Ted Cruz's Liabilities in the General Election

What plays well in IA might not work nationally. This concern is the subject of a Houston Chronicle article out over the weekend. Cruz’s endorsers, including Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson, have appeal to the far right side of the GOP but have taken controversial positions which will likely alienate independents and moderates. Recently, stridently anti-gay voices Matt Barber and Linda Harvey have endorsed Cruz. Phil Robertson has had his own problems with controversial statements about gays and blacks under Jim Crow laws.
Along with David Barton (quoted in this article), Cruz seems to be persuaded by a notion that there are millions of far right, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, socially conservative dominionist voters who will lift him to victory, if only they can be mobilized to vote. Such a wish might be true in Iowa and perhaps South Carolina. However, I can’t help but believe there is a ceiling for this appeal much lower than needed for a Cruz win against anybody in the general election.
With all of these endorsements, including people on his campaign staff (see the Houston Chronicle for more on that), Cruz will likely be on the defensive. Given his South Carolina staff, he may have to answer about his views on the Confederate flag. He will either agree with his staff’s support for the flag or be forced to explain why he didn’t fire them over their support for the flag. He will have to address questions of criminalizing homosexuals, the Bible’s status versus the Constitution and whether or not America should favor Christianity in legislation and public policy.
If he backs away from his controversial endorsers or waffles on the positions they care about, he risks losing them. If he sticks to those guns, he risks a big loss in November.
Will the GOP back away from Cruz (and equally as problematic option Trump)? I still think it is likely, although I think we may have to go longer into the primary season to see which of those now in the back of the pack catch on.
 

David Barton Removes Claim About Chaplains at the University of Virginia in New Edition of The Jefferson Lies

In the 2012 edition of The Jefferson Lies, David Barton claimed to debunk the notion that the University of Virginia (founded by Jefferson) had no chaplains. He took up this as one of his major points as evidence that Jefferson established UVA as a “transdenominational” college. See below from the first edition of The Jefferson Lies:

4. Did the University of Virginia Have Chaplains?
The modern claim that the University of Virginia had no chaplains is also easily disproved by original documents, including early newspaper ads that the university ran to recruit students from surround-ing areas. In the Washington newspaper the Globe, the Reverend Septimus Tuston (identified in the ad as the chaplain of the university and who later became the chaplain of the US House of Representatives and then the US Senate) discussed religious life at the school, reporting:
Barton, David (2013-02-15). The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You’ve Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson (Kindle Locations 1330-1335). WallBuilder Press. Kindle Edition.

Barton then cited a 1837 article from the Washington Globe. Jefferson died in 1826; he had nothing to do with chaplains at UVA. Perhaps anticipating this counterpoint to his argument, Barton crafted a narrative to try to explain why chaplains were not appointed in the early days of the school. However, what Barton does to James Madison (who took over when Jefferson died) demonstrates his bias. From the first edition of The Jefferson Lies, Barton selectively quoted Madison:

The University of Virginia did indeed have chaplains, albeit not in its first three years (the university opened for students in 1825). At the beginning, when the university was establishing its reputation as a transdenominational university, the school had no appointed chaplain for the same reason that there had been no clergyman as president and no single professor of divinity: an ordained clergyman in any of those three positions might send an incorrect signal that the university was aligned with a specific denomination. But by 1829, when the nondenominational reputation of the university had been fully established, President Madison (who became rector of the university after Jefferson’s death in 1826) announced “that [permanent] provision for religious instruction and observance among the students would be made by . . . services of clergymen.”
Barton, David (2013-02-15). The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You’ve Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson (Kindle Locations 1362-1369). WallBuilder Press. Kindle Edition.

This treatment of Madison completely changes Madison’s meaning. Actually these words from Madison comes from a letter he wrote to a fellow university trustee. Here is what Barton cited Madison as saying:

“that [permanent] provision for religious instruction and observance among the students would be made by…services of clergymen.”

However, Madison made no public announcement about UVA policy. Instead, Madison wrote those words in a May 1, 1828 letter to Chapman Johnson, one of the members of the university Board of Visitors. The actual quote depicts a completely different meaning than Barton implies. Here is the entire section of the letter, from which Barton lifts his quote. Barton leaves out the words from Madison which are required to understand the meaning. Another unwarranted change Barton makes is to add the word “permanent.” What Barton omitted is in bold print below:

I have indulged more particularly the hope, that provision for religious instruction and observances among the Students, would be made by themselves or their Parents & Guardians, each contributing to a fund to be applied, in remunerating the services of Clergymen, of denominations, corresponding with the preference of the contributors. Small contributions would suffice, and the arrangement would become more & more efficient & adequate, as the Students become more numerous; whilst being altogether voluntary, it would interfere neither with the characteristic peculiarity of the University, the consecrated principle of the law, nor the spirit of the Country.

Instead of securing chaplains, Madison hoped that the students and parents would handle the religious matters themselves voluntarily.
In the new edition of The Jefferson Lies, Barton continues to assert that Jefferson wanted to establish a “transdenominational” school but he leaves out the chaplains story. From the new edition:

4. DID JEFFERSON EXCLUDE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION FROM THE ACADEMIC PROGRAM?
As already noted, in 1818 Jefferson and the university Visitors publicly released their plan for the new school announcing that it would be transdenominational and making clear that religious instruction would be provided to all students. But Jefferson insisted on additional steps to ensure that religious training would occur at the university.
Barton, David (2015-12-22). The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You’ve Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson (Kindle Locations 1997-2000). WND Books. Kindle Edition.

I am surprised that Barton left this story out because in February 2015, Barton told the same story to Jack Hibbs, pastor of Calvary Chapel Chino Hills. He told this story as evidence that he is positively revising errors of academic historians. Watch:

There is no actual academic debate over the eventual presence of chaplains at UVA. Barton’s narrative seems designed to make him look like he is revising history in the direction of accuracy. However, when you know the rest of the story, it is easy to see who engaged in revision.

