The Paul Ryan Story: From Flimflam to Fascism
Why did Paul Ryan choose not to run for re-election? What will be the consequences? Your guess is as good as mine — literally. I can speculate based on what I read in the papers, but so can you.
On the other hand, I do have some insight into how Ryan — who has always been an obvious con man, to anyone willing to see — came to become speaker of the House. And that’s a story that reflects badly not just on Ryan himself, not just on his party, but also on self-proclaimed centrists and the news media, who boosted his career through their malfeasance. Furthermore, the forces that brought Ryan to a position of power are the same forces that have brought America to the edge of a constitutional crisis.
Paul Ryan speaking to reporters in Washington on Wednesday.
Tom Brenner/The New York Times
About Ryan: Incredibly, I’m seeing some news reports about his exit that portray him as a serious policy wonk and fiscal hawk who, sadly, found himself unable to fulfill his mission in the Trump era. Unbelievable.
Look, the single animating principle of everything Ryan did and proposed was to comfort the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted. Can anyone name a single instance in which his supposed concern about the deficit made him willing to impose any burden on the wealthy, in which his supposed compassion made him willing to improve the lives of the poor? Remember, he voted against the Simpson-Bowles debt commission proposal not because of its real flaws, but because it would raise taxes and fail to repeal Obamacare.
And his “deficit reduction” proposals were always frauds. The revenue loss from tax cuts always exceeded any explicit spending cuts, so the pretense of fiscal responsibility came entirely from “magic asterisks”: extra revenue from closing unspecified loopholes, reduced spending from cutting unspecified programs. I called him a flimflam man back in 2010, and nothing he has done since has called that judgment into question.
So how did such an obvious con artist get a reputation for seriousness and fiscal probity? Basically, he was the beneficiary of ideological affirmative action.
Even now, in this age of Trump, there are a substantial number of opinion leaders — especially, but not only, in the news media — whose careers, whose professional brands, rest on the notion that they stand above the political fray. For such people, asserting that both sides have a point, that there are serious, honest people on both left and right, practically defines their identity.
Yet the reality of 21st-century U.S. politics is one of asymmetric polarization in many dimensions. One of these dimensions is intellectual: While there are some serious, honest conservative thinkers, they have no influence on the modern Republican Party. What’s a centrist to do?
The answer, all too often, has involved what we might call motivated gullibility. Centrists who couldn’t find real examples of serious, honest conservatives lavished praise on politicians who played that role on TV. Paul Ryan wasn’t actually very good at faking it; true fiscal experts ridiculed his “mystery meat” budgets. But never mind: The narrative required that the character Ryan played exist, so everyone pretended that he was the genuine article.
And let me say that the same bothsidesism that turned Ryan into a fiscal hero played a crucial role in the election of Donald Trump. How did the most corrupt presidential candidate in American history eke out an Electoral College victory? There were many factors, any one of which could have turned the tide in a close election. But it wouldn’t have been close if much of the news media hadn’t engaged in an orgy of false equivalence.
Which brings us to the role of the congressional G.O.P. and Ryan in particular in the Trump era.
Some commentators seem surprised at the way men who talked nonstop about fiscal probity under Barack Obama cheerfully supported tax cuts that will explode the deficit under Trump. They also seem shocked at the apparent indifference of Ryan and his colleagues to Trump’s corruption and contempt for the rule of law. What happened to their principles?
The answer, of course, is that the principles they claimed to have never had anything to do with their actual goals. In particular, Republicans haven’t abandoned their concerns about budget deficits, because they never cared about deficits; they only faked concern as an excuse to cut social programs.
And if you ask why Ryan never took a stand against Trumpian corruption, why he never showed any concern about Trump’s authoritarian tendencies, what ever made you think he would take such a stand? Again, if you look at Ryan’s actions, not the character he played to gullible audiences, he has never shown himself willing to sacrifice anything he wants — not one dime — on behalf of his professed principles. Why on earth would you expect him to stick his neck out to defend the rule of law?
So now Ryan is leaving. Good riddance. But hold the celebrations: If he was no better than the rest of his party, he was also no worse. It’s possible that his successor as speaker will show more backbone than he has — but only if that successor is, well, a Democrat.
=============================
by Paul Krugman
There may be links in the Original Article that have not been reproduced here.
Tags
Who is online
78 visitors
Please
- Read the seed,
- Reply in a cogent and pertinent manner.
Amen to every word. The callous disregard for working Americans who worked all their lives into retirement are not receiving an "entitlement" but taking every penny they earned that were entitled to as honest hard working Americans.
The Republican outrageous talking points regarding how the elderly and disabled are sucking on the government teat is outrageous, when in reality those talking points are a lie. A totally outrageous lie.
Ryan lied to promote a fictional writer who wrote fiction based on her personal views. Why all of a sudden must America be subjected as a nation to Republicans who are devotees of Ayn Rand who wrote FICTION, it is just completely outrageous.
The equivalent of Ryan promoting Ayn Rand shoving her into politics and exalting her above religion, would be if someone took office like the office Ryan holds and promoted Alice in Wonderland as a political strategy. Fiction is "fake news", Ayn Rand and the Ryan talking points are the actual "fake news". No one in politics should adopt the attitude of a Fiction author like Rand pushing a fictional strategy as a way to convince the public they are not justified in taking back their own money.
What all these talking points fail to mention is the stringent application process to even collect your own money.
Quit listening to the talking points and go straight to the source. Download an application or go to the Social Security website, look at the criteria, look at the list of diseases and conditions that you have to PROVE you have by submitting medical records to qualify for disability.
Reality, out of every disability application presented at least 75% of applicants are denied, the average time it takes is going through the application process and at least 3 appeals in the process to truly be considered. There is court hearing after the first or second appeal. Many people that actually qualify are denied simply for not properly presenting their medical records.
The elderly have to strictly follow the rules on SS open enrollment at the age of retirement, only those born prior to a certain date can be accepted to collect their own money to retire at age 62, everyone else must follow the age guidelines to retire much later. There are penalties if you miss the date to file.
American workers already get the shaft enough, but to elect politicians like Ryan only to watch them try to tear down and tear apart the only thing the majority of workers have in life like SS, it is just disgusting.
The abuse of language from the right is monstrous. Words should have meanings, but they willfully misuse words to shift the debate to a place more propitious for them.
There are "rights", "entitlements" and "privileges". Each word has a specific meaning. They are not interchangeable.
A "right" is (since the Enlightenment) inherent to the person. It is intrinsic, like the person's body.
A "privilege" is a particular authority, given by the state (used to be "by the king") that others do not have. Special tax loopholes that favor one category above the others are a modern example.
An "entitlement" is a particular authority that has been earned through a contractual relationship: the holder "has title"...
In other words, the Trump Tax Reform was an undeserved "privilege" for the already-rich, while the social safety net moneys that will be withdrawn from the needy to reduce the deficit are deserved entitlements.
The US is now officially a plutocratic kleptocracy.