What Went Wrong For Cruz. Part I: Globalism

Georges_de_La_Tour._St._Joseph,_the_Carpenter (1)

No fear of unemployment because of cheap Chinese imports or hunger illegal immigrant wages: St Joseph, the worker.


I am tempted to say: nothing went wrong for Cruz. This man gave an overall stunning performance, and brought conservative values at the centre of the political debate in a manner not seen since, I think I can safely say, the Gipper. This, in a world that celebrate sexual perversion and is preparing to persecute Christians for allegedly denying the “human right” to be a pervert and impose your perversion on the normal people who have remained.

However, I thought I would identify four weaknesses in Cruz; or better said, two structural weaknesses of his and two big mistakes he made during the electoral campaign. 

The first is the globalist stance.

I can talk more eloquently than most about the advantages of free trade.  I see them, and I agree with their proponents about them. However, it seems to me that economic advantages do not encompass the whole of the human experience. There is, in the life of a Country, an ethical dimension that cannot be reduced to economic terms. 

If you have three, or even five, percent of the population – people willing and eager  to work – unemployed, dissatisfied, and ultimately cut off from a wholesome dimension of living, this creates a damage that cannot be compensated by the (undeniably present) collective advantage for the economy as a whole in having cheap clothes, cheap steel, and cheap more-and-more-things.

A person (and particularly a man) needs to know that he is a self reliant provider for himself and his family. He instinctively feels  that this is what he was born for: to provide for himself and his loved ones. Getting up in the morning and going to work in the factory, in the mine, in the foundry; working as a gardener, or a cleaning lady – and bringing home the paycheck at the end of the month that pays (or helps to pay) for the mortgage, the children’s shoes and a dignified existence in the fear of the Lord, has a deeply satisfying wholesomeness to it that will never be compensated by having enough handouts to scrape by.

A person (and particularly a man) has the right to know that he will have to compete, in a sane and healthy manner, with the other workers in his village, not with Chinese workers paid one or two dollars an hour, or illegal immigrants ready to work for a wage that allows them to live in dismal conditions.  

It is profoundly unethical to ask these people that they convert into what they are not – software programmers, say – or are content with merely being kept away from cold and hunger from a cynical system that coldly calculates the costs of his handouts against the benefits of having all sorts of cheap imports, decides that there is a collective gain in it, and therefore proclaims it good.  

It is unethical because you can’t blame a man or a woman who are willing to work according to their own inclinations and to the wages the market establishes that they cannot have that job, because the job goes to another person in a foreign country who is ready to work for a pay that it would be unreasonable – or even illegal – to ask him or her to work for. And no, not everyone is born to be an accountant, or a software programmer. It is deeply, profoundly unethical to ask a man born in, say, Pennsylvania – and who would have plenty of work opportunities at home, in a honest market without unfair competition – to move to the other side of the Country in the hope of a job he is not cut for so you can have cheap socks. Pay your socks what is the fair price for socks produced by honest working men and women in Pennsylvania instead, mend them instead of throwing them away, and be glad for the millions of men and women who have the right to a wholesome life.    

To those who do not want to work, we should give nothing to eat. But to those who do want to work we should give the possibility of doing so, in a dignified manner, for a market wage, and according to their own inclinations; then not everyone want to be an accountant; some have a natural inclinations to be gardeners or factory workers, or are perfectly happy with being miners and cleaners.  

I could go on, but you get the drift. 

Cruz did not understand the message at the start, and when he started to see it it was already too late. The man relies, like many statesmen in perfect good faith (in which I do believe, and I deeply despise the conspiracy theories and “man sold to the big conglomerates” rants), too much on numbers and economic theories, and too little on the dimension those numbers and theories will never be able to quantify.  

Cruz never saw that dimension fully. Trump did it from the start. Like, by the way, the Gipper. 

I believe this is the first, and main, reason why the Republican candidate’s name begins with T, rather than C.



Posted on May 5, 2016, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism. Bookmark the permalink. 12 Comments.

  1. I agree. Trump is much more tuned-in to working folks consciousness perhaps because he deals with it every day in his businesses. Cruz is too theoretical. Trump appeals t to hearts, Cruz to heads. I hope he can continue to work his magic on Hillary.

  2. Excellent analysis. Cruz/Carly will still try to block Trump at the Convention. On the other hand, Trump used rough words for his opponents, but he resisted using non fair methods. What people see in Trump is a man speaking with his heart who is risking his life, fortune and honor to save America, just as the Founding Fathers did.

