with legalization as a first step, to gain a foothold. Having achieved that, you then complain about how arbitrary and unfair it is for immigrants who are here legally to be denied a chance to become citizens.

8. Recently, Cruz opposed draft registration for women:


Although I agree with him on the merits, his statement misses the point. Liberals say women can do anything a man can do. So this is calling their bluff. Right now we have a double standard. This is a way of forcing liberals to be consistent–and make them pay a political price for consistency. 

9. Finally, some conservatives seem to be schizophrenic about the value of an Ivy League education. They usually say political correctness has ruined the humanities at Ivy League institutions. Students are indoctrinated in sheer propaganda. Liberal ideology is at war with history and science. You'd get a much better education at a Christian college like Patrick Henry. 


But then some of them drool over Cruz's Ivy League resume. That suggests a conservative inferiority complex. Is a candidate who attended Harvard and Princeton presumptively better than a candidate (Rubio) who attended a state college on a football scholarship? 

10 comments:

  1. Steve, you are right on target. I agree with every single point you made. Although I rank Cruz highest in my hierarchy of potential nominees, I am not comfortable with every single issue he has spoken about. In particular, because I am living on Social Security only as my income, I am vitally concerned with fiscal policies that are discussed. His tax plan includes, apparently, a version of VAT tax. This is going to make the effective cost of living rise for all seniors. My wife and I are already squeezed enough. Rising prices put even more pressure on our budget, although we are totally dependent on Washington's opinion what constitutes inflation. I am a free marked proponent and would prefer "the fair tax" proposal, but NO candidate is championing the fair tax. No candidate is perfect, as you said. But we need to be realistic about what can be accomplished. I am also supporting the Article V Convention of States project. Hopefully this will come to fruition and cause some changes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Although I agree with him on the merits, his statement misses the point. Liberals say women can do anything a man can do. So this is calling their bluff. Right now we have a double standard. This is a way of forcing liberals to be consistent–and make them pay a political price for consistency. "

    What evidence do you have that Christie, Bush, and Rubio do not really support a draft on women and this is just "calling their bluff"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not referring to the GOP candidates. I'm alluding to this:

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/04/lawmakers-introduce-bill-to-make-women-take-part-in-the-draft/

      Delete
    2. I've already indicated that I wouldn't vote for Christie, either in primaries or the general election. I'd only vote for Jeb if he was the nominee.

      Delete
    3. OK, but we are not talking about Hunter and Zinkie. Rubio and Bush answered they would support it in a rather convincing fashion. Where's the evidence that they don't intend to vote for it? At least Hunter and Zinkie have announced their intentions (however ill advised I think their game is), but where have Rubio and Bush said they would not vote for it?

      IMO, Cruz was referring to the GOP candidates and not to Hunter and Zinkie. So if Rubio and Bush are truly in favor of women being drafted, then Cruz did not miss the point at all.

      Delete
    4. "OK, but we are not talking about Hunter and Zinkie."

      That may not be what you're talking about, but that's what I'm talking about.

      "Where's the evidence that they don't intend to vote for it?"

      You're demanding evidence for something I never claimed.

      "So if Rubio and Bush are truly in favor of women being drafted, then Cruz did not miss the point at all."

      Now you and Cruz are both missing the point. We currently have a coed military. The distinction between women in combat and noncombatant roles is fairly arbitrary. Every soldier is a potential combatant. Take navel warfare. Isn't very sailor a combatant in that situation?

      So the real question is how far Cruz is prepared to reverse the whole coed military experiment. If we're going to have a coed military, and men are required to register for the draft, so should women. Hence, we need a policy that's consistent in one direction or another.

      Delete
    5. First, Rubio and Bush, for all apparent reasons, would vote in favor of women being drafted, and Cruz wouldn't. To me that's the issue. I am not about to vote for someone who would change the law to force my daughters to register for a possible draft. There's no excuse for Rubio being in favor of it.

      Second, who says laws have to be consistent? Since when is consistency a virtue in US laws? If it were, either abortion would be completely banned (at least for the third trimester) or infanticide would be allowed (at least for the first few months after birth). Even pro-choicers such as Peter Singer see the inconsistency -- which is why they favor the legalization of infanticide. There is no magic that happens in the birth canal to make any morally significant difference 1 day before or after birth.

      I am sure the examples could be multiplied both at the federal and state level.

      Delete
    6. "First, Rubio and Bush, for all apparent reasons, would vote in favor of women being drafted, and Cruz wouldn't. To me that's the issue."

