Getty Images
When campaign observers ponder whether various VP possibilities will be chosen for their party's ticket, we tend to consider their natural constituencies. One potential running-mate might help with women voters; maybe another would help in the South; another still might help with Latinos; etc.
Paul Ryan doesn't help with any obvious demographic except one: political pundits. Commentators tend to love the right-wing congressman, routinely praising him for being "honest," "serious," and "courageous."
I assumed I wouldn't have to wait too long for a good example of this, and sure enough, on Saturday morning, William Saletan explained why he "loves" Ryan.
Ryan is a real fiscal conservative. He isn't just another Tea-Party ideologue spouting dogma about less government and the magic of free enterprise. He has actually crunched the numbers and laid out long-term budget proposals.
I realize I'm tilting at windmills here. The political/media establishment has decided, practically by edict, that Paul Ryan is a credible wonk whose work must be respected. Proof to the contrary doesn't matter; this characterization is now accepted fact. Why? Because the establishment says it is thus, so stop asking questions.
I don't mean to pick on Saletan -- he's hardly the only one -- but it's important to understand how deeply mistaken he is. Indeed, it's not just voters who need to appreciate the facts; it's media professionals whom voters rely on who need to brush up on the relevant details.
Paul Ryan is not a fiscal conservative. He voted for Bush's tax cuts and didn't feel the need to pay for them. Then he voted for Bush's extremely expensive Medicare expansion, and didn't feel the need to pay for this, either. He also voted for Bush's wars, and had no qualms whatsoever about adding the costs the national credit card, letting future generations pay for our national security goals. To top things off, Ryan also voted to bail out Wall Street, and once more decided the costs should just be added to the debt.
This is not the record of "a real fiscal conservative."
"But wait, Steve," Ryan's defenders tell me, "that only looks at the bulk of Ryan's career in public office. Let's instead look at his more recent record."
Fine. Ryan was a member of the Simpson-Bowles commission, but rejected their debt-reduction plan. He also reviewed President Obama's $4 trillion debt-reduction plan last year, and rejected it, too.
"You're not getting, it, Steve," Ryan's defenders argue. "Look past his congressional voting record and his opposition to debt-reduction plans, and then you'll see what a fiscal conservative he is."
Fine, let's do that, too.
It's true that Ryan crafted a budget plan that brutally cuts investments in domestic priorities like education, health care, and programs that benefit struggling families. Isn't this evidence of fiscal conservatism? Doesn't that prove Ryan has the "courage" to make "tough calls"?
Actually, no. For one thing, there's nothing "courageous" about redistributing wealth from the bottom up, asking those without to suffer more. For another, Ryan's budget redirects those savings into tax cuts, not debt reduction, which is pretty much the opposite of "fiscal conservatism."
But at least Ryan's plan makes gets the nation's finances under control, right? Wrong.
Rep. Paul Ryan made absolutely clear that he is not now and never was interested in deficit reduction. After a couple of years of being lauded by deficit hawks as the man prepared to make hard choices, he proposed a budget that would not end deficits until 2040 but would cut taxes by $4.6 trillion over a decade while also extending all of the Bush tax cuts, adding an additional $5.4 trillion to the deficit. Ryan would increase military expenditures and then eviscerate the rest of the federal government.
Oh yes, Ryan claims he'd make up for the losses from his new tax cuts with "tax reform" but offered not a single detail. A "plan" with a hole this big is not a plan at all.
I can't explain why so many in media choose not to believe these facts. I really wish I knew why otherwise-sensible people put aside their critical thinking skills and choose not to read Ryan's actual work before praising it.
In Saletan's case, his own Slate colleague, Jacob Weisberg, made a similar mistake last year, but wisely backpedaled soon after: "I reacted too quickly and didn't sort out just how laughable Ryan's long-term spending projections were. His plan projects an absurd future, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in which all discretionary spending, now around 12 percent of GDP, shrinks to 3 percent of GDP by 2050. Defense spending alone was 4.7 percent of GDP in 2009. With numbers like that, Ryan is more an anarchist-libertarian than honest conservative."
And yet, media professionals continue to fall for the con. There's just no reason for this. It's simply irresponsible. As Paul Krugman explained, "What [Saletan's] doing -- and what the whole Beltway media crowd has done -- is to slot Ryan into a role someone is supposed to be playing in their political play, that of the thoughtful, serious conservative wonk. In reality, Ryan is nothing like that; he's a hard-core conservative, with a voting record as far right as Michelle Bachman’s, who has shown no competence at all on the numbers thing. What Ryan is good at is exploiting the willful gullibility of the Beltway media, using a soft-focus style to play into their desire to have a conservative wonk they can say nice things about. And apparently the trick still works."
