Ted Cruz participated in a
Good Morning America Town Hall,
during which he answered questions posed by voters. Todd Calogne, a pizza parlor owner in New York City, asks Cruz what he would do to
protect Todd and his husband of two years from religious freedom laws that he referred to as "institutionalized discrimination." Cruz
answers in the video below:
In his response, Cruz makes some interesting generalizations, in an effort to avoid directly addressing what Mr. Calogne asked:
"When it comes to religious liberty, religious liberty is something that protects all of us; it applies to Christians, it applies to Jews,
it applies to Muslims, it applies to atheists... that freedom ultimately protects each and every one of us."
Robin Roberts followed by asking, "doesn't everyone have the freedom to be treated equally...?," clearly implying that Cruz's response
didn't really address what Mr. Calogne asked. Cruz sidestepped it once again, and reiterated the same answer, that the "First Amendment
protects everyone equally..." George Stephanopoulos then redirects Cruz to his support of creating a constitutional amendment to overturn
the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage [Obergefell v. Hodges], and how that would affect couples like Mr. Calogne and his husband, who
already married:
"Listen, I am a constitutionalist and, under the Consitution, marriage is a question for the states - that has been the case from the very
beginning of this country, that it's been up to the states. And so if someone wants to change the marriage laws, I don't think it should be
five unelected lawyers down in Washington dictating that, and even if you happen to agree with that particular decision, why would you want to
hand over every important public policy issue to five unelected lawyers who aren't accountable to you, who don't work for you...
and by the way, it may end up... that the laws in one state may be different than another state, and we expect that... and that's the great
thing about a big diverse country, is that we can have different laws that respect different values."
There is a whole lot wrong with this line of thinking. For starters, I'm not sure Cruz should be touting himself a "constitutionalist," when
it does not appear that he knows that the Constitution says nothing whatsoever about marriage. DOMA, however, was a federal law. DOMA prevented
federal benefits to same sex couples living in states that had legalized same sex marriage. But what about states' rights? Not so much. Cruz
supported DOMA, much as he supports states' rights, so long as the state decisions are in line with what he wants. And he was none to pleased
when SCOTUS ruled that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The most recent ruling was
based on the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment was written in regards to the rights of all citizens of the United States.
Article 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
state wherein they reside.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This is what the Supreme Court was deciding on. And while some may think the decision is tantamount to the SCOTUS saying the Fourteenth Amendment
requires the states to redefine marriage, it does no such thing. What they said, essentially, is if the states are going to "define" marriage
at all, they cannot do so in any way that discriminates against anyone. As for Cruz's love for the First Amendment, the one condition to the
First Amendment is that you cannot exercise your rights at the expense of someone else's. Using religious freedom to violate the equal rights of
someone else also violates the spirit of the Constitution, not just the letter of it. Intent and effect are the barometers typically judged in
these kinds of cases. Supporters of marriage definition, like DOMA, may claim that there is no intent to discriminate against homosexuals, but the
effect was just that. And I would also argue that, since marriage is a universal construct that everyone accepts, the only reason to define it to
any specificity at all is to disinclude those who do not meet the specificity defined, thereby demonstrating clear intent.
As for the "five lawyers in Washington," that is a wholly specious argument, coming from a candidate who touts his professional achievements in
that very chamber. He's argued before the court nine times (two of them for one case), winning twice, partial victories in two more, and four
losses. He has historically shown little respect for the SCOTUS, except when he needs them, as in the patent case for a private client in one of
his two victories - BUT he wants us to elect him President because he should be the one to decide who to replace Antonin Scalia with. Right.
Paul Krugman has historically been one of my favorite economist-writers. He's smart, pragmatic, and generally manages to successfully blend those with his ideology.
Unfortunately, these have given way to his allegiance to Hillary Clinton, and he has effectively demonstrated as much in his columns over the last six to eight months.
His most recent
opinion has
declared Bernie to have morphed into one of his own "Berniebros," a term
coined by Robinson Meyer of
The Atlantic
to describe young males who are fanatically and overtly die hard - with a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance - for Bernie Sanders.
