Here are two names I never thought I’d put together: Ted Cruz and Rushworth Kidder. The news last month from Cleveland, spurred by the former, put me in mind of the latter.
Cruz, of course, is the defeated Republican presidential candidate who very publicly refused to endorse Donald Trump.
Kidder, who died in 2012, founded the Institute for Global Ethics in Rockport and brought to our attention ethical dilemmas that don’t have entirely right or entirely wrong solutions. Kidder set out four paradigms in which ethical conflict is inevitable: short-term vs. long-tern, justice vs. mercy, individual vs. community and truth vs. loyalty.
When I heard Kidder lay out the paradigms, the pair that snapped my head back was truth vs. loyalty. How, I asked myself, do those two conflict? As I listened to Kidder elaborate, I came to understand.
When Cruz refused to endorse Trump as the Republican nominee for president, I thought immediately of truth vs. loyalty. The question after Trump’s delegate count ran over the threshold 1,237 was whether Cruz would be loyal to the party whose nominee he had wanted to be or would adhere to his own vision of the truth.
Marilyn and I started the day after Cruz’s speech by talking about Cruz. He put himself above the party, I said, and may have destroyed his political career. He put truth as he sees it above his party, Marilyn said, and may be the only Republican at the national level to survive this turbulent year.
I’m beginning to believe, as has happened often in 51 years of marriage, that Marilyn is correct.
To be clear, I am not happy with our choices for president. I would have been at least as unhappy had Cruz beaten the orange guy for the Republican spot. And, I held out until the last minute for the Clintons to self-destruct so the Democrats would have had to sub in Joe Biden as first-off-the-bench.
This is not about Cruz’s suitability to be president. Or anything human. “Creepy” is the word I hear most often about him, and, as one friend noted, especially from women. This is about Cruz’s choice between the truth as he saw it and loyalty.
Cruz was the last of the vanquished to appear at the convention in Cleveland. Trump knew ahead of time that Cruz would not endorse him. To Marilyn and me, this explained Trump’s appearance on stage during Cruz’s appeal to conscience: “Vote your conscience all up and down the ticket,” Cruz told delegates, as their cheers turned to jeers.
Clearly, Cruz chose to honor truth as he saw it over loyalty. He honored the truth on two levels, the personal and the global. On the personal level, the truth was that the orange guy — by the way, where does he find the time to lie down in a tanning booth? — spoke derisively about Cruz’s wife, a fairly high-powered Wall Streeter. And Cruz heard the orange guy suggest strongly that Cruz’s father was in league with Lee Harvey Oswald, who is officially considered to have killed President Kennedy. Trump’s charge was based on a tabloid photo of someone who may have been in a room with Oswald several weeks before the assassination.
For Cruz, those personal truths trumped (pun intended) his loyalty to the Republican Party.
On the global level, Cruz saw a candidate who was not faithful to what Cruz believes are basic Republican principles. He considers those principles bedrock, while most Americans might consider them rock headed.
At least one Republican mucky-muck has noted the bind into which Cruz put his party. Delegates were booing an appeal to conscience. Quelle irony.
We all face Kidder’s choice between truth and loyalty. Cruz could easily have been loyal to the party and to his pledge to back the party’s nominee. Thirteen of the 16 beaten by Trump have gone orange.
“He signed the pledge,” grumbled Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey. “It’s his job to keep his word.” That’s the loyalty pitch.
For Christie, a more conventional politician than either Trump or Cruz, it is clear that loyalty trumps truth. Who knew that truth rides in the back seat for Chris Christie?
Here’s the truth pitch. Cruz’s political philosophy — love him, hate him or fear him, Cruz does have a philosophy — is based on a very narrow reading of the Constitution, one so narrow that no Supreme Court Justice except sometimes Clarence Thomas would agree with him.
Given that very narrow and very literal view, Cruz sees Trump, who is not a moderate so much as an opportunist, as one who ignores or disregards the truth of the Constitution. As Cruz sees it. So, as the website The Oyl put it: If you support Trump, you are an enemy of the (truth of the) Constitution. In fact, you are an enemy of America, as it was founded. Truth over loyalty for Cruz.
