United Liberty
A Tale of Two Paul Ryans
Tue, 08/14/2012 - 9:00am | posted by Corie Whalen
As a libertarian, I approve of Mitt Romney’s vice presidential choice. Naturally, I expect this statement to inflame a certain subset of the movement - but to those of you who are invested in mainstreaming libertarian thought, particularly within the Republican Party, I hope you’ll consider why the Ryan pick is actually a victory for us - on an intellectual level.
The reality is that we’re contending with a tale of two Paul Ryans. The Paul Ryan that I like, and encourage other libertarians to embrace, is Vice Presidential candidate Ryan - the man with a natural gift for communicating; who articulates the dire need for entitlement reform and balanced budgets effectively (which I recognize and appreciate, even if I disagree with some aspects of his plans). Before we can enact the bolder reforms of, say for example, Senator Rand Paul, the public needs to be introduced to the notion that entitlement programs are no longer the third rail of politics. Vice Presidential candidate Ryan is different from his evil twin Congressman Ryan, whose voting record libertarians should rightfully reject. But we need to understand the difference between the two Paul Ryans, and how one can be our enemy while the other is our friend.
As libertarians, we often forget how many steps ahead we are of the average voter in understanding the breadth of the fiscal mess our nation faces. It can be difficult for us to remain patient. But if we truly want to see our ideas impact federal policy, we need to compromise to the extent that it furthers our longterm goals. In this instance, that means embracing the aforementioned notion of the two Paul Ryans; understanding that we can reject the voting record of Congressman Ryan, but embrace the rhetorical skills of Vice Presidential candidate Ryan, who will be traveling the nation, pushing the message that refusing to reform our entitlement programs means not only ending them in a catastrophic manner, but bankrupting our nation.
That these issues are now mainstream in the Republican Party when mere years ago, the entire GOP was behind entitlement expansion without reform, speaks to a degree of intellectual progress that libertarians ought to embrace and harness. After all, even the libertarians who oppose political action say winning the battle of ideas means more than electoral victories. I’m of the opinion that they’re equally important and typically go hand in hand - but no libertarian should oppose the intellectual victory that Romney picking the perceived champion of budget cuts and entitlement reform represents. Yes, Paul Ryan’s plans don’t go nearly far enough. But a nation that refuses to accept Paul Ryan’s ideas will never accept Rand Paul’s ideas, so we need to take this one step at a time. We’re lucky to have Paul Ryan out there speaking on this issue, because frankly, the man does a damn good job, despite that pesky voting record of his.
And of course, this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t highlight the realities of said pesky voting record - that has to be done, because the right-wing base needs to understand that he’s far from our political savior in an all encompassing sense; that he’s merely a step in the right direction. However, necessary dwelling on the past needs to be balanced with an understanding that, from where we stand as libertarians interested in the future of the Republican Party, Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s VP is actually helping us build the intellectual case for serious federal reform, of both entitlements and our budget. What the liberty movement cannot afford to lose track of is fact that the intellectual case is different from the political case; it’s much more public; more dependent on the whim of swing voters, who Paul Ryan will go forth and persuade.
We also cannot forget that the intellectual case must precede the political case. We can hash out the politics eventually - but only after the public is convinced of the need for entitlement reform in the first place. The epic battles between Republican factions in Congress over every little minor detail of budgets, reform plans, and yes, voting records, have their time and place. I will be the first to say, in that context, that Paul Ryan’s plans don’t go nearly far enough to have a real impact. But while Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan is out on the campaign trail convincing average voters that reform is needed, I will support him wholeheartedly in order to get to the point where Rand Paul’s 5-year budget plan can become a political reality - and I encourage my fellow fiscal conservatives to do the same.
I guess the question I have is how selecting Paul Ryan changes who Mitt Romney is. He’s still at the top of the ticket, he’d be the one making the appointments and the decisions. Ryan would have only so much power as Romney is willing to give him. There’s much positive about Paul Ryan, but I can’t see that selecting him removes any of the many, many, many doubts that fiscal conservatives and libertarians already have about Mitt Romney
Doug, I never claimed that it changes anything about Romney. The good I see in the Ryan pick is that he makes a stellar intellectual case for entitlement reform, and it’s something the public needs to be exposed to. In that sense, Ryan is valuable. I agree that he doesn’t change the negatives about Romney.
No, you didn’t, but it’s an argument I’ve seen a lot since Saturday. Personally, I don’t get it. If one doesn’t like the Presidential nominee, then what does it matter who he (or she) picks for Vice-President?
