So I wrote that I was grateful for the fact that Cruz did not endorse Donald Trump. I still am grateful. But I also have noticed, online and in personal conversations, that a number of people (who are not Trump fans) are arguing that Cruz should be rejected for good over this because he was not a man of his word.
So what about the “pledge”? In the course of the campaign, the Republican candidates were all asked if they would support the eventual nominee, and Cruz had said yes, he would. So here we are, Trump won, and Cruz did not deliver.
Is this a violation of the kind of honor that Scripture lauds? A godly man is one “who swears to his own hurt and does not change” (Ps. 15:4). Did Cruz go back on his word?
Before addressing that, I would propose a structural reform for the parties. The point of such pledges is to prevent a strong second place candidate from jaunting off into a third party run. Ice all the candidates in order to keep a sore loser from running independently. But this just confuses everything. If you want to insist on a pledge, insist on one that actually addresses the issue. Make them promise to not to run as a third party candidate. Do not try to make anyone promise to like someone he doesn’t like. The solution should be an objective one. And it really shouldn’t be a matter of pledges at all. All state primaries should be closed, and state law should require that anyone who was on the ballot of one party in the primary cannot represent different party in the general in that same election cycle. The current sloppiness created by a host of independents and open primaries is just asking for trouble. If you have a problem, fix that problem. Don’t try to fix it with party unity pledges made on a debate stage.
But alas. That was not the case when Ted Cruz was asked if he would support the eventual nominee. So was it foolish to make the pledge? I would say yes, because there were men on the stage that one shouldn’t support under any conditions, and Trump wasn’t the only one. But is it nefarious perfidy that Cruz declined to fulfill that pledge? No, and here is why.
I think we should all agree on the principle. Imagine this on a scale of one to ten. A one would be Trump being the same old Trump that he was before the pledge, staying within his normal range. A ten would be Trump pulling a rubber mask off his head after the acceptance speech and announcing that he was actually Prince Gorgol from the Planet Cantori, and that he was here to take all our children “beyond the stars” should he win in November. No one would expect Ted Cruz, dealing with that Ten Scenario, to say something like, “Sorry . . . pledge, you know . . . Ps. 15:4.”
There are two ways to walk away from that pledge honorably. Cruz appears to be appealing to the first of them.
He has said that he was “not in the habit” of supporting someone who had attacked his wife and father. In short, this is to say that had Trump stayed within his normal erratic tolerances, those on exhibition up to the time that Cruz made the pledge, then Cruz would have supported him. That is the problematic part for me, but what is not problematic is the fact that Cruz isn’t honoring the pledge now. What people need to focus on here is not the fact that Trump attacked Rafael Cruz, but rather what he attacked him for. He might as well have attacked the senior Cruz for being Prince Gorgol. This is the candidate of random postmodern neuron firings. He attacked the elder Cruz for being involved in the Kennedy assassination. In other words, Trump really is off the chain and I do not fault Cruz for noticing. I fault a bunch of other people for not noticing.
The second way of walking away from a pledge honorably is by repenting having made it in the first place. I don’t think that Cruz should have pledged to support a “normal” Trump. Having done so, and faced with the consequences of it, he should now say something like, “Sorry. I should not have made that pledge in the first place, and I cannot in good conscience honor it. Mea culpa.”
“No man may vow to do any thing forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded” (WCF 22.7)
I have no problem with Cruz appealing to the first, but I do think he should also include the second.
I’m sorry, but this is pure rationalizing. All Ted Cruz had to do was say, “No thank you” to Donald Trump when he was invited (out of a peace making offer) to speak, stay away from the Convention and keep his mouth shut much like John Kasich. He would still be dishonorable for breaking his pledge but at least he would have spared himself the additional dishonor of the “In your face: I’m going to get a head start running for 2020” maneuver. In addition, everyone forgets Ted Cruz started this by having his surrogates try to slut shame Melania… Read more »
Why should a sitting Republican Senator stay away from the Republican National Convention, and not speak if asked to?
It’s not, as some would have it, the Honor Trump Convention. To speak at the convention is not an act of homage to the candidate, it is an address to the party.
