All that being said, I think it would be a really bad idea if Paul Ryan were to run for President. While the intellectual class of conservatives love him, there's no chance he can win. Let us count the reasons why.
1.) No House member has been elected President since 1830. Let me repeat that so the record is perfectly clear: No Sitting House Member has Been Elected President Since 1830! There are those who try to insist that things are different nowadays. No, they really aren't. House members are viewed as intensely ideological, which they are. Americans do not like intensely ideological presidents. Barrack Obama had to hide his ideological streak. Now that it has come out, how do the American people like it?
By the way, anyone check out the approval rating for House Republicans? They are doing what they have to do. Yet the idea that they are going to swing independents is the height of absurdity.
2.) He has no executive experience. In 2008, we elected a legislator with zero executive experience. We are still trying to get ourselves out of that mess and atone for that mistake. To those who say "The problem with Obama isn't that he is inexperienced, but that he is liberal!", I say the problem with Obama is he is inexperienced and liberal. We've survived liberal Presidents before. Some of them may have even performed relatively admirably. Obama presents a unique threat to this country. His incompetence makes many problems even worse. Since he never had to learn to actually compromise to get things done, he really expected the world to just bow to his will.
There is more to politics than right ideology. Ryan shows incredible promise. Yet as of right now, he is not there yet. Give him time.
3.) Get ready for some serious optics. I'm not talking about the "Mediscare" campaign, though Democrats will launch that with unbelievable intensity. Coming very soon, Republicans have to produce a budget. Who runs the budget process? Oh yeah, Paul Ryan. Are we ready to defend from possible conflict of interest allegations that Ryan is using the budgetary process to further his presidential ambitions, should he run? Do not think for a moment if the charges are true or not. That's irrelevant. The question is, are you going to be able to competently prove otherwise?
4.) Many people champion Ryan's potential candidacy due to his strength on entitlement reform, and how no Republican understands the issue better. I say that is all the more reason he needs to stay in the House and work on the rules under a Republican administration. Up until the past few months, this would be a credible reason to get involved.
The problem with politics is that things change. The issue that matters right now is jobs. We cannot address our long-term problems without seriously addressing our short-term problems. A Republican President needs to make the economy his primary issue. This includes tax and regulatory reform. If you haven't been paying attention, these are, as Joe Biden would say, a big 'effin deal. Oh yeah, you also have to worry about repealing something called Obamacare. Switch up the order any way you want, but those are the top 3 things which are immediate priorities for a Republican administration. Want to show me where you can get all these things accomplished, then enact sweeing entitlement reform within the first three years?
Entitlement reform is something everyone knows we have to deal with, but in the mind of the voters, it is secondary. There's no trying to get around this. We also have to consider the issue of trust. When you do something as big as entitlement reform, you really need to establish trust with the American people, and you need a mandate to specifically do entitlement reform. Get the economy on track, and entitlement reform becomes easier fiscally and politically. Bush found this out in 2004. He was re-elected, and decided out of nowhere to push for private investment accounts for Social Security. A bold plan, much to like. It failed miserably, and it proved a preview of his second term.
Notice how Romney's numbers are doing pretty strong where he is the front runner? Even his known stance on Romneycare, anathema to conservatives, and he is acting as the front runner. Why? Because of the economy. It is so poor right now, people want to do whatever they need to do so they can get it fixed again. As a result, many are overlooking Romney's transgressions and heresies on conservative issues.
What does Ryan bring to the table on this front that more experienced candidates do not?
5.) Finally, we like to idolize our heroes. Rush Limbaugh wonders if it is a sin to love a man, because he loves Chris Christie. We all know that's nonsense. Chris Christie advocates global warming, cap and trade, comprehensive immigration reform, amongst other things anathema to his biggest fans. Yet we overlook those things. Why? Because on the things that matter, and his station in life, Christie gets the job done for Republicans.
The same with Ryan. He is not the ideologically pure conservative some make him to be. He backed TARP. He backed the bank and auto bailouts. He's taken previous votes on S-CHIP and the like. John McCormack of the Weekly Standard quotes Ryan thus:
Really clear. The president’s chief of staff made it extremely clear to me before the vote, which is either the auto companies get the money that was put in the Energy Department for them already — a bill that I voted against because I didn’t want to give them that money, which was only within the $25 billion, money that was already expended but not obligated — or the president was going to give them TARP, with no limit. That’s what they told me. That’s what the president’s chief of staff explained to me. I said, ‘Well, I don’t want them to get TARP. We want to keep TARP on a [inaudible]. We don’t want to expand it. So give them that Energy Department money that at least puts them out of TARP, and is limited.’ Well, where are we now? What I feared would happen did happen. The bill failed, and now they’ve got $87 billion from TARP, money we’re not going to get back. And now TARP, as a precedent established by the Bush administration, whereby the Obama administration now has turned this thing into its latest slush fund. And so I voted for that to prevent precisely what has happened, which I feared would happen.Anyone really see this answer surviving under intense questioning? The answer satisfies the intellectuals, but it is something only a wonk could make and love. Ryan favored the auto bailouts because if they didn't pass the auto bailout, the money would come from TARP. So Ryan voted for the auto bailout, and we still got the money from TARP, in addition to bailing out a failed company, whom we have lost a lot of money over, and still will.
If Ryan knew the bill was going to pass anyways, why go along with it? If you view the auto bailout so toxic, vote against it! What we have here is a failure of nuance. People understand there's a difference between states passing an individual mandate and the federal government passing one. They just think the individual mandate was a horrible idea, and that is why Romney found himself in hot water (and still could.) What Ryan describes sounds like a typical Washington political game, where in the end, the American taxpayer got screwed. On the issue of the auto bailouts, the position Romney took as a more conservative position than the one Ryan took.
If Ryan simply stated "look, I had to vote with my district. You can't vote against the auto bailout in the Midwest in a purple district and expect to live", I'd respect that honesty. Thad McCotter operates basically off of that understanding, and it is has never stopped me from voting for him, as he is my congressman. His answer sounds like "i voted against it before I voted for it."
So in summation, Ryan:
1.) Doesn't have experience
2.) Doesn't have a record of job creation
3.) Would be staking his campaign on the wrong central issue (putting the cart before the horse)
4.) Has an answer which, if he gave it to the media or in a debate, he would get flogged mercilessly.
I think Ryan has an impressive future ahead of him. Let him continue in that future, rather than getting involved in something he cannot win.
No comments:
Post a Comment