Trump senior policy adviser Stephen Miller, late of Sen. Jeff Sessions' staff, went on with Breitbart News Saturday Stephen K. Bannon, as reported here (including audio).
Breitbart emphasized Miller's "epic" case against Marco Rubio, but Miller's opening remarks about Ted Cruz were to me more illuminating, especially in the context of the "post-constitutional" election series I've been writing.
In the course of this series, I've examined Ted Cruz's branding as the "consistent conservative," also the constitutional conservative, and found it wanting on several levels. For one thing, Cruz has flip-flopped in the space of the primary cycle on vital immigration and trade issues.
Cruz has moved from the globalist position to the nationalist position on Syrian refugess (for to against), Obamatrade (for to against), H1B visas (from calling for expansion to calling for a moratorium), birthright citizenship (from waste of conservative time to must end it). Now he even calls for a "wall that works." In this way, Cruz has moved to occupy brand new political terrain that Donald Trump by himself opened up (which is why Trump has my vote).
Obamatrade gets only a mention above, but in Stephen Miller's superb explication, it becomes clear how core-central the trade issue is; what it tells us about Ted Cruz that his pre-Trump instincts were to support it; and how crucial Trump's decades of opposition to such "free" trade is to his candidacy.
Here is my unofficial transcript of Miller's relevant remarks:
... But I would note on immigration, if we're going to get into that with Ted Cruz, he voted for fast track powers for Obama. If you're concerned about the Constitution, if you're concerned about the arrival of foreign workers, the idea that you would enmesh the US permanently in a transnational union that hands over sovereign United States power to foreign countries, dictating labor-enviromental-regulation-trade-commercial-immigration policy, then clearly, immigration and the Constitution are not as important to you as you suggest.
The logic is clear if shocking. What "consistent orginalist" would ever even consider supporting such a Constitution-gutting move? Meanwhile, though, it fits a pattern (see, for example, "Cruz, Rubio, Paul: All Abandoned `Advise and Consent'" by Andrew Bostom).
That was a defining vote. To say that a candidate is good except for giving Obama fast track powers (obviously there's a lot more problem with Cruz's resume that that) but if you're argument is, well, I like Cruz except that he gave Obama unlimited fast track powers -- that's like saying, I bought a great new car. The engine will explode in 60 seconds after I turn it on; but other than that it's great.
That was a defining moment history in the history of the United States. ...
Because [it] answered the question of whether or not the United States will remain a sovereign country. Already in ways that we don't readily see but we experience the effects, the sovereign powers of the United States have been bled away, whether it's with agreements in the UN, whether it's with agreements in existing international structures, like the World Trade Organization, or NAFTA, or something called the Generalized Agreement in Trade and Services ...
A lot of people don't realize there's already laws that we cannot change without being forced into some kind of international court or arbitration.
For instance, a previous agreement we made on what's called Trade and Services [which] basically has to do not with moving merchandise, but moving people, and services. So, for instance it includes foreign workers.
And so, we made an agreement on Trade and Services with a series of foreign countries that actually prevents us from limiting the movement of foreign workers with participating countries. That's already the case. That's already happened. Same thing with NAFTA. We have 70,000 foreign workers coming through NAFTA every year, so-called treaty-workers. We can't stop them from coming.
Understand this. Think about this: We, a sovereign country, cannot restrict the arrival of these treaty-workers because of an international agreement that we made. Now, imagine applying that to 70 percent of world GDP with the Trans Pacific Partnership.
But then step wider, because fast track, it gave the the executive the ability to negotiate as many trade agreements as they want with limited scrutiny, and very limited abilty to block, for six years.
They had three agreements that they were working on: the Trans Pacific Partnership, the Trans Atlantic Partnership, and then the Trade and Services Agreement, which is called TISA. Collectively, those three agreement encompass 90 percent of world GDP.
If you look at Ted Cruz's op-ed with Paul Ryan [interupted]...
NB: Cruz and Ryan co-authored an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on April 21, 2015, "Putting Congress in Charge on Trade," which endorsed the Obamatrade project.
Back to Miller:
So if you look at that op-ed ...
We're talking about a defining moment in US history.
I will point to what is happening in England, in the United Kingdom, and what they've seen with the European Union, and their own inability to block the movements of foreign persons, as well as the regulation that's imposed upon them from Brussels.
And that began as a trade agreement.
Once you begin walking down this path, you hit a point of no return.
So that op-ed was a moment in Cruz's career where he threw in his lot in total with the globalists....