How might this play out in our daily lives?
Ever see another pupil cheating? Did you follow truth and tell the teacher? Or did you stay loyal to a kid whose friendship maybe you wanted?
An American Olympic swimmer wins a gold medal but a Russian opponent, who had been caught doping, gave herself a thumbs — well, really, an index finger — up, because she had come back from a doping scandal to place. And she called the American a sorehead for criticizing the dopers. The American chose the truth of the Olympic spirit and the rules over loyalty to the club of athletes. By the way, as Juliet Macur pointed out in The New York Times, the Russian and all the others who dope are the soreheads. They know they can’t win without cheating, so they cheat.
At the highest level, consider Dr. Jabbar Fazeli, an immigrant from Iran, a physician and president of the Maine Medical Association. He had to choose between the truth he had figured out about his brother and loyalty to his brother. The brother had gone to Lebanon, lying about his reason, and Dr. Fazeli figured out what was going on. Dr. Fazeli told the FBI, which began tracking the younger brother. In time, the brother was killed fighting for ISIS. He left a wife and three children in Maine.
Dr. Fazeli chose truth over loyalty to his brother. In another sense, he chose loyalty to his country over loyalty to his brother, who was not following the truth the Fazelis saw in Islam.
Could all of us have done that?
Dr. Fazeli is a hero for pursuing truth. Pity that Gov. LePage chose to rant about the dead brother having been on welfare rather than celebrating Dr. Fazeli’s heroism. Guess that says a lot about the guv, too.
Bob Neal lives in New Sharon. In school, he never ratted out a cheater. As a news editor, though, he sought the truth always, hard as it may be sometimes to find.
A very good article. I think this election year is going to be the most difficult for people because some only want to follow the leader and are afraid to do otherwise. Why can’t people use their conscience and vote for who they think is the best candidate? I, for one, am not happy with our choices. But I don’t like Trump or LePage, so I guess it will have to be Hillary
I know I’ll get some “boos” from the audience, but that’s o.k. I’m a big girl now
There will be lines this election in November waiting to take a turn in the voting booths. Because so many care to vote? NO. Because the ones who are standing in the voting booths will be in there shaking their heads trying to make a right decision between two very wrong candidates.
In regards to Sue’s comments:
There really isn’t a choice in this election; there is a candidate who is qualified and one who is not.
For those who bemoan the choice between candidates , this may possibly be the strangest election but it is by no means alone in presidential elections that have not gone smoothly.
Here is but one example:
The election of 1876- Rutherford B Hayes was actually appointed President by Congress. He did not win the popular vote, nor the electoral college.
Not even an election:
Gerald Ford became president when Nixon resigned. Ford had never been elected to either the presidency or the vice presidency. He in turn, placed Nelson Rockefeller as his vice president, thus we had both offices filled by men who had not been elected.
Snowman. In regards to this election and this platform of truth or loyalty and as far as I am concerned there is no front runner. I just got back from a cross country trip and the people I talked with are worried. And these were people voting on both sides. I will vote my conscience and that will have to be a write in candidate. It’s the only choice I can live with today. If someone else happens to enter the race between now and November I will take a good look at them. I favor the truth.
Truth is somewhat of an absolute; oft it is obscured out of some specie of loyalty or “third party” pay off
Loyalty is in some sense not much more that a commodity to be traded (which it is)
“Truth” can also be a bit scary or even terrifying
Separate and apart from any screwball notions of “truth” and/or “scary”, Trump and Cruz get my vote for both
……………Christy in truth will always be a non starter and/or Lane closer (just ask Lois)
Sounds like the Daily MSDNC! Have you ever seen an equally slanted but Conservative article here, or equally slanted Conservative comments? Doubt that you ever will. Looking forward to November with relish!
If nothing else this election has highlighted the insanity of partisan politics (ie: brainwashing).
Neither major party has a credible candidate,,,but look at the partisan supporters prove their ignorance.
On Both Sides.
Congratulations to all of you.
Try not to choke on the confetti……..
Let me clarify:
There is only one candidate who is qualified to run the country. That applies to all of the candidates, not only the major parties.
It is true regardless of if you like Clinton or not.