You don’t get how Paul Ryan, on national television, with a ton of exposure, talking about the need for entitlement reform, is an intellectual win for limited government advocates? It really has little to do with Romney, or whether or not he wins in November. This is about exposing to the public that our entitlement programs are broken and without reform, will bankrupt our country.
I think talking about something like massive changes to Medicare in the context of an election campaign, rather than in the context of trying to sell a legislative program after one has one the election, is potentially a big political mistake. As I said above, Medicare remains among the most popular programs run by the Federal Government, and the Ryan plan doesn’t poll well when it’s put to the test. It’s an issue that’s easy to demagogue and hard to explain.
Also, I have some questions about Ryan’s commitment on fiscal issues when I hear that he’s joined with those Republicans who want to wipe out the sequestration cuts because their buddies in the Defense Industry asked them to. If they let those cuts go away, then the party’s commitment to cutting spending will be in serious doubt.
I actually think that because Medicare IS a popular program, being honest about the need to reform it, when Democrats seem to think that a path to bankruptcy is fine, is an advantage for Republicans.
Again, that’s not to say I think Ryan’s plan is all that great. But having an honest discussion about the nature of our country’s unfunded liabilities needs to happen. And as I mentioned in this piece, I tend to think that the intellectual case needs to precede the political case.
Do I think Paul Ryan should be getting into each and every little detail about his plans on national television? No. And he’s politically smart enough not to do that. But a general discussion about reform and our national debt needs to occur, and from there, more libertarian minded members of Congress, particularly in safe seats, will have the political capital to push their more radical plans - plans that actually accomplish goals in a shorter span of time, unlike Ryan’s, which takes way, way too long.
Good piece. Great premise.
But one thing: When was the GOP EVER? in favor of expansion of entitlement programs? The GOP has been consistently anti-government since the early 1990s. They’ve been blasted by the Dems and liberal media for being stridently anti-entitlement programs for 3 decades now.
Problem is, libertarians hardly ever come to the defense of Republicans when they’re being attacked for this.
Na-ah. The GOP has been consistently in favor of massive entitlement reform for years now. It’s just purist libertarians don’t give them any credit for that.
Perhaps you don’t remember the Bush 43 Administration. I know most Republicans want to forget it. But surely you have heard of Medicare Part D, an unfunded $1,000,000,000,000 entitlement program passed by, guess what, Republicans.
A well-written write-up with some valid points. My problem with the premise of this is that entitlement reform, while needed, is, in my opinion, secondary to defense and foreign policy spending reform at this time. Until America is ready to seriously discuss this issue, we’re just wasting our time…
That’s all well and good, Marshall, but unfortunately, neither Romney nor Obama seem willing to address that. Just because there’s no opportunity to make a difference in that arena right now, doesn’t mean we should squander the progress that can be made on building the intellectual case for entitlement reform.
Well, yes. That is a fact, and that’s why, barring a miracle in Tampa, I’ll proudly be voting for Gary Johnson in November. All I’m pointing out, to use a business analogy, is if I’ve still got cash flow covering most expenses on a certain budget item (entitlements) while I’m spending tons more without any revenue on another budget item (military, DOD, FP etc.), I would look at the item where I’m spending way more without any revenue. I run a business and you have to look at the big, long-term picture (net profit) and short-term (cash flow) at the same time. Both are important but when you’re in survival mode, you’ve got to look at cash flow with more urgency. With all that said, as I’m sure you well know, all one has to do is to look at the government’s own numbers relating to future expenditures of entitlements and debt service to see how really screwed we are. But! We’re going to be dead in the water anyway until we make huge spending cuts on everything else. Those cuts must be done right now for us to have any chance…
And before you jump on me, I noticed my error. I should have just had medicare in parenthesis and not all entitlements together as those combined are obviously more than defense spending. But, we might be on the same page if you admit that having a trillion dollar defense budget for over 900 bases and installations in 130+ countries is too much. And if you think giving hundreds of billions in foreign aid to upwards of 150 countries is too much. And especially if you think that the size and scope of discretionary, domestic Federal spending is too much. And that cuts, major cuts, are needed everywhere.
Again, it was a well-written article.
I too am voting for Gary Johnson, but that’s because I still expect Mitt Romney to win over Obama, so I don’t see the need to waste my vote on the GOP ticket.
