Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) took the torch of liberty and started burning some straw man arguments dearly loved by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) this week. At issue was a gun ban proposed by Feinstein and other liberals. Feinstein has argued that the ban is necessary because civilians don't "need a bazooka" and Congress has a responsibility to start banning guns and ammunition that could be used to kill humans.
Feinstein may not know this, but bazookas are already off limits.
As for Congressional responsibility to act, well that hinges on the Constitution. And this is where Cruz starting making things uncomfortable. Bypassing the debate about bazookas and the merits of political posturing, Cruz questioned Feinstein on the constitutional merits of her proposal.
Daniel Horowitz highlighted the video of the Cruz-Feinstein exchange here.
What Cruz did was brilliant; he torched the straw man arguments raised by Feinstein simply by going beyond the surface rhetoric and focusing on the underlying issue: is this legislation constitutional?
For decades in Washington, both parties have agreed to a sort of kabuki dance that involves focusing on bureaucratic details to the exclusion of debates about principle. Chief among the reasons for this is a bi-partisan recognition among some political leaders that the "ruling class" is all in this together and principles are not terribly important when re-election and political power are the bottom line.
Conservatives need to start scoring some wins, even as they lack full power in Washington. The way to do that is to ignore the bureaucratic morass and start focusing on the big picture and the fundamental issues at stake. The rule class will hate it, but the country will applaud it.