You are very misinformed. That’s not how party conventions work nowadays. Conventions are political theater. Everything is scripted and there are no loose cannons. All major speakers and the content of their speeches must be approved by the presumptive nominee and the national party. Sorry if I ruined your high idea but that’s how it is.
FrJ+ wrote:
Cruz’s speech was approved.
Yes, it was approved (even though he infuriated the RNC by making changes afterward). Cruz was allowed to hang himself.
Fake outrage. The so-called “Changes” included three sentences.
#1 “God bless each and every one of you”
#2 “I believe America is going to come back”
#3 “I, like each one of you, want the principles that our party stands for prevail in November.”
Further> The idea that someone should not stand up and speak truth, because some people don’t like it, is ludicrous. Just because 12 million democrats jumped party lines to nominate Trump, does not mean Cruz loses his right to be heard. My only regret is that he did not openly denounce that evil, adulterous, orange clown.
You’re responding to an argument no one here has made.
So let’s just swallow that and not push back then.
Fine. Every time something becomes corrupt, hand it over.
Dunsworth, get a grip and stay on topic! You want to talk about changing Party rules, fine, we can talk about that but I thought we were talking about Cruz’s speech and his bad form.
One more thing, as far as what is seen by the public, the convention is about the nominee…PERIOD…and nothing else.
When it comes to anointing the new civic god, there can be no hint of dissent. The salvation of everyone depends on it. We must all ascend the altar as one. Idols? What idols?
Is this the first political convention you’ve paid attention to? :-)
Supposing that it was a first, would that then justify the behavior? Or is it justified because everyone else is doing it? We all saw the problem when Obama was regarded as the messiah of “hope and change”, but Obama has nothing on Trump at this convention. Now we can’t see the same problem? Or are we just not allowed to point it out? I think what I’m seeing in ashv’s responses is a kind of resignation that we are no longer allowed to expect anything more from either party and anyone who admonishes or invokes a higher standard will… Read more »
The irony of you is astounding. To so many, and you obstinately refuse to see this, Trump is the one who would still dare to put up a fight, rather than exhibit the slow motion progressivism that is conservatism. And you think all the people who are leaving the party now are doing so for “expecting more”, or having “higher standards”, or “acknowledgement of sin” or “repentance”, or because of some kind of principled stand. Bless your little heart. That’s not the reason. The reason is because that’s what National Review told them to do. And they are craven little… Read more »
Prove it.
Comment was deleted. So I will remove the offensive part. *ahem*
Sure, no prob. I’ll prove it. But first, you’ll have to define conservatism for me. Since the mass exodus from the party is being done by those who view themselves as the principled conservatives.
This is almost like a magic trick. Pick a definition, any definition. Watch me make it disappear.
“Pick a definition, any definition”. Fine. I’ll pick yours – Conservatism is slow motion progressivism. There now, make it disappear.
I begin to understand. I have lots of hope for the land and the various nations of America, so I reject your accusation of cynicism. What you are calling cynicism is my complete opposition to the USA power structure/government and its founding principles. I have no need to expect anything from the current political process. My enjoyment of Trump is based entirely on his successful attacks on major components of that power structure, primarily the news media and secondarily the Republican party. (And the rumoured attacks planned for the civil service are welcome news too.) Will Trump be a good… Read more »
Ironies abound don’t they? The “news” media has been a major factor enabling Trump.
Please cut the stagey and dramatic sanctimony.
Yes, well, that kind of capitulation to a “perception is reality” mindset – the lowest common denominator of the shallow collective mind of the masses, is part of the problem. First, Cruz is supposedly crossing some inviolable principle, then as it turns out, it’s inviolable b/c everyone recognizes it as so ala traditional political standard operating procedure. Eh. Whatever.
You make a great point! On the other hand as with any other association of gathered human beings there are rules of decorum both codified and customary which are agreed to as a price for admittance.
“there are rules of decorum both codified and customary which are agreed to as a price for admittance.”
When did the subject change from anything to do with Trump to anything involving rules of decorum?
It became relevant as an alternative to Matt Massingill’s suggestion of “inviolable principles.”
