Rich Lowry's indignation over the left's Ted Cruz-bashing reaches a representative pitch in this passage:
In a Washington Post column a year ago, Dana Milbank noted Cruz’s [Ivy League] schooling and concluded almost entirely on that basis that his tea party politics must be a put-on, that he is, underneath it all, an "intellectually curious, liberal-arts conservative." Note the insulting assumption that an interest in books and ideas automatically immunizes someone from a certain kind of conservative politics.
Or you could note that Lowry wimps out in using the amorphous phrase, "a certain kind" of conservatism, which Lowry never really characterizes beyond "constitutional" conservatism, as though Cruz's tortured bromides and twisted, ahistorical platitudes are somehow new revelatory heights in political philosophy.
No, Lowry meticulously avoids specifics when it comes to defining "Cruzism"--except, interestingly, in the Cruzist cause of Defunding Obamacare, which Lowry belittles as an incoherent, delusional, "grass roots-pleasing slogan in search of a realistic path to legislative fruition."
Well good for you, Rich. And I mean it. But the opposition's point is that that is the very kind of the "certain kind" of conservatism which Cruz espouses. Get it? Do you now see where we're coming from, Rich? Cruz's kind of conservatism is merely a self-inflating scam, known commonly as demagoguery--which qualifies not as a governing philosophy.
Now it's true that an interest in books and ideas doesn't automatically immunize someone from conservatism, however it generally goes far in reducing one's primitive urges to politically play to humanity's worst instincts. But here, on Ted Cruz, at Princeton and Harvard, all those books and ideas seem to have had no salubrious effect.