I concur, great article. Sums up most of my thoughts on Paul Ryan and means I don’t have to write the Paul Ryan post I was thinking of writing.
Jeremy and Marshall, I would urge you to set aside your need for purity right now. The facts are no one will be perfect. Voting for Gary Johnson, while feeling good, is half a vote for Obama. Those are the facts we’re presented with. Ryan is our best, most articulate, chance at connecting with the voters, and winning. It’s a step in the right direction, imperfect as it is.
Oh how I love the “a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for…” crowd. Even if you’re only saying it’s half a vote, it’s still wrong.
Even if I believed that Paul Ryan was the greatest thing since sliced bread, he’s not going to be President. Mitt Romney is, and Mitt Romney has all the problems he had before he named Ryan to the ticket. This is not a GOP ticket that fiscal conservatives or libertarians should be happy about.
Some people will choose to support Romney/Ryan, that’s their choice. I don’t. That’s my choice.
Excellent article, Corie!
What today’s young libertarians need to keep in mind is that this battle we are engaged in is not a sprint; rather, it is an ultra-marathon. Possibly even the Gobi Run. It has taken over 100 years for the libertarian principles of this country to have been undercut as badly as they are. It will take at least 50 years to repair the damage. First; holding action to prevent us from getting pushed over the cliff (=November elections). Next; the philosophical underpinnings of -liberty- have to be reinstated in the general populace. That will spill IN to our Representatives (at the state and federal levels). An understanding of our Constitution, including how and -why- it limits government power must again become widespread (as it was in de Toqueville’s time). That will lead, with time and effort, to a restoration of liberty and our Constitutional Republic.
I agree completely that Ryan’s budget proposals don’t go far enough. I also see clearly that the country as a whole is not ready, intellectually or emotionally, to go further at this time. Lots of folks even buy in to the extraordinarily nonsensical notion that Ryan’s budget proposal was “extreme.” Those intellectual and emotional factors must be changed, and that also is the proper task of Libertarian thinkers, writers, speakers, and activists.
When preparing for the Gobi Run, one’s first training needs to be something like a 5K. Heading straight for the high desert without proper preparation leads to disaster. This ineluctable fact is just as true in restoring our Republic. Aggravating, but true.
This blog drives me nuts sometimes. Why be libertarian when you can be Republican?
So what can communicate well? That just means he’s lies better than the other guy.
Paul Ryan on the issues…
TARP: Necessary evil. I had to abandon the free market to save free market!
“This bill offends my principles, but I’m going to vote for this bill in order to preserve my principles.”
Because we teach our kids to have principles only when the times are easy.
No Child Left Behind: Think of the children!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Auto Bailout: If we didn’t do it no one would have cars!!!!!
Medicare Part D: Well I voted for this gigantic expansion of government into healthcare so that we could actually shrink the government later!!!!! <:)>
Airline Bailout: If we don’t do this how will the children fly? Think of the children!!!!!
Davis-Bacon Act: But no really I’m for the free market.
Path to Prosperity: How does a balanced budget and $50 trillion dollars of debt in 2040 sound? Hell yeah!!!! \m/
War: I’m for it. Blow dem brown people up.
No matter how many different ways Cato tries to link Paul Ryan and libertarianism it’s not possible. Carl Sagan couldn’t even do it in the 4th dimension.
Based on your comment, I have to assume you didn’t actually read this piece. I never once defended Paul Ryan’s voting record. Basically, all I said was, Romney inevitably had to pick a vice presidential candidate, and inevitably his or her record was likely to suck. Insofar as that was going to happen, it’s good that Paul Ryan articulates the need for entitlement reform in a convincing manner. That’s a lot better than when Republicans were voting for entitlement expansion with no reform, as I noted in this piece.
Does this somehow mean Romney and Ryan are great candidates all of the sudden? No. But it’s valuable to have someone like Ryan out there making the kind of case that will help libertarians push the issue further. Comments like this make me think there’s too many libertarians out there who enjoy being relegated to the fringe.
Again he can articulate an ideas that he doesn’t believe in. Super. He lies better the other guy. I’d prefer we point out the fact that he’s a serial liar not celebrate how good is at it.
How can you say that picking Ryan is a victory for Libertarians when the main reason you can give is that he is a man “with a natural gift for communicating; who articulates the dire need for entitlement reform and balanced budgets effectively” …”despite that pesky voting record of his”? His voting record should be the main thing that you look at.
Sounds like spin to me.
Post new comment