The Trumpkins are really in a tizzy that Dear Leader was insulted. You call this rationalizing while you rationalize. Ted Cruz, nor his campaign, had anything to do with those Melania ads. It was done by an anti-Trump PAC that had no connection to Cruz. In fact, the person who ran the PAC (Liz Mair), despised Cruz. But Trumpkins never care about facts. Dear Leader must be protected. The RNC and Trump reviewed Cruz’s speech prior to giving it and after begging Cruz to speak. Trump even tweeted out that he saw the speech beforehand and let him speak anyway.… Read more »
“Trumpkins???” “Dear Leader???” That’s not very nice, David R. Unprovoked name calling is so unbecoming! You know, I’m probably a unique contributor here in that I was actually a paid Republican political operative for nearly 28 years before accepting a calling of completely different persuasion, so I know how the system plays better than most. And I can tell you that regularly political relationships as they get presented to the public and over the media airwaves are a good deal smoke and mirrors meant to create a general perception depending upon the target group. Always in politics my friend if… Read more »
Supporting Trump, a man who so obviously does not fear God, win the most powerful office in the world is like helping him tape a “kick me God” sign to his back.
Acts 12:22
And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man.
I’ll remember that at the next meeting of the Roman Curia
Well said. Why bend the knee to the party leaders as you seek the party crown? It’s an entry requirement and you have ways out of it…but I don’t think Cruz ever envisioned this scenario. He likely made the pledge, in good faith, knowing that it wasn’t aimed at him (was aimed at 3rd party Trump run), because it was to his political advantage and didn’t require more than he had previously budgeted (planned to endorse winner, anyhow). It’s certainly not a sworn oath or anything in conflict with his Oath of Office. Plagiarism and silly pledges…THESE are the large… Read more »
Great post, but I will offer one correction.
He wouldn’t have gotten where he is if he was just being an idiot blowhard.
More of an idiot savant blowhard.
Pastor Doug is right – the Party system is largely at fault. Not to excuse TED for being TED but hey, things happen. Things didn’t unfold they way he TRULY thought they would. Tea-leaf readers world-wide made similar mistakes. IMHO ALL primary events should be Party events and not elections. Party leaders (city, county, state and federal) should get together in large halls and pick “their guy.” The public is rarely informed or involved enough to make these critical choices. Get involved with the party and stay involved if you want to help them pick their guys. Otherwise, just sit… Read more »
Offtopic:
Is Disqus acting different for anybody else on mobile? The big blue botton to load new top level comments doesn’t work for me anymore.
Android with Chrome
It was misbehaving on my Kindle (Silk browser), too. Refreshing the page worked, though.
Also, I think in his view what he swore to was not so much to “his own” hurt if he kept it, but to the hurt of decency. It’s not like swearing to something and then finding out it’s expensive or embarrassing to keep the pledge. He felt it would be morally wrong to ignore Trump’s behavior and keep this pledge, so it wasn’t his hurt that was in question. Whether that position is morally justified is a separate question, but I don’t think “his own hurt” was really at issue here. Of course those who believe it was all… Read more »
Cruz promised to endorse Trump, but wouldn’t there be certain circumstances that can negate it? For example, the nominee murders someone. While insults to Cruz’s wife and father aren’t at the level of murder, Cruz most likely made the assumption Trump wasn’t going to go that negative. Either way, it’s more of a gray area to me. The real person who outright broke his word was John Kasich.
I don’t believe it. A first. Something I actually agree with you on.
I bet you both agree that Jesus is Lord as well. Where you might differ is on what that means!
????
Aren’t loyalty pledges the worst thing in the world? In my state we voters are supposed to sign a pledge declaring our party loyalty and promising to support the party candidate in the general election or else we can’t even vote in the primary. It’s absolutely ridiculous, can’t actually be enforced, and makes people swear allegiance to a political party.
And Jesus said: Matthew 5 33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say… Read more »
Can you imagine the pollution crisis if he had quoted Matthew 5 during that debate? All that dust flying off of Bibles around the world!
All the more reason to hold God’s Word in higher esteem than our own word!
