Ted Cruz Endorses A Senate of White Supremacists

[SeaCanary]

Rachel Maddow opined on her blog that when Ted Cruz said America needs “a hundred more like Jesse Helms in the U.S. Senate,” what he’s endorsing is “a chamber run by white supremacists”. Consider the following from said blog:

[ul]
[li]On September 11, 2013 in a speech before The Heritage Foundation, Ted Cruz recounted a story about how Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) received a campaign donation check from John Wayne (Yes, that John Wayne). According to Cruz, Helms contacted Wayne to thank him and, as he (Cruz) tells the story, Wayne said to Helms,[/li]

Oh yeah, you’re that guy saying all those crazy things. We need 100 more like you.

[li]Cruz went on to say in his speech,[/li]

The willingness to say all those crazy things is a rare, rare characteristic in this town, and you know what? It’s every bit as true now as it was then. We need a hundred more like Jesse Helms in the U.S. Senate.

[li]Consider what the late David Broder of the Washington Post had to say on Helms’ retirement.[/li]

What really sets Jesse Helms apart is that he is the last prominent unabashed white racist politician in this country – a title that one hopes will now be permanently retired. […]

What is unique about Helms – and from my viewpoint, unforgivable – is his willingness to pick at the scab of the great wound of American history, the legacy of slavery and segregation, and to inflame racial resentment against African Americans.

[/ul]

…and what we have, IMO, is a darn good case for saying what Maddow said in her blog and what I said in the title of this thread; Ted Cruz Endorses A Senate of White Supremacists.

If your mileage varies after all of the above, please tell me how and/or why.

SeaCanary

[Grumman]

I’d say that a willingness to say all those crazy things is a more valuable characteristic in a candidate, not a senator. If a man believes horrible things, better that he revel in it and thereby warn the rest of us not to give him power.

[guizot]

@Grumman

If a man believes horrible things, better that he revel in it and thereby warn the rest of us not to give him power.

Cruz doesn’t really act on beliefs, but simply a shameless and venal desire for political attention, especially in front of those he’s been trained to please. (In this case, it’s the Heritage Foundation.) This is the only way he knows to become president. He’s one of the few tools the party could dig out of its increasingly out-dated toolbox.

[Captain_Amazing]

He’s the speaker at an annual lecture, sponsored by the Jesse Helms Center, named after Jesse Helms, dedicated to “highlighting foreign policies that Senator Helms championed throughout his years in office”, and it’s surprising that he includes an anecdote saying something nice about the guy? What should he have said?

@Not Ted Cruz

Hi. I’d like to thank John and the rest of the staff here at the Jesse Helms Center for inviting me to be your keynote speaker this year. It’s important, I think, to highlight the role that the Senator had in foreign policy and consider what he would have thought about the things going on in the world today. Of course, he was a horrible racist and a terrible person, and you should all be ashamed that you named this center after him. I know I’m ashamed to be here! I never thought that I’d ever agree to speak at a lecture named after such a horrible, evil man.

So, if he were alive today, what would Senator Helms think about the situation in Syria? . . .

[iiandyiiii]

@Captain_Amazing

He’s the speaker at an annual lecture, sponsored by the Jesse Helms Center, named after Jesse Helms, dedicated to “highlighting foreign policies that Senator Helms championed throughout his years in office”, and it’s surprising that he includes an anecdote saying something nice about the guy? What should he have said?

It’s not particularly surprising, but that doesn’t change that it’s despicable. He should have turned them down, obviously.

[Ludovic]

Or this:

@Not Ted Cruz

The willingness to say all those crazy things is a rare, rare characteristic in this town, and you know what? It’s genuine frontier gibberish

[ITR_champion]

@SeaCanary

…and what we have, IMO, is a darn good case for saying what Maddow said in her blog and what I said in the title of this thread; Ted Cruz Endorses A Senate of White Supremacists.

If your mileage varies after all of the above, please tell me how and/or why.

Sure. Ted Cruz did not say “I endorse a Senate of White Supremacists”, nor any words to that effect. It’s therefore incorrect to say that he did so. There is no evidence that Ted Cruz has any desire for any white supremacist in the Senate.

[Farin]

@SeaCanary

…and what we have, IMO, is a darn good case for saying what Maddow said in her blog and what I said in the title of this thread; Ted Cruz Endorses A Senate of White Supremacists.

