in defense of the Bomb throwers (figurative only)
There is a lot of frustration out there. The New York Times is frustrated (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/21/opinion/the-scary-specter-of-ted-cruz.html?ref=opinion&_r=0). Since I am opposed to much of what the NYT stands for, it is instructive to examine their objections to Ted Cruz, and to determine if their objections would convert to positives for me.
"the ultraconservative fallback — the rabble rouser in the bullpen" – good.
"Green Eggs and Ham" quasi-filibuster" – very good.
"denunciation of the Republican Senate majority leader" – deserved.
"He's the patron saint of lost causes" – That's me.
"he's emblematic of the … Freedom Caucus" – yes.
Cruz has turned "petulance into a theory of governing" – What we are doing now isn't working. Ok.
"Cruz doesn't propose remedies", not true but irritating the NYT is sufficient justification it for a checkoff.
"His main use for other politicians, even in his party, is as foils" – I knew their had to be a purpose for politicians! Yes.
"Bush's … "I just don't like the guy." A positive point for hard core liberals.
"Cruz … to become monarchs of a kingdom that they supposedly want to topple, to gain power over a system that they ostensibly intend to enfeeble." Exactly, what is wrong with that! Enfeebling is the answer.
The complaint is we are anti-government. We are in fact anti Federal government. The federal government is too big to succeed. Various state governments are available to take up the slack. If the federal government shut down temporally to be reconstituted into a smaller working version, we would see true prosperity. Not the phony several week shutdown, but one long enough for creative destruction to work as it does for corporations every now and then.
Since every member of the federal government would object to this remedy, we might need a convention of the states to impose it.