It should not be a surprise that Krugman has taken this tack now. He's a New Yorker, arguably one of the most popular who writes for New York City's most prestigious
newspaper, the New York Times. The New York primary is fast approaching, and Sanders has been steadily eating into Clinton's pledged delegate lead, Wisconsin's being
the most recent. The victory itself was not the biggest problem for Clinton. The biggest problem was that She was up by 6 points in the week before the primary, to
lose it by 13.5 points, an almost 20 point swing, and a clear demonstration that Bernie's momentum is not waning. It's only getting stronger at the worst possible time
for the Clinton campaign. This has caused Krugman to use his popularity and influence over the next couple of weeks to throw shade at Sanders as much as possible. A
successful primary for Sanders in Clinton's home state (yes, carpet-bagged, but still) on April 19 could pose bigger problems than the outcome itself, if it causes
the superdelegates to start entering the conversation, which is Clinton's biggest fear.
"The easy slogan here is “Break up the big banks.” It’s obvious why this slogan is appealing from a political point of view: Wall Street supplies an excellent cast of
villains. But were big banks really at the heart of the financial crisis, and would breaking them up protect us from future crises?
Many analysts concluded years ago that the answers to both questions were no. Predatory lending was largely carried out by smaller, non-Wall Street institutions like
Countrywide Financial; the crisis itself was centered not on big banks but on “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers that weren’t necessarily that big. And the financial
reform that President Obama signed in 2010 made a real effort to address these problems. It could and should be made stronger, but pounding the table about big banks
misses the point."
This is not exactly true. These are not non-Wall Street institutions when they are publicly traded. And Wall Street was very much in bed with big banks during the crisis.
The repeal of Glass-Steagal, which existed to keep commercial banks and investment banks separate, allowed these institutions to merge or be bought as a subsidiary. Even
in the predatory lending portion, Wachovia and Washington Mutual were eaten alive for their share of the sub-prime mortgage and credit default swap market. Bank of
America bought Countrywide. These institutions are not mutually exclusive.
"You could argue that policy details are unimportant as long as a politician has the right values and character. As it happens, I don’t agree. For one thing, a politician’s
policy specifics are often a very important clue to his or her true character — I warned about George W. Bush’s mendacity back when most journalists were still portraying
him as a bluff, honest fellow, because I actually looked at his tax proposals. For another, I consider a commitment to facing hard choices as opposed to taking the easy way
out an important value in itself."
This is a very interesting spin. I do believe character matters more. And the roots of Sanders' policy desires lie in a more even playing field for everyone, and curbing
the uber-wealthy's exploitation of an imbalanced tax system to widen the wealth gap. But more interesting is Krugman's little tilt at the end there, "taking the easy way
out." Really? Sanders is taking the easy way out? No one could have chosen a more difficult way than Bernie. He has used socialist buzzwords that have demonized him from
the start. If anyone is taking the easy way out, it would be Hillary, hoping to maintain the establishment status quo. Selling out has never been so easy.
"But in any case, the way Mr. Sanders is now campaigning raises serious character and values issues.
It’s one thing for the Sanders campaign to point to Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street connections, which are real, although the question should be whether they have distorted
her positions, a case the campaign has never even tried to make. But recent attacks on Mrs. Clinton as a tool of the fossil fuel industry are just plain dishonest, and
speak of a campaign that has lost its ethical moorings."
Bernie did not have to make the case that Hillary's positions have been distorted by her Wall Street connections. Elizabeth Warren already did that - sliced and diced Hillary
on her complete reversal of position on the banking reform bill in 2005. As for her connections to the fossil fuel industry, Bernie did not make that correlation. Greenpeace
did. Bernie only mentioned it as an example of allegiances beyond just Wall Street that could be damaging to the country's economy, and he quoted Greenpeace to do it.
"And the timing of the Sanders rant was truly astonishing. Given her large lead in delegates — based largely on the support of African-American voters, who respond to her
pragmatism because history tells them to distrust extravagant promises — Mrs. Clinton is the strong favorite for the Democratic nomination.
Is Mr. Sanders positioning himself to join the “Bernie or bust” crowd, walking away if he can’t pull off an extraordinary upset, and possibly helping put Donald Trump or
Ted Cruz in the White House? If not, what does he think he’s doing?"
As I mentioned, Bernie has been cutting into Hillary's pledged delegate lead. And her lead is not large, unless you count the superdelegates, as Krugman clearly does. He
obviously does not think superdelegates are malleable if the pledged delegates become a tight race. As for the ridiculous canard that Sanders is joining the "Bernie or Bust"
crowd, he's already said more than once that he will support Hillary if she becomes the nominee. But Krugman is not looking for reality. New York's primary is coming, so the
narrative needs to shift as quickly as possible. So quote Bernie out of context when you need to paint him one way, then ignore his actual quote when you need him to be
something he's not.
