Does Paul Ryan offer a fresh, grand vision for America--or merely reflect the myopia and limitations of recycled Ayn Rand Objectivism? Let's join the discussion with Time's Joe Klein, then look at an utterly unexpected review of Paul Ryan’s GOP convention speech by Sally Kohn for FOXNEWS.com. First, Joe Klein:
Paul Ryan, 42, is the perfect picture of a traditional Republican Vice President.
But there is something radically different about the Ryan pick, something I've never seen before. This presidential campaign is now, substantively, all about him. The maddeningly vague Mitt Romney has effectively outsourced his job as intellectual leader of the ticket to his occasionally specific junior partner. Romney seems to have mixed feelings about that, flipping another flop on the Ryan budget, which he once called "marvelous" and now has walked away from, saying he's going to come up with a budget of his own one of these days. Romney also had a fair amount of trouble describing his view of Ryan's plan to voucherize Medicare. The Ryan pick may have energized the Republican base, but Romney remains the same old awkward, evasive Romney.
And so we seem to be headed for a campaign of ideas--Ryan's ideas--and that may or may not be a good thing. Yes, it's important to have a ground-zero discussion about the sort and size of government we want to have. The trouble with Ryan's deep thinking on so many of these issues, though, is that it's not very deep at all. He lives in a libertarian Disneyland where freedom is never abused, where the government is an alien entity whose only function is to flummox the creative intelligence of übermensches like Ayn Rand's hero, the architect Howard Roark. It is remarkable and, frankly, a bit terrifying that this puerile vision has become the operating philosophy of the Republican Party.
As a young man, I felt it important to expose myself to the range of political philosophies and ideological perspectives that, in part, also informed the more broadly embraced, more practicable, political paths in the middle. One of those was a purist form of libertarianism and laissez faire capitalism: “Objectivism,” so-called by its principle author and advocate, Ayn Rand. She was a Russian émigré with some understandably strong views and apparent scars formed by her years in the workers’ paradise.
She advocated a "full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism,” and viewed it as the only moral social system. And her Objectivism held that the proper functions of a government are "the police, to protect men from criminals—the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders—the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objectively defined laws," the executive, and legislature. Furthermore, in protecting individual rights, the government is acting as an agent of its citizens and "has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens." And that’s about it: uncontrolled, unregulated capitalism, and a minimalist government with the simple charter to maintain and support the police, army, and court functions for the protection of people’s property, their person, and their individual rights. [Quotes from Wikipedia: Objectivism (Ayn Rand)]
She was best known for her several novels with that same clear and consistent Objectivist message. Although I've not read The Fountainhead, with its celebrated hero Howard Roark. I did read her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged, pursuing the answers to her opening question, Who is John Galt? And I was provoked by the title to also read The Virtue of Selfishness, which continued to beat the same drum one too many times for me. I later added a reference copy of Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, a compilation of essays based on Objectivist thinking written by Rand and her two protégés, Nathaniel Branden and Alan Greenspan (yes, that Alan Greenspan). Forty-some years later, that is the only volume of hers I retain; but I remain familiar enough with Ayn Rand and Objectivism.
I mention all this because Time’s Joe Klein draws the parallel between the more pure libertarian and capitalist views of Mr. Ryan and the Fountainhead hero, Howard Roark--and because the parallel appears so apt. As we mature with the experience, realities and responsibilities of a greater sense of community and state, we become more socially accountable as participants in political and economic life. And it becomes clear how lacking in dimensions and answers—how impractical and inadequate, really—Objectivism, or other strains of pure libertarianism and unregulated capitalism, are to satisfying the conditions for a vibrant, yet resilient economy. And then there are the social needs of a citizenry that must be well educated, kept healthy, and supported when unable to do so themselves. These too are essentials for a strong, resilient economy and and stable polity—but also for an advanced, accountable society.
It seems to me easy to see the parallels between the thinking and policy positions of Ayn Rand and Paul Ryan; for both, it is all more about minimalist government structures and roles, the ideal of a more pure laissez faire capitalist system, and the incentives for the intellectual elite that drive it. The rest of the people may succeed, fail or suffer under it; but that is not their focus.
It seems to me easy to see the parallels between the thinking and policy positions of Ayn Rand and Paul Ryan; for both, it is all more about minimalist government structures and roles, the ideal of a more pure laissez faire capitalist system, and the incentives for the intellectual elite that drive it. The rest of the people may succeed, fail or suffer under it; but that is not their focus.
So, there are reasons that most libertarian candidates find themselves marginalized at the end of the day, just as Ron Paul did. While they have some very valid, even important, points to make, some worthy issues to raise, and some attractive ideas to voice and share, they also ignore or disavow so many other important points, issues and ideas that are important to a modern, socially-accountable economy and society. And sooner or later, most people come to recognize this—and they will with Mr. Ryan, as well. More from Joe Klein:
Worse, some of Ryan's most important ideas have been tried and proved failures. Ryan has produced various plans, proposals and two actual federal budgets, and they all have one thing in common: they cut taxes drastically. In his 2011 budget, which he sent to the Congressional Budget Office for scoring, he estimated that despite the drastic cut in rates, the revenue would remain the same as a percentage of gross domestic product. This is supply-side economics, the utterly uncorroborated theory that the less people pay in taxes, the more they'll produce. Ryan's mentor Jack Kemp sold Ronald Reagan on it in 1980. The result was such a huge hole in the federal deficit that in 1982, Reagan was forced to come back with one of the largest proportional tax increases in American history. Supply-side tax cuts didn't work for George W. Bush either. By contrast, Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed. Who knew?
