Fox News sent this tweet into the Twitterverse just a little while ago: “I don’t think the conservatives in SC want to nominate another dealmaker . . .  someone who’s going to surrender . . . our principles.”

It came about from remarks that U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz made on the network regarding the upcoming South Carolina Republican presidential primary.

I think I’ll try to deconstruct that view.

Cruz, one of the leading candidates for the GOP presidential nomination, seemed to suggest that cutting deals means — necessarily — that one surrenders principles.

I’ll take issue with that premise.

Let’s harken back to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, about eight years before the young Texas Republican was born. Some of us remember that event.

The Soviet Union began installing strategic missiles in Cuba. Our spy planes discovered them from high above the communist nation. President Kennedy received word of the missiles. He then met with his national security team and — after hearing options that ranged from doing nothing to invading Cuba — settled on a course of action: He ordered a maritime blockade of the island nation; no ships were allowed to dock in Cuba.

Finally, the Soviets “blinked,” according to the parlance of the time. They agreed to remove the missiles. JFK had warned them in a broadcast to the nation that any launch of those missiles from Cuba against any nation in this hemisphere would be seen as an attack on the United States and would result in a “full retaliatory strike” against the Soviet Union.

What did the United States give up in return? We agreed to take down some missiles of our own based in Turkey.

Did the president make a deal? Yes. Did he “surrender” his principles or those of the nation he governed? Not even close.

The tough talk coming from Cruz and others on the right and far right ignore the reality of dealing in a rough-and-tumble world.

There are times when deals provide the only way out of tense confrontations.

And, yes, they can be finalized without compromising one’s principles.