Michael Grunwald wrote a terrific item last year: "Profiles in Cowardice: How the Beltway Punditocracy Gets Paul Ryan's Plan Totally Wrong." It pains me to see how little has changed since.
Leave a Comment:
"Paul Ryan doesn't help with any obvious demographic except one: political pundits."
You missed the most important group: Right Wing Base. Because they are deeply suspicious of Taxachussetts Mitt, and Ryan whips them into line.
As for the pundits considering him a policy wonk, he not only has a slide rule, but also a Texas Instruments calculator, while all they have is dad's old abacus.
and no one seems to be mentioning the earmark issue. it does seem mindbogglingly hypocritical to work so tirelessly to secure earmarks for one's own congressional district whilst railing against them for everyone else
Benen, this is an excellent example of why I consider you to be the best pundit going. Wish I could put this whole piece on a bumper-sticker.
I would worry more about this phenomenon were it not for the fact that McCrankypants was also BFF with the beltway media. Despite all their fluffing, he managed to be on the wrong side of one of the worst electoral ass-whuppings in history.
I tend to agree with you. I mean how many divisions do the beltway media control? Where are their armies deployed? When was the last time any of them were right on any subject? I don't know anyone who pays attention to any of them.
you gotta admit--that's marvelous background music as the "zombie eyed granny starver" comes traipsing down that hallway to get down to his "very serious" work.
The appeal of Ryan is in the fact that he got specific in his proposals. So many political wonks despair over the vague budget plans that are come out of both Republican and Democratic camps that when someone actually puts out a plan with real numbers they cream themselves in anticipation.
The fact that the numbers are awful only starts to become apparent later on, after they've woken up with a hangover and a vague sense of guilt at having fallen so easily for the smooth-talker.
In other words, a plan with hard numbers are like roofies for political pundits.
Paul Ryan's "real numbers" are like the footnotes in Ann Coulter's books -- they fake an "academic" appearance well enough that people (like Beltway pundits) who are too lazy to look them up don't realize they prove the exact opposite of what is claimed.
well said, redshift.
@Steve Benen: I'm quite happy with your assessment of Ryan and how some writers have fallen for him. Kudos for that. Great analysis of the situation.
But what else strikes me about this post is it has a columnist at the New York Times, a writer for Time Magazine and the main blogger for MSNBC's flagship show all claiming to be outside the "punditocracy."
Is there anybody anywhere who will fess up to being inside it?
Conservatives/Tea partiers will now give credit to Ryan for any positive campaign news.Romney will get the blame for anything negative that happens.
Just because Ryan came up with "a plan" doesn't mean that it's a GOOD plan.
Pundits need to be more discerning about their evaluation of policy initiatives, or they'll lose what credibility they have. That credibility is a dwindling asset, given their lack of thoughtful analysis of the Romney-Ryan "plan."
"Paul Ryan doesn't help with any obvious demographic except one: political pundits."
When you put it that way, it sounds like a shrewd move. Romney and Mini-Romney will have their asses handed to them in November, but still a shrewd move.
This from The New York Times on July 5 explains a lot: (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/magazine/can-the-democrats-catch-up-in-the-super-pac-game.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all)
"The public did not view Romney as an extremist. For example, when Priorities informed a focus group that Romney supported the Ryan budget plan — and thus championed “ending Medicare as we know it” — while also advocating tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, the respondents simply refused to believe any politician would do such a thing. What became clear was that voters had almost no sense of Obama’s opponent."
Ryan is also a foreign policy lightweight. Who is the Svengali that will be lead puppeteer?
Cheney. He "worships the ground that Ryan walks on".
For all intents and purposes; the headlines might as well be touting a "Cheney/Norquist" ticket.
The thing about Ryan/Romney is, their idea of cut's to entitlement's include Social Security, Medicare,and a living wage.
Years ago, my almost-four year old grandson bragged: "look, bunia; I learned to count: one, two, three, four, five, seven, eight, ninety, eleventy. Oh, and six" That's the kind of "math" Ryan seems to have used in his budget. The numbers may look and sound just fine at the beginning. But, if you pay attention to the very end, it all comes unraveled, making no sense.
Krugman also addressed the Ryan aura issue this morning
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/the-ryan-role/
Saletan proves that those who think Republicans think don't.