In Ryan's 2010 budget, all taxes on capital gains were lifted. By this standard, according to the Atlantic, Romney would have paid a tax rate of less than 1% in 2010, the only year for which we have his returns. In some of his proposals, Ryan has replaced the capital gains tax with a sales tax, or VAT, which would have the perverse effect of raising taxes on the middle class and poor while lowering them for the rich. In Ryan's world--in Rand's fantasy--average folks are taxed because they haven't had the good sense to become wealthy.
Because of the hilariously inappropriate tax cuts, Ryan's budget doesn't reduce the deficit very quickly, but it is imbalanced on the backs of the poor and elderly. I believe that poverty is often the result of inappropriate behavior--out-of-wedlock births, dropping out of school, crime and drugs--which should not be rewarded. But often it isn't, and common decency requires that we take care of the least of these. Ryan's Medicare proposal is Exhibit A when it comes to his casual inhumanity: he would force the elderly, many of whom are addled and decrepit, to make market choices in one of the most complicated, opaque markets around. Ryan's Medicaid proposal would eviscerate long-term care for the elderly poor. Republicans whine about class warfare, but what is this? It is a reversion to a more brutal, less humane state of nature. It is an "idea" whose time has gone.
Joe Klein is usually more tempered in his tone and views than in this piece—at least that’s my personal take on his writing style. But I am a fan. I think he’s just so concerned that Mr. Ryan is trying to fly under the radar and avoid being outed for his more extreme views regarding social issues, especially those affecting the retired, elderly and unable. And there’s more to be concerned about, much more, but I will allow this most surprising FOXNEWS.com review of Paul Ryan’s GOP convention speech on Wednesday night to speak for itself--and for me. From Sally Kohn, a writer and contributor to FOXNEWS.com:
Aug. 29, 2012: Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan addresses the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla.
1. Dazzling
At least a quarter of Americans still don’t know who Paul Ryan is, and only about half who know and have an opinion of him view him favorably. So, Ryan’s primary job tonight was to introduce himself and make himself seem likeable, and he did that well.
[…] To anyone watching Ryan’s speech who hasn’t been paying much attention to the ins and outs and accusations of the campaign, I suspect Ryan came across as a smart, passionate and all-around nice guy — the sort of guy you can imagine having a friendly chat with while watching your kids play soccer together. And for a lot of voters, what matters isn’t what candidates have done or what they promise to do —it’s personality. On this measure, Mitt Romney has been catastrophically struggling and with his speech, Ryan humanized himself and presumably by extension, the top of the ticket.
2. Deceiving
On the other hand, to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold.
[…] Fact: While Ryan tried to pin the downgrade of the United States’ credit rating on spending under President Obama, the credit rating was actually downgraded because Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling.
Fact: While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shutdown of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the plant was actually closed under President George W. Bush. Ryan actually asked for federal spending to save the plant, while Romney has criticized the auto industry bailout that President Obama ultimately enacted to prevent other plants from closing.
Fact: Though Ryan insisted that President Obama wants to give all the credit for private sector success to government, that isn't what the president said. Period.
Fact: Though Paul Ryan accused President Obama of taking $716 billion out of Medicare, the fact is that that amount was savings in Medicare reimbursement rates (which, incidentally, save Medicare recipients out-of-pocket costs, too) and Ryan himself embraced these savings in his budget plan.
Elections should be about competing based on your record in the past and your vision for the future, not competing to see who can get away with the most lies and distortions without voters noticing or bother to care. Both parties should hold themselves to that standard. Republicans should be ashamed that there was even one misrepresentation in Ryan’s speech but sadly, there were many.
3. Distracting
And then there’s what Ryan didn’t talk about.
Ryan didn’t mention his extremist stance on banning all abortions with no exception for rape or incest, a stance that is out of touch with 75% of American voters. Ryan didn’t mention his previous plan to hand over Social Security to Wall Street. Ryan didn’t mention his numerous votes to raise spending and balloon the deficit when George W. Bush was president.
Ryan didn’t mention how his budget would eviscerate programs that help the poor and raise taxes on 95% of Americans in order to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires even further and increase — yes, increase —the deficit.
These aspects of Ryan’s resume and ideology are sticky to say the least. He would have been wise to tackle them head on and try and explain them away in his first real introduction to voters. But instead of Ryan airing his own dirty laundry, Democrats will get the chance.
Ryan may have helped solve some of the likeability problems facing Romney, but ultimately by trying to deceive voters about basic facts and trying to distract voters from his own record, Ryan’s speech caused a much larger problem for himself and his running mate.
---“Paul Ryan’s Speech in Three Words,” by Sally Kohn, FOXNEWS.com (8.30.2012)
I must confess my surprise at a review so openly and unreservedly critical of Paul Ryan and his speech allowed space on FOXNEWS.com. And the last two subtopics were written with a tone of genuine disapproval and conviction. Is FOX NEWS actually seeking more openly opposing views? Or has Ms. Kohn written her last piece for them?
Regardless, it appears to me both accurate and fair enough, even if the tone of it is honed to a fine if intemperate edge. I tip my hat to FOX NEWS for publishing a review and point of view clearly at odds with the general bent and positions of the FOX network.
Links:
Links:
No comments:
Post a Comment