If your mileage varies after all of the above, please tell me how and/or why.

SeaCanary

He was specifically talking about his speech patterns. He wants more loose-lipped politicians.

Your chain of equivalency goes something like this:

Farin: “I like blond-haired girls. Some of the funnest I’ve been with have blue eyes.”
Random Guy: “I’ll never forget Farin’s love of the people with blond hair and blue eyes.”
Historical Guy: “Back in '36, Farin hailed the Nazi party’s love of the blond/blue-eyed phenotype.”

After Death Lecture Guy: “We need more people who like blond hair and blue eyes. We need 100 more people who like Farin.”

Responder to Lecture Guy: “Obviously, Lecture Guy supports a return to Nazi-ism.”

While I’m happy we got the last (open, I can’t stress that qualifier enough) racist off the Congressional merry-go-round, everyone has positive and talented aspects of their personality. You can admire someone’s ability to speak out and speak up without saying that you wholly-endorse their product, service and/or beliefs.

One of my favorite writers was ardently Anti-Gay. I might participate in a boycott of his work in protest (was he still alive and writing…or maybe even still dead and writing) but I would still admire his works. See? You can admire and ascribe to someone’s positive attributes without saying you love his homophobia.

This sort of thinking does nothing but divide us. I see it in the atheist (“Oh, that’s a Christian teaching? Well, it’s value-less.”) as much as I see it in the Christian (“Oh, he’s an atheist? Well, he will burn in hell and I shouldn’t have to listen to him.”) as much as I see it in the Republican (“Democrats are ruining this country and they have no good ideas!”) as much as I see it in the Democrats (“Republicans are ruining this country and they have no good ideas!”). I’m sure you can find more examples of this on your own.

As Bill Watterson in Calvin and Hobbes put it: “Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin.”

[iiandyiiii]

@ITR_champion

Sure. Ted Cruz did not say “I endorse a Senate of White Supremacists”, nor any words to that effect. It’s therefore incorrect to say that he did so. There is no evidence that Ted Cruz has any desire for any white supremacist in the Senate.

If Jesse Helms was a white supremacist (and I think there are pretty good reasons, such as his support of apartheid South Africa, to believe that he was), then wishing for a Senate full of Jesse Helms’s is endorsing a Senate full of white supremacists.

[Bridget_Burke]

@guizot

Cruz doesn’t really act on beliefs, but simply a shameless and venal desire for political attention, especially in front of those he’s been trained to please. (In this case, it’s the Heritage Foundation.) This is the only way he knows to become president. He’s one of the few tools the party could dig out of its increasingly out-dated toolbox.

Indeed, Cruz is a tool. He possibly once had a brain–but this high-powered lawyer was shocked to realize he had dual citizenship due to his Canadian birth. Gosharoonie, who’da thunk it? He’ll say & do anything in his ambition for higher office. Accomplishing anything positive in the office he has? Not worth the effort.

If Cruz’s statement “we need 100 more like Jesse Helms” wasn’t an endorsement of racism, perhaps somebody can point out the old coot’s good points*.

Helms’ racism was unmatched on Capitol Hill. He got his political start by bashing interracial marriage and accusing the spouse of a political opponent of dancing with a black man. As a senator, he blasted the Civil Rights Act as “the single most dangerous piece of legislation ever introduced in the Congress” and dismissed the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill as “the University of Negroes and Communists.” In 1983, he filibustered the 1983 effort to create a Martin Luther King Jr. national holiday.

• This Guardian obituary gives a fuller picture of The Late Mr Helms:

Senator Jesse Helms, member of the US Senate’s foreign relations committee for two decades and its chairman from 1995 to 2001, has died at the age of 86. To echo this newspaper’s memorable comment on the death of William Randolph Hearst, it is hard even now to think of him with charity. From his earliest years, Helms’s attitudes recalled those of an earlier southern bigot, Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi, who so outraged his Senate colleagues, that they eventually refused even to let him take his seat.

There was never a comparable risk for Helms, who maintained an old-world courtesy in his personal contacts. But that was only on the surface. He became one of the most powerful and baleful influences on American foreign policy, repeatedly preventing his country paying its UN contributions, voting against virtually all arms control measures, opposing international aid programmes as “pouring money down foreign rat holes”, and avidly supporting military juntas in Latin America and minority white regimes in Southern Africa.