Cover of Getting Jefferson Right, used by permission
Cover of Getting Jefferson Right, used by permission

Barton has taken the position that Michael Coulter and I are mostly wrong in our critique of The Jefferson Lies. However, in this case, our accurate telling of the story apparently resulted in a significant alteration in his book. Instead of acknowledging this, Barton and World Net Daily are doubling down on the false narrative that the first edition was killed due to liberal attacks.

What You Need to Know About David Barton's New Edition of The Jefferson Lies (Press Release)

What You Need to Know About David Barton’s New Edition of The Jefferson Lies
Contact Warren Throckmorton, [email protected]
GROVE CITY, Penn., Jan. 13, 2016 /Christian Newswire/ — Yesterday was the official release date of the second edition of “The Jefferson Lies” by Ted Cruz’s Super PAC coordinator David Barton. Published by World Net Daily, the second edition promises to answer Barton’s critics and restore Jefferson’s reputation.
However, there is much World Net Daily and Barton are not telling the public about the circumstances surrounding the new book.
In August 2012, Thomas Nelson confirmed that the first edition of “The Jefferson Lies” had been pulled from publication because the publisher “learned that there were some historical details included in the book that were not adequately supported.” Thomas Nelson stated that it was in “the best interest of our readers to stop the publication and distribution.”
Many of those historical details are addressed factually in “Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President,” a 2012 book by Christian college professors Warren Throckmorton and Michael Coulter. With the release of the second edition of “The Jefferson Lies,” the fact checking in “Getting Jefferson Right” is more important than ever.
The new version of “The Jefferson Lies” contains an entire section in critical response to “Getting Jefferson Right.”
In his response, the first error Barton makes is to assert that “The Jefferson Lies” was pulled from publication due to attacks from liberals. However, critics Jay Richards. Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute and Gregg Frazer, professor of history at The Master’s College are not liberals. “Getting Jefferson Right’s” authors are not liberals. Many other conservative historians have also expressed negatives reviews of “The Jefferson Lies.”
Members of the media may contact Warren Throckmorton and Michael Coulter regarding the facts surrounding the removal of “The Jefferson Lies” from publication in 2012, the allegations of liberal bias now and the historical claims made in “The Jefferson Lies” about Jefferson’s life and work.
For more information, see Getting Jefferson Right.
“Anyone who reads  ‘Getting Jefferson Right’ must come to grips with the untruths and suspect historical interpretations that [David] Barton regularly peddles in his books, speaking engagements, and on his radio program.” — John Fea, Chair, History Department, Messiah College
Warren Throckmorton, PhD is Professor of Psychology and Michael Coulter, PhD is Professor of Political Science, both at Grove City College (PA)

Glenn Beck: "Liberal Bastards" Had David Barton's The Jefferson Lies Pulled from Shelves

Even though the book has been available on Amazon for over two weeks, yesterday was the official release of the second edition of The Jefferson Lies by David Barton. To promote the book, Glenn Beck was in typical hyperbolic mode throughout the day on his network. I caught some of the radio segment and watched Barton’s appearance on Beck’s afternoon television show. Prior to Barton’s television appearance, Beck introduced the segment by trashing me as a leftist psychology professor.
Earlier on his radio show, he went further and referred to the “liberal bastards” who got Barton’s book pulled from publication. Watch:
[youtube]https://youtu.be/KE495RqCH2E[/youtube]
I have debunked idea that somehow Barton’s book fell victim to political correctness. Furthermore, to cast me as a leftist is laughable.

Cover of Getting Jefferson Right, used by permission
Cover of Getting Jefferson Right, used by permission

To read the book by Michael Coulter and I that addresses many of Barton’s Jefferson claim, see Getting Jefferson Right.
 
 

David Barton, John Locke’s Two Treatises, and the Real Reason Thomas Nelson Pulled the Jefferson Lies

Cover of Getting Jefferson Right, used by permission
Cover of Getting Jefferson Right, used by permission

This post is inside baseball for those who are keeping up with the controversy surrounding David Barton’s history writing.
One of David Barton’s frequent claims is that John Locke referred to the Bible 1500 times in his Two Treatise on Government. He said this to a Ukrainian audience and claimed it again in his new edition of The Jefferson Lies. From the new edition:

And in his Two Treatises of Government (1689 – a work about the proper role of government that was openly praised by Jefferson and other Founders39), Locke invoked the Bible over 1,500 times.
Barton, David (2015-12-22). The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You’ve Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson (Kindle Locations 1766-1768). WND Books. Kindle Edition.

Barton’s footnote on this point reads:

John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (London: Awnsham & Churchill, 1689), passim; the number of verses was documented by the author’s staff, in individually identifying and counting the Bible verses in this work.
Barton, David (2015-12-22). The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You’ve Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson (Kindle Locations 5811-5812). WND Books. Kindle Edition.

In a previous post, I asked Locke scholar Greg Forster to evaluate this claim. Forster declared it to be completely false. In fact, Locke did not refer to the Bible 1500 separate times nor did he invoke 1500 Bible verses, as Barton sometimes claims. Apparently, Barton’ staff had to count all 900+ verses from the books of Proverbs to get to 1500. See this prior post for what it appears Barton had to do to get to the 1500 number. It should be clear that Barton’s claim is wildly inflated.
While this is one small fact claim, it is indicative of the real reason Thomas Nelson pulled The Jefferson Lies from publication. This same error was in the first edition as well. There are many such exaggerations and errors in The Jefferson Lies. Taken individually, many aren’t vital to the points Barton attempts to validate. However, taken together, they make the book unreliable.