      That may be the issue for you, but it's not the only issue for me. There's also the question of tactical bills (a la Duncan Hunter) that put the squeeze on liberals.

      "I am not about to vote for someone who would change the law to force my daughters to register for a possible draft. There's no excuse for Rubio being in favor of it."

      It may well be the case that Rubio is dead wrong on this issue. But you can't rationally isolate that from other considerations.

      "Second, who says laws have to be consistent? Since when is consistency a virtue in US laws?"

      You keep missing the point, because you don't think strategically or tactically. The idea is to force liberals into retreat. Make them balk. Make them admit men and women are different after all.

      And, yes, there is something to be said for legal consistency. It's called equal protection under the law.

      For instance, affirmative consent policies discriminate against men by denying men due process, by denying men the presumption of innocence, &c.

      Many Democrats who spout feminism will rebel at the idea of draft registration for women. That puts the Democrat party in a bind. Will it alienate its own constituency by treating women the same as men? This is a wedge tactic.

      Delete
    7. We will have to disagree, but let me part with a few more comments

      >> There's also the question of tactical bills (a la Duncan Hunter) that put the squeeze on liberals.

      Rubio, for all apparent reasons would vote in favor of it. That's NOT what Hunter is doing. Rubio does not appear to be using a tactic at all, which is my point.

      >> The idea is to force liberals into retreat.

      I don't see that. Those liberals who really object to it would likely be in favor of a softer version where registration with the selective service for women is voluntary (didn't Christie propose something like that in the debate?). They may also be against the whole issue of selective service and the draft and try to abolish it. Or they could just vote in requiring women to register with selective service, not seeing any fallout like you do (where do you get the evidence for this "fallout" from liberals?). But they are not going to retreat from allowing women in combat just because of this. They stand too much to loose with that last option. If I were them I wouldn't retreat, nor would I see this tactic particularly damaging or frightening to my cause.

      What I think could easily happen is that Democrats would not care about it, vote to force women to register for selective service, and then say thanks to the too clever for their own good Republicans. And then I would place the blame firmly on the laps of Republicans playing games with tactics (like Hunter), and of Republicans being in favor of the liberal position (like Rubio or Bush), for now being in the worst position of all -- having BOTH women in combat AND women forced to be available for the draft.

      >> For instance, affirmative consent policies discriminate against men by denying men due process, by denying men the presumption of innocence, &c.

      That's not about to change any time soon. Hence, my point about consistency. You may not like it, but not many people, including politicians, really care whether the laws are consistent or not.

      Delete
    8. "And then I would place the blame firmly on the laps of Republicans playing games with tactics (like Hunter)…"

      By all means blame the wrong side. Nothing like your self-defeating philosophy to empower the liberal establishment.

      "You may not like it, but not many people, including politicians, really care whether the laws are consistent or not."

      Which goes to show how stupid many voters are. But I already knew that.

      There is, however, a growing men's rights movement in this country, because many men are fed up with feminist double standards. Take the battle between feminists and gamers.

      Or take the response of some soldiers I read on a Military Times forum:

      [Quote] IF women want to serve in combat arms, and get true equality, then they damn well should also have to sign up with the Select Service, just like guys do.

      [Quote] I believe the question was (paraphrased) "Since they can fill combat roles, should they be required to register for the draft?" It only makes sense that the answer to this question be yes. Now, if the question was "Do you think women should be in combat roles?" then I might expect some differing answers, but that wasn't the question. If they said that women should be in combat roles but NOT have to register for selective service, then they would be idiots.

      [Quote]] So discrimination is ok if the women are the one benefiting? That sounds like how you are saying it.

      While i feel the same way when i see people scream that we 'need to treat women equal, but not equal'. I have and always will say, IF they want equality, then that should also include RESPONSIBILITY. Part of that responsibility is the signing up for selective service. Part of the 'equality' that goes with that is being in combat arms. If they don't want combat arms, then they don't need to worry about selective service.
      BUT since they Do seem to want to be in the combat arms orgs, then they bloody well should be required to sign up.

      I see that as no different from 'your son is married and has 2 kids, and your son has to go off and fight a war which he may not come back from'. Or are you saying men's lives are not as important as women's lives?

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      So consider the male soldiers who are tired of feminist double standards.

      I'm not crazy about Rubio's answer. But in fairness, he added a crucial caveat: "so long as the minimum requirements necessary to do the job are not compromised."

      But, of course, that's exactly what's happening. Lowering standards to accommodate women. So if we really held women to the same standard as men, very few women would qualify–especially Special Ops.

      Delete