Chile just commemorated its own 9/11–the 40th anniversary of the US sponsored overthrow of Salvador Allende.

A review of documents released by the Central Intelligence Agency, the White House, and the departments of State and Defense reveals the lengths to which Helms went to support the dictator at a time when Pinochet was being condemned internationally.

So, let’s not just remember Helms for his racism! And let’s not let up on Cruz for his meretricious comments…

[Gyrate]

@iiandyiiii

If Jesse Helms was a white supremacist (and I think there are pretty good reasons, such as his support of apartheid South Africa, to believe that he was), then wishing for a Senate full of Jesse Helms’s is endorsing a Senate full of white supremacists.

By default, perhaps, but it’s not necessarily true that it’s Helms’ white supremacist views per se that Cruz was saying the Senate needed more of.

ISTM that Cruz is a frothing dickhead endorsing another frothing dickhead and saying that everyone in the Senate should be a frothing dickhead too. Absent other context, the particular brand of froth is immaterial.

[ITR_champion]

@iiandyiiii

If Jesse Helms was a white supremacist (and I think there are pretty good reasons, such as his support of apartheid South Africa, to believe that he was), then wishing for a Senate full of Jesse Helms’s is endorsing a Senate full of white supremacists.

I refer you to Farin’s excellent post on the matter. Or to use a different comparison, if someone were to say they “wanted a President like George Washington”, that would not necessarily mean that they wanted a President who owned slaves; it might be some other property of George Washington that they had in mind.

[Richard_Parker]

Suggesting that Cruz wasn’t aware of the connotation of saying “We need a hundred more like Jesse Helms in the U.S. Senate” is suggesting he has a child’s understanding of U.S. politics.

[iiandyiiii]

@ITR_champion

I refer you to Farin’s excellent post on the matter. Or to use a different comparison, if someone were to say they “wanted a President like George Washington”, that would not necessarily mean that they wanted a President who owned slaves; it might be some other property of George Washington that they had in mind.

Sure, it might- and perhaps Senator Cruz will clarify what he meant. But without knowing more, I’m taking him at his word. It’s possible that Cruz just doesn’t know that Helms was a white supremacist- perhaps he can be educated. Or it’s possible that he knows but doesn’t care.

[John_Mace]

@iiandyiiii

If Jesse Helms was a white supremacist (and I think there are pretty good reasons, such as his support of apartheid South Africa, to believe that he was), then wishing for a Senate full of Jesse Helms’s is endorsing a Senate full of white supremacists.

It’s also pretty fair to say that Abraham Lincoln was a White Supremacist, or at the very least viewed Blacks as intellectually inferior to Whites. I sure hope no one ever suggests that we should have a Senate full of Abraham Lincolns!!

[Farin]

@Richard_Parker

Suggesting that Cruz wasn’t aware of the connotation of saying “We need a hundred more like Jesse Helms in the U.S. Senate” is suggesting he has a child’s understanding of U.S. politics.

I fail to see the value in judging someone else on what we think they meant.

Example: “The [military/NSA/GWB] never directly denied their involvement in 9/11! They were involved!” This statement says that based upon the absence of evidence, we have reached a conclusion.

Now, while Cruz may love himself some good ol’ fashioned racism (or is just a jerkoff), he was, in that particular speech, endorsing the way in which Helms spoke his mind.

Ascribing a gut feeling of what was implied is dangerous. A lot of people do this and it rarely benefits anyone. Sure, you have someone who follows their instinct and prevents a bombing, or gets a political win, but those are outlier incidents. This sort of thinking is toxic to honest discourse.

Why? Because, it means that whatever evidence that can be gathered on someone is going to give a gut feeling, which is going to color everything they say. What if he had come onto that stage and said “I like pie!” and then walked away? Would one attribute it to racism as it presents with the historical facts you provided? Or would someone build a new internal narrative that said “Wow, that guy’s batshit crazy.” They would, of course, change their internal narrative to match their new gut feeling.

This harms honest discourse because what happens is you paint everyone into a corner so that they can NEVER take back anything. Ever. That means you may have to suffer a few scumbags, but that’s worth it. Look at where we are socially: No one commits to a course of action or says anything that may be against the grain because they can never, ever take it back. It’s so awesome that a politician will avoid direct, specific statements of value and instead say generic garbage.

