Skip to main content

Thomas Sowell’s blunder: Ted Cruz and the politics of principle

Written By | Feb 21, 2014

WASHINGTON, February 21, 2014 — There has been a sea change in American politics. Both parties have undergone an ominous transformation. The Republican party is not the party of Ronald Reagan and the Democrat party is not the party of a decade ago. What the electorate now faces is a sweeping radicalization which has drawn the professional political class far to the left. The Republicans now occupy the position of neo-statists on the big government scale, while the Democrats court european collectivism.

In this roiling atmosphere of statist centralization, Constitutional Conservatives are described as “purists.” It seems that even Thomas Sowell has been infected by this vapid pejorative. Recently, Sowell penned an article critical of Senator Ted Cruz and alleged a self-serving divisiveness, motivated by a purist attitude.

This political purism is meant to denote an unreasonable and doctrinaire brand of politics, blind to the necessary political expediencies inherent in cobbling together the necessary coalitions to ensure Republican victory. It is a derogatory term meant to marginalize and stigmatize groups and politicians that dare to assert principle. Compromise has become the catch phrase of the hour. However, compromise is always at the expense of the Conservative and never requires a quid pro quo from the liberal left. Speaker Boehner is a primary example of this fatal political doctrine and only garners the contempt of the Republican party’s base.

Principled people, by their very nature, are divisive. Christ himself brought division—not peace but a sword. The truth divides. This is not just politics as usual. These points of compromise are not on superfluous rules of procedure but concern the very foundational ideas of liberty. These are dangerous days, the nature of our republic is being redefined before our eyes. Will our political system continue to be based on the natural law truths of inalienable rights? Or will we choose the lie of the socialist utopia, promising safety and security at the price of liberty?

Politicians like Ted Cruz should fight the encroaching political darkness and refuse to compromise principles based on the law of nature and of nature’s God. The entire edifice of our republic is based on these ideas. A battle is raging and the left is bent upon the destruction of it’s enemy. War is absolute and its only resolution is victory. Cruz understands this. The compromisers do not. They are the intellectual progeny of Neville Chamberlain.

Sowell uses the analogy of the Nazi party takeover of Germany in the 1930’s. The opposition fought among themselves as the Nazi’s infiltrated the German political apparatus. However, what we face today, in allegory, is a Republican party infested with Brown Shirts and a Democrat party goose stepping relentlessly toward the abyss of a lawless tyranny.

Sowell has missed the mark in his criticism of Cruz. In this political battle, each one of us has to chose a side.

The time for compromise has long since passed.


John Nantz

John Nantz is a graduate of Regent University School of Law, has served in the law enforcement community for sixteen years, writes, and is an aspiring flaneur. You can connect with him on twitter @themummersfarce.