I have been making the case of late that those who support a man without a moral center have no good reasons for so doing and attempt to support that with faulty reasoning. Then along comes a post at the most cliquish of places, Free Republic, proving my point.
The man voted for an evil man because he felt guilty. Guilt is a lie from the evil one. If you are a Christian, then you are set free from guilt. You are no longer under its power. So what is this guilt? Either the man is trying to be a Christian without being saved (and nowhere does the Bible ask anyone to do that), or he is a garden variety pagan. Either way, his motivation is false.
Then, having endorsed a man who promulgates evil, he felt a sense of freedom and elation. This is the same kind of freedom and elation that Engels felt after leaving the priesthood, no doubt, and the same kind of freedom Eve felt after biting the apple. It is the adrenaline of sin, the eroticism of license.
Lastly, having made a fundamental moral mistake, he attempts to cover his backside with weak logic. Oh, Cruz supported a guy who later sold us all out! Therefore, Cruz is responsible! No. Every person is responsible for what he or she does.
Do you see how this thinking aims an axe at the tree of personal responsibility, and the irony here? This voter made a choice to not vote for a man, based upon what a third party did. If you are a parent, you know that you cannot completely control your own brood, and that they are their own persons. You are not responsible when they choose wrongly. If this is not true in a family situation, there is no justification for it when the bonds between people are even less, such as in this case. Cruz advocated for Roberts to become a Supreme Court justice. Not only is Cruz not responsible for Roberts’ betrayal, who do you think feels betrayed more than you or I? How about Roberts’ advocates, specifically Cruz?
Arguing that one man is responsible for what another man does also allows people to think like children in gross and disturbing generalities – they’re all bad; the whole system is broken; burn it all down; kill them all! It also takes the spotlight off of Roberts and dissipates the ire justifiably aimed at him. It is a redirection, a reflection, a way to blame the innocent (Cruz) while letting the guilty go free (Roberts). Morally, this disavowal of responsibility leads people to even blame God for things they themselves should have not done. They often blame God when their adulterous affair didn’t go well. God, why didn’t you stop me? they cry.
Finally, blaming the man who lived out his convictions for another man betraying his convictions, is simply self-justifying chicanery. It echoes the futility of throwing out the baby because of the bath water. It is the logic of the petulant, the lying, the weak, and the doomed.
With all that said, this example and others like it are a great side-effect of Cruz running. If nothing else happens, it reveals the fake lives that many people are living. It reveals the fake pundits that claim to be conservative. It separates the wheat from the chaff and lets us know where our friends and our foes stand.
What is truly freeing is seeing this and then saying to this man, “Depart from us, for we never knew you.”