I mean, look at Obama. How many people are calling for his head because of the NSA dragnetting? People don’t have enough information about what the NSA is doing, but they fill their heads in either with “this is the WORST that could happen” or “my favorite news site is saying that puppies are being gassed!” and then they rage about it. People are bringing out his campaign statements from 2008 and saying “On his campaign, he said that spying on Americans was wrong. WHY is he doing it now??” instead of asking the real questions: Is the NSA thing good or bad? Should our government be keeping things like this a secret? Should we force an abandonment of secrecy to ensure our government is operating like we as a people want it to?

To make discourse more honest, we need to stop holding people to unrealistic expectations that we, ourselves, don’t even meet when doing the evaluations of them.

[iiandyiiii]

@John_Mace

It’s also pretty fair to say that Abraham Lincoln was a White Supremacist, or at the very least viewed Blacks as intellectually inferior to Whites. I sure hope no one ever suggests that we should have a Senate full of Abraham Lincolns!!

It shouldn’t be necessary to say this, but I will anyway- Lincoln, Washington, and Helms are well known for different things they said and different things they did, so when they are praised in such a manner, different things can be inferred from the one doing the praising. I think Cruz deserves the benefit of the doubt- that he was praising other qualities besides Helms’ support of white supremacy- but perhaps he does not know that, to many Americans, Helms is chiefly known for these views. So, then, it’s appropriate to challenge him with this so that he is both educated and can clarify his views.

[Great_Antibob]

@Farin

I fail to see the value in judging someone else on what we think they meant.

That’s not much better.

Case 1 (presented by the OP and others): Cruz is an apologist for a white supremecist.
Case 2: Ted Cruz is so politically inept and ignorant of history he would publicly make statements that could easily be construed as support for racism.

Neither really presents a flattering picture of a man who would be President of the United States.

It’s like Rick Perry but only marginally less foot in mouth.

Of course there are such things as nuance and fair analysis, but the criticisms that Cruz was unwise to make this statement in that particular venue are more than valid. There are thousands of other ways he could have chosen to honor Helms that wouldn’t have been as polarizing. But Cruz didn’t choose to do so, and, in fact, he makes a habit of deliberately playing up that part of the base. It’s totally fair to call him on it.

[Richard_Parker]

@Farin

Ascribing a gut feeling of what was implied is dangerous.

Well, then I guess language is dangerous business, since all interpretation of language involves associations, connotations, and implications. There’s no avoiding it for us hyoo-mans.

Indeed, you’re reading an implied “in this respect” into the subject sentence (i.e., “We need a hundred more like Jesse Helms (in this respect) in the U.S. Senate”). Have you committed some horror in doing so? Of course not. That’s how the interpretation of language works.

But the point here is that Cruz left it ambiguous, and what he did say has a clear connotation to everyone over 30 in America with the least bit of political knowledge. Cruz certainly knew the connotation, unless you think him an idiot (which I assure you, he is not).

[Farin]

@Great_Antibob

That’s not much better.

Case 1 (presented by the OP and others): Cruz is an apologist for a white supremecist.
Case 2: Ted Cruz is so politically inept and ignorant of history he would publicly make statements that could easily be construed as support for racism.

Neither really presents a flattering picture of a man who would be President of the United States.

It’s like Rick Perry but only marginally less foot in mouth.

Of course there are such things as nuance and fair analysis, but the criticisms that Cruz was unwise to make this statement in that particular venue are more than valid. There are thousands of other ways he could have chosen to honor Helms that wouldn’t have been as polarizing. But Cruz didn’t choose to do so, and, in fact, he makes a habit of deliberately playing up that part of the base. It’s totally fair to call him on it.

It is one thing to say

@iiandyiiii

then wishing for a Senate full of Jesse Helms’s is endorsing a Senate full of white supremacists.

And another completely to criticize that he was advocating for a known racist. You can do both at once, but the first one is a false equivalency. He specifically talked about the features he was fond of and then he took artistic license in how he said he wanted more people like that. I accept criticism of his delivery, I don’t accept the false equivalency used to illustrate it.

As for determining that he’s inept, that’s a personal assessment. I believe it is far better to say “I believe he is inept and ignorant if this is how he handles himself” versus “he’s inept and ignorant”. A subtle distinction, to be sure, but I believe it’s valid.