We have a responsibility to speak boldly for those whose voices are denied by the jackbooted thugs of the tired tyrants of Syria and Iran. – Rep. Paul Ryan
IN CASE anyone was wondering why I invoked Ronald Reagan when writing about Paul Ryan this weekend, it wasn’t just because of his playbook of outlining what conservatism is for, instead of the Buckley narrative of what it’s against, something that hasn’t been done since Reagan started rising. It’s his entire philosophy that government’s primary function is defense, with all other budget priorities falling away beneath it. Eli Lake jumped on this Sunday.
Mr. Ryan is the embodiment of Republican bootstrapism at its core, with his belief people should be offered equal opportunity, but not equal results, as he phrases it. But the holy conservative grail for Ryan is the Reagan dictate that the national security apparatus will never be part of what’s sacrificed, including in hard times, because America is not only the leading free light of the world, but it’s chief protector and enforcer.
From Eli Lake comes a quote that perfectly encapsulates the Ryan theory of government:
Danielle Pletka, the vice president for foreign- and defense-policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, also praised the Ryan pick. “Unlike a lot of fiscal conservatives, one of the great things about Paul Ryan is he is not omni-directionally a budget cutter,” she said. “[Rep. Paul Ryan] understands the primary role of the federal government is the national defense and not the handing out of food stamps.”
Paul Ryan is the embodiment of Reaganism, from domestic to foreign policy. Food stamps and entitlements keep America from being the strongest nation on earth and he’s here to right the equation, literally.
It’s Ronald Reagan, circa 21st century, as if all the wishing on the right for another Reagan finally made him manifest. If you watched Mr. Ryan in his appearances this weekend he’s not only prepared to take that mantle forward and get it done, but whether Mitt Romney wins in November or not he’ll be carrying the torch for the duration.
Romney, then Ryan, emerging from the deck of the USS Wisconsin was not just a ticket send off, it was foreshadowing of the ideology represented and the intent to get it done.
On foreign policy, John McCain doesn’t hold a candle to Paul Ryan, because he can’t sell it. But if you saw McCain on “Fox News Sunday” you got the proof that McCain knows what’s happening. The vigor was back, not because of Romney, but because of Ryan. McCain slamming Pres. Obama from the Green uprising in Iran to allegedly standing by and saying or doing nothing in Syria. The glee as McCain spat out his critique, because he still can’t believe Barack Hussein Obama beat him, was visible under his derision.
Ryan has no hands on experience in foreign policy, but he’s been channeling Reaganism since he started planning his budget. Ryan’s carving a new conservative path in a way we have only seen barely attempted recently. This is a believer, with the rhetorical means and financial wizardry to lay out conservatism in a way that is going to make a lot of Republicans and independents turn their heads, because he offers a way to slash and burn the federal bureaucracy while making people feel good the military will have shiny new things to show for it.
Paul Ryan’s inner hawk is stronger than George W. Bush’s ever was, because Bush never understood it, but was fed it. Ryan knows the economic power in military spending and what it does to a politician who’s not afraid to wield it.
Ryan won’t touch the current elderly or the next boomer entries into the entitlement sweepstakes, as Romney-Ryan sees it, but they have every intention of instilling in younger generations that smart fiscal policy begins in every home. You want retirement? Save for it.
Government is doing bigger things, like saving the world.
The argument to be made by Paul Ryan is that Republicanism can be the way to get America’s groove back. All everyone has to do is quit whining and start looking to yourself, not government. The Tea Party embodies some of this, as does Ron Paul, except where Paul went wrong was taking conservatism into the holy grail of Reaganism and daring to include national defense as a budget item to be cut.
Ryan doesn’t like diplomacy and won’t budget for it, as Josh Rogin wrote about Ryan’s defense ideas in March. Something’s got to give, so Romney-Ryan will have to look to private enterprise for national security solutions, because of their theory of cutting federal workers. That’s not particularly new, because Pres. Bill Clinton led on it. From Rogin:
But apparently Ryan does not believe diplomacy and development are part of that tool kit, because his proposal would see the international affairs account slashed from $47.8 billion in fiscal 2012 to $43.1 billion in fiscal 2013, $40.1 billion in fiscal 2014, $38.3 billion in fiscal 2015, and $38.1 billion in fiscal 2016. The State Department and USAID wouldn’t see their budget get back to current levels until after 2022 if Ryan were to have his way.
Meanwhile, the national defense part of the budget would rise from $561 billion to $603 billion over the same timeframe, according to Ryan’s plan.
Democrats are fixated on domestic cuts and the transformation of entitlements, which is understandable. They are also typically demeaning of Paul Ryan, because he’s a conservative, sneering at a man who they are mistakenly underestimating, partly because he’s Mitt Romney’s running mate.
However, the real sorcery in Mr. Ryan’s calm, assured and easy going pitch is national security, because it targets nationalist heart strings at a time when “America in decline” is palpable. It’s the same playbook Ronald Reagan used while Democrats were fiddling with their sweaters.
This isn’t 1980 and Mitt Romney isn’t Reagan and neither is Paul Ryan, but they don’t have to be to carry the message.
Or maybe the voters will decide it’s a mirage.
Right now they are all enthralled, as they are with all new things. Let’s see where Mr. Ryan is in a month as the sheen wears off.
Indeed.
But Paul Ryan isn’t Sarah Palin. He comes prepared.
