Along comes a conservative statesman...

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” ~ Benjamin Franklin

You know, I often find myself frustrated with the way language is thrown around so lightly. Our pop culture sees fit to freely misuse words, redefine words, and even censor non-offensive words when they reveal too much truth to bare. I've felt this way about a couple words in particular for quite sometime: conservative and Republican.  The two are too often used synonymously when we've seen all too often, particularly as of late, that these words don't actually have the same meaning. Another word that comes to mind amidst these is Principle.

If you've gotten this far, perhaps with an open mind, the following might help illuminate where I'm going with this...

TheResurgent: All my life I have heard conservatives and conservative pundits cry out for a statesman not a politician, for a man (or woman) that would stand for principle not party. Yet last Wednesday night, when Ted Cruz embodied exactly that type of leadership, many conservative pundits and fellow Republican politicians were apoplectic. Of course we all expected Cruz to be vilified by Democrats and the main stream media no matter what he had said in his speech. But it was beyond disappointing to hear such a negative reaction from fellow conservatives. Even media figures and politicians who had been very supportive of Cruz throughout the primaries joined in the piling on.

I could understand it a little better if these conservative critics simply thought Cruz made a tactical error politically, but they went further than that to question Cruz’s motives. I am stunned by how many consistently label Cruz as only self-serving; as though he couldn’t possibly be genuinely trying to do what he thought was right. As with his filibuster on Obamacare, where Cruz is blamed for single handedly shutting down the Government, (last I checked Harry Reid had the capability to avoid a shut-down had they not been so inflexible themselves) it seems never to occur to conservative talking heads that Cruz might actually have been trying to do what he had promised his constituents he would do if elected. Also last week, as was done following the filibuster, the term “stunt” was thrown around quite often on Thursday when evaluating Cruz’s speech.

Is it possible that conservatives have gone so long without truly principled leadership that many didn’t recognize it when they saw it? Isn’t it more of a condemnation on the current jaded state of conservative punditry than it is on Ted Cruz that so few saw his stand as courageous? We talk about the founders and founding principles constantly. So what do the so called “experts” suppose a George Washington or a John Adams would have done in a similar situation? Pundits are free to disagree with Cruz’s conclusions but Cruz genuinely believes that Trump will be harmful both to the country and to the party, a position most of Cruz’s critics held until eight weeks ago. Had Washington or Adams believed the same would they have endorsed for the so called “greater good”.

...many conservatives only think they want statesmanship. ...

Conservatism cried out for decades for a selfless leader who was willing to stand against the tide and articulate conservatism. Then when that leader showed up and did exactly that, we discovered that conservatism has been so compromised, so watered down, that three fourths of our own movement didn’t recognize true leadership when they saw it.

Now, I know I will invariably hear more static that distracts from this truth: "Why you still talking about Ted Cruz? Get over it! Donald Trump is our nominee? What, you gonna vote for Hillary?" But this is noise, not honesty.

What's honest is that throughout Ted Cruz's life, the man -- pardon me, the statesman -- has vigorously pursued conservative interests prior to holding office, and similarly that of his constituents once elected, seeking a much needed return of principle and values to the arena of politics, which has grossly dispersed from those who would now lord over us.

Many have rhetorically and physically fought for similar ideals of liberty throughout human history...

Someone to take the campaign for freedom into battle, and on to victory.

There's been many comparisons drawn between Cruz and other great men of the past who struggled through righteous causes. Reagan, Goldberg, Martin Luther, William Wallace, and others. Maybe Ted Cruz actually was our Wallace after all...

MadisonsCPC: ...a line was drawn between true constitutional conservatives, and those who see themselves as conservative, but are quite willing to accept a loss of liberty to quell their anger- those who see rhetoric and bombastic statements as superior to constitutional ideals and principles.

As Wallace lost his battle, he lit a fire of independence in the hearts of his countrymen, so Cruz has ignited a flame that burns hot and bright for those who seek to return the republic to its constitutional foundation.

Just because a nomination was lost, don't let the flame of conservatism burn out. We live to fight another day, and fight on we shall. We just need a political apparatus, a party, to join us in that fight.