  3. “It is deeply, profoundly unethical to ask a man born in, say, Pennsylvania – and who would have plenty of work opportunities at home, in a honest market without unfair competition – to move to the other side of the Country in the hope of a job he is not cut for so you can have cheap socks. Pay your socks what is the fair price for socks produced by honest working men and women in Pennsylvania instead, mend them instead of throwing them away, and be glad for the millions of men and women who have the right to a wholesome life.”

    Precisely! And this is the decisive argument against unlimited free trade. Free movement of capital, goods and labor all require each other. They are three legs of the same stool of free trade. However, unlimited free movement of labor is unethical for the reason you have outlined. In the end, free movement of labor means that you cannot have borders or nations, with most citizens rooted in their local communities, anymore. Free trade ideology is just open borders ideology dressed up as “conservative”. In reality, it is merely rootless cosmopolitanism, citizen-of-the-worldism which is utterly anti-conservative. Historically, free trade (free movement of goods, capital and labor) was the great *liberal* cause and conservatives were mostly opposed, because they knew values beyond the merely economical.

    Regarding the statesmen in good faith, I believe that they exist and I do not dispute your claim that Cruz may well be one of them. But in many cases, “being sold out” has nothing to do with conspiracy theory. It’s simply “follow the money trail”. If a tea-party like, strongly conservative “citizen politician” goes to Washington to fight the globalist elite and returns a few years later spouting tired globalist talking points until he sounds like a damaged robot, having received millions of dollars in “encouragement” from globalist donors, it is only reasonable do doubt his “good faith”. Rubio, for example, was elected as a tea party senator, defeating then-Republican Charlie Crist in a bitter primary, but look what has become of him…

    • Yes, there will be an abundance of bad apples.
      However, it seems to me that Cruz is not one of them. One who is so stubborn in defending unpopular ideas would not hesitate in doing the same with globalism, if he were persuaded of its wrongness.

    • Well, I still hope they can work out their personal differences and come together at the convention.

      Trump/Cruz 2016!

  4. Nice post. Do you think the miner should take the cleaning job, even if he hates the prospect of it, because there are no mining jobs in his area? I’m trying to get a better understanding of what you mean by ”willingness to work according to his own inclinations”. I think that’s fair enough but some people say you cannot pick and choose and must accept whatever work you can get rather than be choosy about it.

    • I think the problem is far worse than that.
      A specialised worker cannot convert into an accountant, or a software programmer, so easily; nor is it fair to tell him he should now work at Walmat for 11$/hour because you want cheap socks. If you had acquired a professional qualification in a traditional, “manual” work (factory worker, artisan, and the like) you would not like the prospect very much, and I think you would be entitled to this dislike.
      This, apart from the consideration of how many walmart jobs will remain when the factories close.
      We must cure ourselves of this idea that the West is going to become a professional universe, whilst all the production is made the other side of the planet.
      P.s. what I meant originally is that not everyone want to be an office professional. Millions of people would be very happy to be specialised workers like their fathers and grandfathers. It is unfair to tell them they can’t, because we prefer the cheap product from the exploited Chinese worker.

  5. Thank you Mundabor. You’ve articulated something I’ve been thinking about for a while. I agree with your comments but wonder how this could ever come about since we no longer live in Catholic States and things appear to be getting worse.

    • We hope and pray.
      Things do change. Alas, at times they only change when there is a shock bi genough to cause them to change.

  6. It’s too late for Cruz now. M, You should have advised him when he started (you like him a lot, right?). If he listened to you he should have fired all his campaign managers who were so dumb to realize or pay any attention that the first priority of the president is to fulfill basic needs as to protect and provide jobs to Americans. Man needs work, no job no dignity. Jesus had worked 20 years from dawn to sunset as hard labored carpenter and his come-out products never be fancy or expensive. He’s not a politician or high tech worker, just plain carpenter. Cruz showed his “don’t care” attitude and only wanted the throne. He’s down because of his blind ambition. By the way it is your very good figure-out why Cruz failed terribly. Thanks.

    • Hey, genius, Crus did not “failed terribly”. He did much better than 15 of the 17 initial candidates, many of them with loads of money and extremely important political connections.
      Why he did so good, you are clearly unable to understand, so I will not even try.

  1. Pingback: What Went Wrong For Cruz. Part II: Persona. | Mundabor's Blog

%d bloggers like this: