Paul Ryan is a great choice for Vice President. As his running mate said, he is an intellectual leader of the GOP, one of the few practicing politicians who even seems to aspire to that crown.
As Rich Lowry observed, Ryan is an idealogue in the best sense of that term – a man who is motivated by ideas. As a politician, he has to work within the framework of his party’s orthodoxies (as Ryan Lizza’s must-read profile in The New Yorker shows) but what politician doesn’t? Ryan has been successful in doing the one thing a true leader can do – bend those orthodoxies in his direction. He was forced to bow to the GOP jingoism on bloated military spending — though even his too-fat proposal for the military budget is below the obese 4% that Romney has committed to. But in exchange, he was allowed to place some genuine ideas on the table to deal with our gross federal budget, including some issues like Medicare and Medicaid that were considered politically untouchable. He had to struggle with his own party, and he moved the bar.
That is how he differs from his running mate. Romney doesn’t challenge orthodoxy, he embraces it. If Massachusetts believes in an individual health insurance mandate, a mandate they shall have. If they’re for gay rights, he’s for gay rights. But like Zelig, when he shows up in front of Texas voters, he looks just like one of them, too.
This obviously makes it hard for him to run as a national candidate, since he doesn’t have the good fortune of being able to take pride in any of his individually orthodox accomplishments. And when it comes to taking a stand on any issue, his greasiness is risible, a circus act.
So I have come to take for granted Romney’s multiple shades of support and opposition to gay equality. On what issue hasn’t he changed his spots? For this election, it’s heterosexual marriage only, and what are the gays complaining about? His party’s obtuse orthodoxy on gay rights is the natural spawn of Nixon’s southern strategy, exploiting the south’s prejudices to the nation’s detriment and the GOP’s short-term, but nowadays more difficult tactical victories.
Gay equality clearly isn’t one of the ideas that animates Ryan, of course. But the small mindedness of the GOP right doesn’t seem to suit his style. Romney has characteristically adapted to the biased impulses of his party, but Ryan seems to be made of different stuff. He had a brief flirtation with a vote on gay rights (ENDA), but it arose like Brigadoon and then disappeared. He now more demurely conforms to the party’s small religion on unequal rights.
That has allowed Ryan to pursue his much larger project, and his formidable abilities can benefit us all. But now that he is a formal national presence, the pressure to conform to this undignified prejudice cheapens him. What civilized person in today’s world can simply ignore the fact that lesbians and gay men do not have the same, fundamental right to marry the person of their choosing that heterosexuals take for granted, and pretend that it makes no difference to the group, or to our own national identity?
By subjugating himself to the worst impulses of his party, Ryan undermines his own character for thoughtfulness and reason. Romney has no identifiable character, and loses nothing by being a chameleon, but Ryan has demonstrated both commitment and as much integrity as party politics will admit. On some issues, like the military budget, there is room for fudged compromise. And even on the absolute issue of equal marriage rights, there is room, at least, to breathe – domestic partnership or civil unions — for those politicians who lack the courage to vote for full equality.
Ryan does not seem to lack courage in general. On the national stage, he will have a lot to do. But when he is asked about same-sex marriage – and he will be – the intelligence he should be so proud of will be put to a real test.
10 Comments for “Paul Ryan’s Intelligence”
posted by Jimmy on
“But when he is asked about same-sex marriage – and he will be – the intelligence he should be so proud of will be put to a real test.”
Please. He’ll be a proud, devout Catholic on marriage equality, and on practically everything else, a Randian, worshipping the god of the market. Another one who poses as some great idea man regarding the private sector, but actually has gained most of his professional earnings from the public tit. He must possess some unseen exceptionalness.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“But when he is asked about same-sex marriage – and he will be – the intelligence he should be so proud of will be put to a real test.”
Jesus, David. Read the record.
Ryan was “asked about same-sex marriage” in 2006, when he supported Wisconsin’s anti-marriage amendment.
Ryan was “asked about same-sex marriage” in 2004 and 2006, when he voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Ryan was “asked about same-sex marriage” in 2003, when he voted for the Marriage Protection Act (which proposed to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over DOMA and other constitutional issues surrounding marriage).
Ryan was “asked about same-sex marriage” in 2011, when he supported the House legal intervention to defend DOMA.
Ryan’s been asked a lot, and his answer is consistent: “No!”
In addition to his long record of opposition to marriage equality, he’s voted to ban gays and lesbians from adopting children in the District of Columbia, voted against DADT repeal, voted against the Matthew Shepard Act, and is on record in support of appointing “original intent” judges and justices.
Culture war issues may not be the drum he pounds most loudly, but make no mistake — Paul Ryan is a committed, dedicated social conservative.
posted by Houndentenor on
Ryan’s intelligence isn’t in question.
He may want to avoid talking about social issues but his voting record speaks for itself.
posted by Jorge on
*Sigh.* I suppose four years of an economic fanatic as a vice president wouldn’t be a bad thing.
So he picked a rising star. Well, whatever.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
In Ryan’s case, the ticket may turn out to be a textbook example of “be careful what you wish for …”
If Ryan thinks he was “miserable during the last majority” (as quoted in the New Yorker profile), when he “was a reliable Republican vote for policies that were key in causing enormous federal budget deficits” (again, as quoted in the profile), wait until he finds out what it is like to serve under Romney, a world-class political chameleon. Romney will talk the talk while sliding out from under over and over again, sending Ryan out to shill for policies he finds abhorrent. “Miserable” won’t even be the half of it for Ryan.
posted by Jorge on
Do you think Romney will be elected for being a political chameleon?
(Um, yes.)
More to the point, is the political alignment of the country going to change enough in eight years for Romney to disappoint Ryan?
Both Romney and Ryan have a bipartisan streak. Where Romney starts off as a pragmatist, Ryan starts off as an ideologue. It sounds like it could be a great team–for someone else.
posted by clayton on
Someone who is a reliable vote for policies he finds abhorrent isn’t a leader. He is a partisan coward. I don’t think I want a man like that a heartbeat away from the presidency.
posted by Gus on
Rep. Ryan is overreach personified.
posted by Doug on
Ryan is the intellectual leader of the GOP who :
Voted for the Iraq war but did not fund it
Voted for the Afghan war but did not fund it
Voted for Medicare D but did not fund it
Voted for every single increase in the national debt
Voted for the Bush tax cuts but did not offset spending to pay for it
Yep that’s the kind of intellectual fiscal hawk that the GOP is looking for.
posted by Libertygal on
Ryan, when running for congress in WI, when asked about abortion and an exception to save the life of the mother, he said no exceptions even that. He felt God should decide who lives and dies. If it his will the mother dies, then so be it. When this comes out and it will, goodbye for Romney and Ryan, there is not a woman or independent that will vote for them.