Something strange is happening when I hit “Preview”, so there may be some formatting issues in this post.
Well, unlike Trump, Cruz is not a virtual “zero”, he has an established political record. Thing is, that record seems largely in support of policies that potentially serve my personal interests, but by and large seem more likely to cause societal harm for little societal benefit (by the metrics I have become accustomed to judging such things by).
Just grabbing a paragraph off the wiki page titled “Political positions of Ted Cruz”, as it currently stands:
And breaking it down:
“Cruz supports free trade” : I’m cool with that.
“wishes to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and implement a single tax for all citizens” : well, as a wish, sure… I wish for a pony, too. The idea is absurd, though; I’ve accepted progressive taxation and a federal agency to collect it, as necessary evils to keep society running. I don’t quite count this as a negative, just wishful thinking on Cruz’s part.
“opposes a higher minimum wage” : This is something I think better managed at the state or even municipal level. I’m okay with the Feds setting a minimum, indexed to inflation perhaps, and states or major cities going higher if they want.
“supports downsizing the United States government” : I’d have to know his specifics - such promises have become Republican boilerplate by now - and if he’s talking about reducing the EPA or CDC, I would view as a strong negative his implied ignorance of history, when industrial pollution and infectious disease were far more common.
“Cruz is pro-life” : I am pro-choice because it seems obvious to me that pro-life laws and nuisance regulations do more harm than good. Whatever religious motivations Cruz might have, I’m confident I do not share.
“against Obamacare” : It seems fairly obvious to me that the most economical and beneficial solution (or the least-worst option, anyway) is to move toward single-payer. Just being against Obamacare would get Cruz no points - what is his suggested alternative, and if that happens to be “the pre-Obamacare status quo” or “let the market decide”, then I’d view him negatively because these are not improvements, nor are they less expensive than single-payer.
“[against] same-sex marriage” : I’d like him to present a non-stupid reason to oppose SSM, since I’ve yet to hear one from anybody. It looks like an obvious application of equal protection of the law and harms nobody, so let it go.
“[against] legalization of marijuana” : this point and the previous one make me question his implied desire for smaller government, and it’s implied corollary, less governmental interference in the lives of Americans. If he means smaller government only in the sense of “less regulation of business in America”, I’d prefer he be explicit on it. I personally favour legalization of marijuana not because I myself am a user (I am not and never have been), but because I don’t see it as dangerous enough to be worth the considerable costs of outlawing it. Regulated to same extent as tobacco and alcohol, sure. Kept out of the hands of minors, no problem.
“[against] net neutrality” : it’s early days in post-NN America. I’m honestly not sure what the effects of elimination will be. I have misgivings but I’m not confident enough that bad stuff will happen (or at least bad stuff that wasn’t going to happen anyway) to feel much political concern.
“in favor of the death penalty” : As am I, in theory, but the application of it of America is so utterly screwed up that I’d be inclined to just abolish for simplicity. To me Charles Ng is the classic case - California went to great and expensive lengths to get Canada to extradite this clown, and once they had him, six years passed before they put him on trial, at a cost of about $20 million… and he’s been on death row for eighteen years. Why even have a death penalty if a monster like Ng will likely die of old age (he’s 57 now) before it applies to him? I am confident there is a sane and timely approach to capital punishment, but whatever bass-ackward version is now bring practiced across the U.S… that ain’t it. I wouldn’t consider this a negative against Cruz. I might view it as a slight positive if he’d made statements to the effect of favouring a pragmatic approach.
“[favours] the USA Freedom Act” : I’d have to look this up.
“[favours] school choice” : Like… vouchers and stuff? I’m not that familiar with the issue, but it seems like education has a shockingly low priority in the U.S., and religious interference in the teaching of science is something I find distasteful. I’d need more detail, but I don’t think Cruz’s full position is likely to be one I’d support.
“[favours] gun rights” : I don’t personally hold the view that widespread personal gun ownership is necessary to resist tyranny (frankly, this strikes me as a latter-day fantasy), but it’s seems clear that the U.S. has a lot of guns and a lot of crime involving guns. My approach to reducing the latter would start with legalizing drugs, truth be told. The gun thing will take a generational change, hopefully and gradually talking Americans into seeing their votes and voices as keys to changing the system, not their stockpiles in expectation of the system collapsing. It would not likely affect my decision to vote for or against Cruz.
“Environmentally, Cruz is opposed to both the scientific consensus on climate change and the Water Resources Development Act.” : heh… sorry, Teddy, if you’re opposed to scientific consensus, I’m very likely to find myself opposed to you. Granted, Cruz himself likely wouldn’t phrase his position this way - it’s just the interpretation of some Wikipedia editor, after all - but I’d be alert to weasel words like “teach the controversy” and “the evidence isn’t all in yet.” I don’t have children, so I can’t say I’m overly concerned about what their children will have to deal with, but I do favour more efficient, less polluting energy sources.
“Finally, in regards to foreign policy, Cruz is “somewhere in between” Rand Paul’s non-interventionist position and John McCain’s active interventionism; Cruz opposes the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action against Iran, the United States–Cuban Thaw, and the Agenda 21 action plan with other countries.” : I have to read up on the specifics, but “somewhere in between” sounds acceptable, as it usually is. I think the U.S. should really chill out about Cuba, though. If you’re that eager to destroy them, you should be sending your tourists there, and in huge numbers. I don’t see how they could remain your enemy as they get gradually turned into a homogenized money-driven Disneyland.
So to answer your question… ummm… truth be told I don’t really understand your question. Trump is manifestly unqualified to be president, in my opinion, but if his opponent was someone who had political experience but a record on issues that I found overall negative, my likely response is to abstain or go third-party. I’m not sure if this implies hypocrisy on my part, but I kinda get the sense you were suggesting it would.