I do think those that believe the Clintons somehow have such immense power that they have managed to do criminal acts and get away with it, are delusioned.
We have many very, very wealthy people in this country who wield great power and influence on both sides of the political spectrum. Just look at the recent lawsuit brought against Gawker. The founder of PayPal, Peter Thiel, put up the money to bring them to court.
There are billionaires who are willing to put their fortunes on the line and many who have spent millions trying to find something that can bring down Hillary Clinton.
Rather than admit that since they haven’t been able to do that, she must be innocent, people just assume she is even more powerful.
That simply doesn’t make any sense. It’s akin to the rules dreamed up to test for witches in the middle ages.
People might not like Hillary Clinton. People may not agree with her politics. People may fundamentally oppose her goals and vision.
None of that refutes the fact that she is the only person running who has the qualifications to be President.
There were some other good candidates who ran for the nominations. Several of them would probably have made good presidents. But, it didn’t happen.
I would have prefered Biden, only because we will have the same divisiveness continue to tear at our country for the next 4-8 years as we had in the past 8, with Clinton as President. I could have lived with John Kasich, Or Jeb Bush.
But they didn’t get the nomination. The person who did, is simply not qualified to be president.
People who voted their conscience and cast votes for Eliot Cutler. Are you happy with the result ?
People who voted for Ralph Nader- are you happy now with that? Did your votes amount to anything? Did anyone care? Did it make a difference- one that you wanted?
If you’re really hungry and you go in a store wanting to by some peanut butter- but the store only has crunchy and you wanted smooth- are you going to suck it up and buy what’s there or go hungry to prove a point?
As Keith Ellison, Minnesota State Representative, said, “Not voting is not a protest, but a surrender.” I would expand his comment to include writing in a candidate that has NO CHANCE of winning. Like it or not, we have two viable candidates.
@ Snowman and Laura
As long as we allow our choices to be governed by this binary mindset, and to just hold our noses and vote for the “Viable Candidate” who offends us the least, nothing will change.
Why should it? The current parties/powers-that-be like it this way. The rhetoric might be different between the two parties, but ultimately the end result is pretty much the same. The Elites get fatter, the average citizens get further and further marginalized, and the current electoral process is proven to more and more corrupt and too easily manipulated by special interests with money and/or perceived power.
The system is broken. Things fall apart, the center cannot hold.
Go ahead and vote how you choose. That is still your right…for the moment. But do not fool yourself into thinking that anything of substance will change if you merely acquiesce to the false choices the current party system provides.
Another Vet
Since, I assume you are a veteran (unless a veterinarian), I ask you to consider a few moments of history. I urge you to research these beyond this forum.
1# In 1863, Abraham Lincoln was faced with a crisis that few talk about today. The Union Navy was blockading Southern ports. England- which was at the time the most powerful nation on earth, depended on trading with the South since a large part of it’s economy was based on producing textiles and they needed cotton. By international law, blockading a foreign nation was (and still is) considered an act of war. The South very much wanted England to declare war against the Union. It would have tipped the balance of the war much as the French tipped the balance by coming into the revolutionary war.
Lincoln stayed cool, and justified the blockade as legal, since the Union did not recognize the Confederacy as a legitimate sovereign entity. He prevailed. But, it could have gone the other way without a strong leader.
2# 1962 John F. Kennedy faced a rather similar situation during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Our blockade of Cuba could have been construed as an act of war by the USSR. Again, he was able to justify the blockade because the US had not recognized the government of Fidel Castro as the legitimate government of Cuba. Kennedy was calm, cool and strong.
The world came very close to a nuclear war during that time. Cool heads prevailed.
3# In 1973, even while his administration was under a cloud of suspicion over watergate and months before he resigned, Richard Nixon monitored the war between Israel and Egypt. At one point, Russia dispatched a naval fleet to aide the Egyptians. The US went to Defcon 3- the highest alert since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Russia backed down. Once again, we came close to a shooting war with Russia.
Add to this many other times when our nation has been in crisis and you see that, it does matter who we put in charge. Yes, the system sucks. Yes, it is flawed. The way to change it, is to work between the elections, to care about all the elected offices, to be involved in all aspects of government – not just once every four years.
