Charles Krauthammer, the distinguished commentator and conservative columnist, referred to last week's speech by Senator Ted Cruz at the Republican Convention as "the longest suicide note in American political history", or something like that.
He was so, so right.
Ted Cruz is many. many things, and a fairly complex individual. I could easily have voted for him in the Republican primary, and certainly would have voted for him in the general election against Hillary Clinton, had he won the nomination. That vote would not have been cast with trepidation, mind you, but with an acknowledgement of the senator's flaws and a tolerance of his imperfections in favor of his policies.
It will not be cast in November, what with the nomination last week of Donald Trump, but it bears note that I will likely never have the opportunity in any subsequent election.
When I say that Cruz is a complex individual, it is in the sense that brilliant people can never be uncomplicated people. Cruz's intellect is enormous. Alan Dershowitz, the leftist law professor at Harvard, himself referred to Cruz as one of the brightest students he had ever had. A champion debater, Cruz routinely framed arguments as a law student in such a way as to make opposition nearly impossible. I would love to have seen him carve up the arguments of Hillary Clinton in a debate or three.
But like many such people, it seems (my opinion now) that he defaults to "debate mode" in matters that do not call for debate but for accommodation and compromise. Ironically, he was not always the star of the Republican candidates' debates during primary season. I felt that was partially because there were as many as a dozen people up there on stage, and you would be agreeing often and disagreeing some -- they call those "debates" but they're really more like contentious joint press conferences. With only two people up there, Cruz would have shone by the sheer construct of his arguments.
I also felt that in those "debates", he actually needed to turn off "debate mode" and turn on a mode where he addressed the questions as Candidate Cruz, not structuring answers to respond to another on stage but, simply, to offer really sound, well-thought-out answers specific to Ted Cruz's candidacy. Ironically, he could have done that extraordinarily well, had he generally ignored the points of others on stage no matter what they said.
Unfortunately, in the speech to the RNC in Cleveland last week, he fell into that debate-mode habit once more, failing to realize that the war superseded the battle. What Ted Cruz needed to do was endorse -- or at least say that he was going to vote for -- Donald Trump. In preparing the speech, he needed to see through to the outcome -- that not declaring he was voting for Trump, after having given his word earlier that he would, was going to be politically suicidal.
I understand Cruz's anger at some of the statements during the campaign, particularly as related to his wife and father. Those statements were inappropriate and all, but they were also in a political campaign. Because it is essential that Trump be elected and Hillary defeated, Cruz needed to prepare for Cleveland by figuring out a sequence of events that would involve both (A) some form of walk-back by Trump of those comments, and (B) Cruz's endorsement in some fashion -- because the alternative, which is what we saw, was going to cost both men. Particularly it would look horrible for Cruz, which it did.
I am sitting here reflecting that if the two had talked, and Cruz said in so many words that a quid pro quo was workable -- Trump saying nice things about Cruz, his wife and father and then Cruz saying on stage that he'd vote for Trump -- the outcome would have been fabulous. The convention would have ended, peace would have been upon us, Cruz could have never said another word in the campaign and I wouldn't have been writing this.
Ah, how often I write about end states and outcomes. As brilliant as Ted Cruz is, he failed to think this through. If his end state was to have Trump lose and then to run, himself, in 2020 for president, he failed to consider both ends -- sure, Trump might not win, but the party and the public will never forget Cruz's speech and his going back on his own, well-recorded, word to support Trump if nominated.
Come November, Trump will win or lose relatively unaffected by whether or not Cruz ever supported him. But by accepting a speaking slot offered by the Trump team and then failing to endorse him and going back on his own pledge, Cruz becomes a non-viable future candidate. He really needed to have thought that outcome through.
I don't really know if the presidency is the place for Ted Cruz now. He is in his mid-40s, and there is still a lot of room for him to grow as a political being. But he has severely damaged his career, and it is truly questionable whether he will ever be able to gain support again to get a campaign off the ground. Nor should he.
I don't know if the presidency is the place for him, but I do have a better option. It is my hope that Donald Trump is elected in November and, on his inauguration, he immediately withdraws the Obama nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court seat, vacant since the passing of Antonin Scalia -- and nominates Senator Ted Cruz of Texas to that seat.
That would solve so many problems. The Senate, which generally does not care for Cruz but respects his gifts, will be happy with a new senator from Texas -- they'll confirm Cruz to the Court readily. Trump will not have to deal with opposition inside the party from Cruz while he is president. The Court and the nation will obtain the long-term service of a brilliant Constitutionalist, succeeding another brilliant Constitutionalist. He would be a superb choice.
Ted Cruz would be a historic Supreme Court justice, in the good, Scalia way. He would be bringing a thorough knowledge of the job and an incredible legal mind -- for decades. His debate skills would pervade his opinions. I love the idea.
I hope would take the job. Because his political career is over, self-inflicted.
Copyright 2016 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob
at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving
new meaning to "prolific essayist." Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at
bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
No comments:
Post a Comment