Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas is a very smart fellow, so you have to wonder if he really believes all of the things he is saying for public consumption.
Yes, he is ultra conservative and a fierce advocate of a smaller government. His resume reveals he was a champion debater at Princeton, a stellar Harvard Law School grad, and highly successful lawyer. But these credentials don't gibe with Cruz's wild assertion that the United Nation's primary environmental initiative is a Machiavellian attempt to strip us of our national sovereignty and "abolish golf courses, grazing pastures, and paved roads" in the process.
You can't convince me he is unaware of an explicit provision in the UN document affirming nations' sovereignty and right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental laws.
Cruz clearly disagrees with the political views of Democrat Senator John Kerry. But the reason the Texas lawmaker gave for voting against the Massachusetts senator's nomination for Secretary of State was an embarrassing denial of reality. Cruz objected to Kerry's rigorous support of international treaties and the United Nations, the life bloods of communication and cooperation in the ever more interdependent world of the 21st Century.
One would think that a guy as bright as Cruz would not risk consigning us to isolation from the international community, especially in the face of problems global in scope and resolution.
Why has someone of his intellect spent time raging against governmental standards to make toilets and light bulbs more conservation-oriented? Is government that intrusive in a world where intermittent water and energy shortages are no strangers? With that backdrop, does Cruz fancy himself a celebrant of the freedom to engage in profligacy? It's hard to believe he could be that insular.
What then is the explanation for Cruz's bizarre posturing when he possesses the intellectual acuity to know better?
One can only surmise that the senator is making a politically motivated calculation to cater to what he perceives to be his highly jingoistic, libertarian base.
The thing is that his strategy is unlikely to have broader appeal--which only goes to prove that sometimes, it's the smartest people who end up outsmarting themselves.