Hillary Clinton has worked for 12 years to become the Democratic presidential nominee. Twelve years. She has made no bones about it. She has worked long and hard. Republicans have had 8 years to show what they can do and have a candidate ready to lead us and the best they could do was Donald Trump?
Changing the country and the government takes a lot of work, and a lot of commitment and a long term plan. It’s easy to to just throw away a vote for someone who will never be elected and then let anarchy prevail.
Just look at what we have done here in Maine – look who we elected. Regardless of if you agree with his policies, you have to admit we have an ineffective governor who is a disgrace and an embarrassment. You can’t call people and say that stuff.
Is that what we want for a president too?
So looky there..snowman is providing us with a constant stream of perfect examples…
“OF POLITICAL INSANITY, or cowardice.”
Keep supporting the corruption expecting a positive change.
Sounds like a political Looney bin.
Again, both candidates are despicable.
Any reasonable person knows that.
History…two assassinations and an impeachment.
@ snowman
“Hillary Clinton has worked for 12 years to become the Democratic presidential nominee. Twelve years. She has made no bones about it. She has worked long and hard.”
I didn’t deny she’s worked hard for the opportunity. Nor did I say she wasn’t the more qualified of the two major candidates. My difficulty with her is not her ability to do the job. It is her ethics and scruples…or rather the lack of them thus far displayed. As well as her less than stellar grasp of the truth.
This is NOT to say I support her opponent either. As you mention, his qualifications are less than impressive, to say nothing of his openly displayed bigotry, racism, misogyny, and xenophobia.
Nor will I deny that at times a strong leader is necessary. BUT are either of these two the one we need? Sad to say I cannot bring myself to say yes.
What I said, was that until a large number of the voters stand up and say: “Enough! Neither party represents me in a manner I can stomach. A Pox on both your houses!” Nothing of substance is going to change. The entrenched interests have too much invested in the status quo.
By all means, if you feel Hillary is a good choice, then you should vote for her.
BUT, ask yourself this: “Am I voting for her because I believe she is the best person for the job? Or are you holding your nose and checking that box because you feel she’s the lesser of two evils?”
Also, should you go that route, do you REALLY think she’ll be able AND willing to enact the sort of sweeping changes we need to fix long standing systemic problems? Sadly, if history shows anything, it is that major change rarely comes from inside the existing power structure.
Well Bob, you really stirred up the hornet’s nest this time! Keep it up!
Another Vet:
In answer to your question: I believe that Clinton is the only person who can be elected to the presidency at this time who is capable of doing the job. She is more than qualified.
No one else is. It’s that simple.
I have investigated in depth most if not all of the accusations against her and I see a lot of nonsense. That isn’t to say she hasn’t made some mistakes and that isn’t to say I agree or condone all of her behavior. The anger and vitriol against her is astounding in that it is nearly all of it is unfounded or twisted, taken out of context or exaggerated.
Even the major news organizations engage in this, just to get clicks or subscribers. If you read the actual reports, you find the headlines are misleading.
No, I do not expect her to make sweeping changes. Nor do I believe that Bernie Sanders, had he won the nomination could have made the changes he espoused.
I do believe it is possible to change the way our government works. But- it takes a lot of work and a long term commitment.
Look at our history. It took a long time for women to get the right to vote. It took a lot of work, by a lot of people and it took decades. That’s indicative of what it takes, but also shows that yes, it can be done.
Throwing away a vote for a nominee that has not chance to win is taking the chance that Trump could win, and that would be putting our country in peril. That’s not just my thinking- many past and present republican members of government and the military feel the same way. Even Paul Wolfowitz has come out in favor of Clinton vs. Trump.
I read in the Kennebec Journal a couple of weeks ago, that Trump wants to build another Trump Tower in Russia,, of all places. Sounds like a communist to me, especially when he wanted the Russians to hack Clinton’s email! That’s espionage. If they are invited to hack into her email, what’s to stop them from hacking into the president’s email, the CIA, etc. Trump only wants glory. He is full of himself and not fit to lead.
Trump wants the presidency so he can pave the way for the families company to build in Cuba as it opens it’s doors.
Believe it.