At least Romney and Ryan will be on the same page:
Romney says "I've paid all my taxes. Trust me."
Ryan says "I've changed since I voted for all those Bush mistakes. Trust me."
With the media in Obama's back pocket, I am surprised that we don't see these facts all over the place.
Pretty much proves your "back pocket" comment to be wrong, doesn't it?
Seems to me like Republicans always try to claim the media are all liberal, while in reality they just brand any reporter who doesn't say they agree with them, or who asks legitimate, reasonable questions, as liberal. Sure, there are those who clearly lean left, just as there are those who lean right (see Fox "News"). But anyone not clearly leaning right surely must be a liberal...
Exactly. They are so afraid of being called biased, they refuse to report the truth.
How many times in the past day has Ryan been touted as "serious". Saying someone is serious does not make them serious, just as saying you have a plan doesn't make it a plan (sorry, but any real plan needs to be self consistent and the numbers have to add up--there is a difference between a bad plan and a farce). But we have the propaganda " big lie" thing going on about the "serious man with the plan"....(now stop that, Mitt's at the top of the ticket)
Seriousness alone does not make for good leadership. I suspect that in addition to our good leaders (Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, Churchill, Ghandi), others (Mao, Mussolini, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, W Bush) were just as serious.
Hey Steve, have you ever contributed anything constructive to society? BTW: journalism (even though the garbage you write is not journalism) is not being constructive.
And aside from proclaiming yourself a "Ragin Cajun," what are your great contributions? I suspect they are rather pale compared to Mr. Benen. And being from Texas works against, not for, you.
Maybe if you knew what you were actually talking about instead of acting like the "south end of a north bound jackass" - we would all be better off.
What a complete idiot!
I guess I better wait around for yet another one of your witty responses!
All I did was ask you what your great contributions to society are. Even though you ignored the question, we still got the answer.
Answer - obviously you don't know the question I asked. Is YOUR name Steve?
But since I'm gracious - my contribution is - I have a job, pay my taxes and unlike you I am not on welfare!
You must be a Republican from California!
I appreciate what Steve writes everyday.
Ragin - I'm not on welfare. Never have been. Never will be.
WOW - you've done all that for society? WOW! Mr. Benen must be feeling pretty badly about himself about now. Your attack on him was totally justified.
And kudos to your keen perception on my party and state. Not many folks realize that IA is the abbreviation for Calilfornia. Many think it stands for Iowa, but you were all over that. Congratulations on that Texas educational system. You proved I'm the idiot.
[1] OK, you can add me to Buffet and Gates. This is my full legal name and I'm in the semiconductor industry. It's not hard to find the rest.
Rachel how can we trust a candidate about loving America when these so called sworn in government officals (Paul Ryan) will not help the their Commander and Chief (The President) be sucessful after they're sworn in to be supportive of this office. The Vice-President candidate (Ryan) after President Obama Inauguration vowed with so many other so-called American lovers of the constitution plotted to make America's highest office unsuccessful. This all with the United States economy suffering and struggling with the existing impact of a horrible, devastating "recession" only to better their own parties ambitions. I thought they cared about the citizens of this country; but to do that, to me, was "an act of treason." Then Romney thinks he will help fix something he (removing money from the tax system that provides for America)and Ryan created with his votes in the "do nothing congress." Again the congress is on vacation while more Americans (the farmers) are hurting for support with the drought. Who are these guys gonna help when the very people who need them do something are ones whoi will be a target for more burden when they're already hurting. Politicians don't seem to be to concerned because their benefits and lively-hoods are not at risk thanks to the American tax payer who they want to pay more for they're mis-management of our economy and the money we pay into the system. Hypocrites, liars and con-artist. They lie right to your face as if we don't check the facts ourselves. If the flip-flop artist and the golden-boy budget hypocite get elected get ready for the next tea party type movement called "Americans Armed with facts." We are coming for all politicians who represent the "AMERICAN LIE."
Somehow, facts are irrelevant in elections to many people. There needs to be facts and stop saying Ryan is different than the T.P. extremists. He is no different from them, except he puts principles aside for the benefit of his own profit. They say stuff that sounds sincere and hits the buttons of voters and those that are jaded about politicians (most people) should have no visions of grandeur with these two guys that just blame Obama (not Bush for any of it?) and call workers lazy and greedy. Never mind Romneycare and Medicare voucher privatization. What about jobs? Tax cut/Trickle down? Blah blah blah.