(although I think the Bible gateway would get lots of hits, and the dust would stay where it is! ; – )
Most folks are looking at this backwards. If Cruz endorsed Trump it would have made Cruz look like a pansie for not sticking up for his family. Besides the initial error of pledging with a scoundrel, Cruz’s also miscalculated in speaking at the
convention of Republicans nominating Trump. After that at the convention speech, Cruz’s mistake was not calling Trump a snollygoster for attacking his family and challenging Trump to bit of pugilism, if Trump wasn’t so old and pathetic. Maybe wife Heidi played an Abigail to him.
‘ Had to look up “snollygoster” ! ; – )
“snollygoster. snol·ly·gos·ter. noun. Slang. One, especially a politician, who is guided by personal advantage rather than by consistent, respectable principles.”
Cruz not endorsing Trump for the reasons Cruz stated after initially pledging to support Trump is about as admirable and honorable as if Neville Chamberlain had withdrawn his support for Hitler after the Battle of London had already begun. For backing out on his pledge because the kind of behavior he pledged to support subsequently came to bear on him personally… for that Cruz surely deserves no more credit than the other candidates that did actually endorse Trump.
Would it have been more admirable of Chamberlain NOT to withdraw his support?
There are things for which people don’t reasonably earn any credit whatsoever. If I allow my own children into the house how much admiration and credit would you give me for that? I think the answer should be none. If I didn’t allow my own children into the house that would certainly be worse, but there is zero honor/credit/deserved admiration in either case.
For the less than geek population, that comic book character is Darkseid, a villian of Superman. Just thought I’d share.
Why are we debating over a relationship over two biblically unqualified candidates for an unbiblical position of leadership by means of an election process that usurped Yahweh’s exclusive election authority?
The entire Constitutional Republic, based upon a biblically seditious Constitution, is an affront to Yahweh.
See free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html.
Then, find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ConstitutionSurvey.html and receive a complimentary copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.
It may be another pretended usurpation, an imagined “vain thing”, but it is impossible to actually successfully usurp Yahweh’s exclusive election authority.
Theo, thanks for your input.
I agree with you, however, you may be thinking of election in a different light than I intended. See blog article “Salvation by Election,” which contrasts the unbiblical Constitutional Republic’s election process with the Bible’s election process. Click on my picture, then our website. Go to our blog and search on title.
Who is this Prince Gorgol? Perhaps we should start a write-in campaign…
I appreciate much of Pastor Wilson’s theology, and have learned greatly from him. That’s why I came to this blog. Having said that however, I have to wonder that he continues to defend a tree with bad fruit. To his point that the RNC should have just put in a non-compete clause, they actually did. The pledge reads: “I [name] affirm that if I do not win the 2016 Republican nomination for president of the United States I will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is. I further pledge that I will not seek to run… Read more »
Doug, I love you man, and I was a Cruz supporter. But he was still wrong, and so are you. Here is why. There are other ways to handle this. Cruz should have told Trump, “I will endorse you as promised, but you owe Heidi a sincere, public apology.” So the apology doesn’t come, because Trump never apologizes for anything. It’s part of his appeal. What should Cruz have done? Use his speech at the convention to say something like, “Donnie of Orange may be a weird-haired, thrice married, egomaniacal narcissist with a messiah complex, a record of womanizing and… Read more »
Let me start out by saying I love dogs; have two of the best. I suppose the object lesson learned in this is what happens when Christians deal with unscrupulous people. But in the business of politics there is no way to avoid this. A conundrum. This is why we argue politics because we know, believe me we know, we would do better, much better, in similar circumstances. Cruz was fooled in thinking that Trump would not stoop so low. As Granny said when you lie down with dogs you gonna get Trumpkins or Clintonitist.
Doug Wilson: Neither of you impress me.
I know it’s probably too late to comment on this and have anyone actually read it, but I guess we’ll just consider this a “going on the record” comment. There was something about the argument in this post that didn’t sit right that I couldn’t initially put my finger on, but now I think I’ve got it: Ted Cruz’s pledge was not principally a pledge to Trump himself, or any of the other candidates, but to all the voters who would rather have ANY of the republican candidates become president (including Trump) than Hillary Clinton. If this is the case,… Read more »
I see
NYTimes article on how Cruz is toast: http://archive.is/bOO0r