There probably is one big difference between Reagan and Ryan; Reagan had a heart, I don’t believe Ryan has one. He is an ice cold idealist ( a misguided one ) The man who ” would make the trains run on time, ” is a dangerous man. In a previous comment I asked why a representative who charges his constituents to attend his town hall meetings and forbids them to record it’s proceedings could be re-elected five times. I had no answer to the question other than to believe that his voters enjoy being treated like dirt. There have been stories in various papers about people arguing with him at these meetings, sometimes vehemently, yet still he prevails. Perhaps he has one of those safe seats, one of those un-democratic inventions of our so called democratic society. If voters do choose Romney / Ryan they will face hardship such as they have never seen. They will come face to face with the ugliness of America’s past. I fear it could come to pass, for the American voter, for the most part, has become simple minded and narrowly focused. Guardians of the rich and powerful love these voters, they are so easy to manipulate.
Agree completely about the Romney/Ryan choice. But a quiet word on Reagan.
Everything is relative I suppose. It was the lifeguard RR who said to a swimmer who had the temerity to thank him for saving his life “It’s nothing. You’re just another notch on that log”. Did he change as President Reagan? Maybe the Welfare Queens know.
To be Republican is to lack empathy. And Reagan is at the top of the heap.
I think Fangio makes a good point Taylor and that’s that Ryan hasn’t got the emotional connection to voters. Too bad Obama also has the same problem.
I see Ryan as another “do as I say not as I do conservative”. Where were all these supposed beliefs when George W. Bush was president?
Ryan is just getting started, Ga6thDem, and he’s only the veep. The next 3 months we’ll see how he develops, but he’s got passion for where he wants to lead and he’s also got the surety that makes people want to follow him.
It took Reagan years of spokesman huckstering across the country before he got his groove.
What many of the voters you refer to do not understand, know or comprehend is that Romney/Ryan represent the 1%. The other 99% are not even in the equation. I also believe that Ryan is a dangerous man without a heart or conscience. This duo may have a message but it is a very dangerous message.
Spot on, Jane. When they broadcast they are the “Team” that will “save America.”
Save America From What and For Whom?
From the Black Man in the White House; obviously.
Ryan is another one born on third who thinks he hit a triple. He makes it sound like his father’s early death was a hardship on the family…I’m sure it must have been emotionally, but he was born into a vey prominent extended family. That gave him a leg up that none of these guys want to admit.
Personally I believe anyone who makes his staff read Ian Rand emotionally arrested around 16, which happens to be the age he was when he discovered his father dead from a heart attack.
Jane Austen 13 August 2012 at 6:32 am
You are hitting something most liberals and progressives refuse to assess. The economic religion of Paul Ryan is real and he’s got a growing army behind him.
Ezra Klein has confirmed that Obama-Biden and Romney-Ryan agree with Medicare cuts.
So, what are Democrats offering on economics? At no time in Pres. Obama’s first term has he told people.
Say what you will about Romney-Ryan, but few challengers have been willing to lay it all on the line like the Romney campaign did with this pick.
If Obama/Biden really want to throw a monkey wrench into this election, they should start demanding a “living wage” not a minimum wage. In no way can a person living on minimum wage be a part of the larger economy. Someone working at the bottom of the wage spectrum all of his/her life cannot save enough for retirement. They will never be part of the economy or have a chance to do so. Most people do not want to be millionaires/billionaires. Most people do, however, want a chance at a decent life, to raise and do their best for their children, and have a little something for retirement.
Great article, Taylor. When you’re right, it’s like ringing a bell. Fangio I think you’re wrong about Reagan. He was utterly indifferent to the whole world, but he was a master at making other people feel when they needed to be thinking.
I think that’s exactly correct- Reagan was a master at convincing people that he cared about them, but in fact I suspect he did not care about anyone except himself, his wife and his tiny circle of friends and supplicants.
On the other hand, I think his adopted son, Michael, is a purely evil douchenozzle. Not to mention that he’s made an excellent living doing nothing but being Ronald Reagan’s son (listen to his radio show and try to take a drink every time he says “My Dad”- you’ll be sloshed by the first commercial break.)
Appreciate it, tm123.
Well, after all he was greatly practiced in the art of being an actor and all. Although he wasn’t ever more than just a grade B actor, he was well trained in the art of deception, pretending to be what he wasn’t for he camera and the camera loved him as did many in the American public. Especially with that soft voice and calm, so-called “fatherly” demeanor. That’s one fault of Americans, we have to stop pining for a daddy to protect us from whatthehellever.
But, what lay underneath that was as you say “utter indifference” to the whole world” and I will add a bit more to that “he had an utter indifference to the world’s well-being.”
We didn’t do well under or by Reagan as most of us know and those of us living at the time know only too well.
I don’t see Ryan as the neoReagan but I agree to some degree he’s cut from similar cloth. Let’s see if without that actors training, he can deceive the greater Amerian public as Reagan did for a while at least. I have my doubts but as others have said, he knows how to communicate with people even if its on a superficial level and I suspect that is the extent of it (or why else would he charge his constituents to attend town hall meetings if not to try to prevent those who refuse to pay to listen to his “pearls of wisdom” from challenging him and his pseudo intellectual perscription which didn’t work 30 years ago.)
This will be interesting strong and wrong against “We can’t go back.” I’m always amazed that US voters default for a “Strong Defense” without even bothering to think what that means. Our military is not even close to be configured to fighting the non-state actors that are the primary threat to US interests. Yet we still love our over-priced and charismatic military toys; especially as visuals.
Remember R & R posed before the sin qua non of agressive military power, a battleship, to launch their campaign. Yet there was a good reason for that prop to now be tourist attraction; battleships have zero use in modern naval strategy.
Make no mistake about it, R&R are offering the public a battleship, an antiquated, useless, and ultimately pointless fetish item. It looks great, but in reality a battleship is counterproductive; it’s incredibly weak and fragile against modern air warfare. R&R defense notions are equally weak and fragile against the modern foreign threat.