Tuesday, April 05, 2016
Recently, Craig Biddle of The Objective Standard made
a strong case (HT Steve D. and HBL) for supporting Ted Cruz for
President. I have expressed my concerns about Cruz here
before and, although I have not made up my mind one way or the other,
there is an additional thing that bothers me about Cruz from Biddle's
In large part because he embraces Christianity, Cruz is inconsistent in his defense of rights, and his inconsistencies here are not trivial. Among other serious negatives: He opposes a woman's right to seek an abortion because he believes a fetus has rights as granted by God at conception. He opposes the rights of Americans to hire rights-respecting foreigners who want to work for U.S.-based companies (via his proposed immigration policy). And he claims a county clerk (Kim Davis) had a right to refuse to do the government job she was hired to do and is paid by taxpayers to do -- a job that required her to issue marriage licenses for gay couples -- and nevertheless to remain employed by the government. [bold added]I was disappointed and have been very concerned about Cruz's religiosity ever since he opened his campaign at fundamentalist Liberty University. This is a man who wants to head the Executive Branch of our government -- the branch whose purpose is to execute the law -- saying it's okay for a subordinate to not carry out the law. Dare I suggest that, had the motivation not been to uphold what Cruz (and Davis) regards as a "higher" "law", he would not have supported her?
I have heard others rightly express concern that Cruz, with the bully pulpit of the Presidency at his disposal, might further entrench the incorrect belief that capitalism is based on Christian principles. That is a major concern and would, in the event of his election, demand vigorous and principled rebuttal. But what if, as I have asked earlier, Cruz sees his religion as having a higher priority than freedom of speech? Will he still make sure we can be heard? What would he do, if push comes to shove, and he can no longer dodge the fact that the reason of Rand and the arbitrary of religion don't mix? We are in such a precarious state, politically, that I have no good off-the-cuff answer for that, or for what to do regarding the choices Biddle lays out for this election.
Today: (1) Broke a run-on sentence into two shorter ones. (2) Corrected spelling error in title.