Sen. Ted Cruz once supported free trade and agreements that made trade freer. As recently as June 15, 2015, he supported Trade Promotion Authority for the president so as to enable Congress to pass such agreements.
When protectionist demagogues railed against trade promotion authority, often referred to as “Fast Track” for trade deals, Cruz pointed out that their criticisms were “not accurate.” He wrote an op-ed about it last April, and on talk radio he calmly and carefully argued that “history has demonstrated, the only way to get a trade agreement adopted is with ‘Fast Track.'” He tried to educate voters on the issue, arguing as an Obama critic that “Fast Track” was not “Obamatrade” and was “not giving President Obama more power.”
“I ran supporting free trade, just like Ronald Reagan did,” Cruz said in a mid-June radio interview. I believe free trade benefits American farmers and ranchers and manufacturers. That’s why I supported TPA.”
It makes sense that Cruz voted for “Fast Track” last May. Texas, the state he represents in the Senate, is by far America’s largest exporter. Texans sold nearly $300 billion worth of goods abroad in 2014. It even runs a trade surplus with Mexico.
But less than a week after giving the interview quoted from above, on June 23, Cruz unexpectedly voted against the final iteration of fast track, citing two supposed changes, neither of which was in the legislation itself and neither of which made much sense.
One of his complaints was that a trade deal could have miniscule effects on a particular kind of immigration visa for company employees who are transferred. But this had not prevented Cruz from voting for “Fast Track” in May, as noted, even though he had been aware of the issue at the time and even proposed an amendment related to it.
Cruz’s other excuse was that to pass “Fast Track,” a deal was made by which senators would get a separate vote on reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank. This is a separate issue and it made no sense as a justification for a flip flop on fast track.
What had changed was, of course, that Cruz saw a vote for free trade as a liability as he positioned himself to run for president. The almost certain explanation is that suddenly that very week, large numbers of people were revealed by polls to be coalescing around the candidacy of Donald Trump, and Cruz was beginning to get blowback from them on trade.
Which brings us to this week. Cruz is in a tough GOP primary battle against, among others, his fellow senator, Marco Rubio. Naturally, the two are attacking each other. But Cruz has launched a new online attack against Rubio for supporting free trade. Essentially, he is slamming Rubio for failing to do as he did, for not flip-flopping on free trade when polls suggested it might by electorally prudent.
This attack got a lot of attention on Thursday because it involved a crude Photoshop by the Cruz campaign of Rubio shaking hands with Obama. But that crass photo manipulation is far less offensive than Cruz’s opportunistic betrayal of his own principles.
It is a shame, because Cruz’s claim to hew to conservative principle is mostly accurate. A candidate who can speak out against ethanol in Iowa and win anyway is a candidate who should be able to educate the public on the issue of trade, rather than follow Hillary Clinton’s lead in pandering to the worst and most ignorant instincts of the party base.
There is little worse than seeing such opportunism from someone who knows better.
If Cruz wants to attack Rubio on immigration or on his tax plan or on foreign policy or on the PATRIOT Act, he can reasonably do so. But this attack against the conservative principles that made America prosperous is disgraceful and should have no place in a Republican primary.
