Sorry, guys. Seems all I talk about anymore is politics. I do think about other things, and you should see many more posts from me on non-political stuff in the months to come. I just had to get this one off my chest. Here goes.
While campaigning in Iowa, Ted Cruz caught some heat for not supporting ethanol subsidies. He was on record having said that he would do away with ethanol subsidies, and that kind of message just doesn’t go over well in a corn state. At least, that’s what the major media wanted us to believe. At one point, a genuinely concerned corn farmer approached Cruz and asked him why he did not support ethanol. The following exchange happened:
Many don’t realize that Cruz’s answer is not merely an answer made up off the fly. Rather, the answer he gives this farmer—that the government should not be picking winners and losers, but that it should lift restrictions that keep farmers from being able to compete globally—is an argument based on deep principles. The principle Cruz is employing in the video is a principle known as the “equal protection under the law” principle, based on the 14th Amendment, which was passed on behalf of African Americans after the Civil War.
A Competitive Market Is Good for Everyone
The idea is that every American should get a fair shake from the government. This means that the government should interfere in business neither to help nor to harm them. Rather, the government’s role in business is to make sure that all job creators have unhindered access to trade and commerce in today’s competitive market. This approach to business encourages innovation and job growth, and it attracts corporations from abroad to bring their money and their jobs to the United States. Why? Because people are attracted to freedom.
This is the model that Texas has been employing for the last decade, and it has served us well. Since we have decreased regulations, lowered corporate income tax, and fostered an environment of competition and opportunity, companies have been relocating plants and headquarters to Texas left and right. It’s why Texas is #1 in job growth, and still improving. This is the model that Ted Cruz wants to bring to Washington.
How Does This Relate to African Americans?
This “equal protection under the law” model is not only good for business, though. Recently, a PJ Media article began the push for the GOP to make its case to the African American community. It specifically singles out the man the author clearly believes will be the eventual nominee: Donald Trump, and it suggests that he offer tax breaks to minority communities in order to give them a hand up, so-to-speak. This clearly would not be “equal treatment under the law.” Rather, it would be pandering, and it would be yet another instance of the government “picking the winners and the losers.”
I am convinced that Trump would be your best bet if this is the type of hand out you’re looking for. If you’re looking to get subsidized for the color of your skin, go with Trump. He’s all for pandering to the cronies. He quickly got in bed with Big Ethanol the moment he stepped foot in Iowa. No doubt, he’d hand out a bunch of goodies to the elites in the African American community, too, if it meant he could secure a few more votes. That’s precisely what he offered Big Ethanol in Iowa.
Cruz Sticks to Principle
Cruz, on the other hand, did not cave to the pressure. When pressed on the issue by corn farmers, rather than pandering, he made his case for “equal treatment under the law.” Likewise, when pressed in the Senate to side with emotional appeals from some in the African American community in order to repeal “stand your ground laws,” Cruz did not cave. Instead, he demonstrated very cogently how “stand your ground laws” have historically worked in the favor of African Americans, and were even championed by an IL State Senator in 2004 by the name of Barak Obama.
Cruz does not pander, but he is not heartless either. On the contrary, he stands on his principles and makes his case. He recognizes that principles that benefit the whole necessarily benefit the part. If all Americans benefit from a particular policy—if a policy gives all Americans an equal starting point—that policy benefits African Americans, by default.
Divided We Fall
Policies that benefit the whole have another effect, as well. When the whole community benefits from the same principles, rather than just fractured segments of the community, those principles work to unite communities once divided. Ask yourself, “Since President Obama has taken office, and since he has started picking winners and losers in regard to race relations, the economy, religious liberty, etc., have we become a more united America or a more divided America?” The answer is clear: we are more divided than we have been since the Civil Rights movement.
So, President Obama’s method of picking winners and losers has really served to further divide the nation, not just along racial lines, but also along economic lines, generational lines, political lines, religious lines, etc. Interestingly, the two DNC hopefuls are offering much of the same. As we’ve already demonstrated, Donald Trump would also offer more of the same. The only way we move forward is if we can put forward a man who seeks equal justice for all. The only man currently out there running on that platform is Senator Ted Cruz.
The narrative to which this nation has grown accustomed is the narrative of picking winners and losers. That’s the only way a person can demonstrate that they really care for a demographic of people anymore. Minorities, the working class, women, etc. If you want to show me you care for me, tell me how you’re going to help me win. That’s the narrative, and it’s a divisive, destructive narrative. That’s the narrative we’ve been operating on for the past 8 years and, if we continue to operate on it, we will effectively destroy this nation for our kids and our grandkids.
What’s the solution, then? The solution is not picking winners and losers. Rather, the solution is picking a set of circumstances that fosters the greatest potential for success for all interested parties. In other words, everyone must have an equal starting point. That means that we must elect the guy that is most concerned with uniting the nation on principle rather than dividing the nation between the haves and the have nots, so he can watch them go at each other’s throats before picking the winner himself.