28043877
Since U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin became the No. 2 man on the Romney ticket, political friends and foes alike have described him as “serious.” It is a sign of our times when being serious in itself is an unusual virtue for any politician.
Ryan also has been called an intellectual, an adjective not associated with today’s conservatives since William F. Buckley passed. Ryan reportedly likes to pass out copies of “Atlas Shrugged” to friends and staffers. Most politicians are content shaking hands and kissing babies. Ryan is said to be especially devoted to the philosophies of Ayn Rand and the Catholic Church. That is like saying a singer embodies the techniques of Luciano Pavarotti and Bob Dylan. Can such a person really be described as either serious or an intellectual?
You don’t have to be an expert on Rand’s philosophy or Catholicism (I claim no expertise on either), but the differences are as obvious as the differences in style between the aria “Nessun Dorma” and “Like a Rolling Stone.” Ryan is a devout Catholic, Rand was an avowed atheist. Ryan’s Catholicism leads him to oppose abortion under any circumstances, even in the case of rape or incest. Rand believed in abortion on demand. These are not small differences unless you think a jug band sounds like a symphony orchestra. Ryan shrugs off the conflicting beliefs to which he is apparently devoted. He doesn’t agree with Rand’s social views, just her strong belief in self-reliance and capitalism. That fact itself, that Ryan can so easily compartmentalize his beliefs, speaks to his lack of seriousness.
It is not only on social issues that Ryan’s self-professed devotion to Rand is called into question, but his world views as well. Neither Romney nor Ryan have any foreign policy experience. It is strange that the Republican Party of 2012, which once trumpeted its foreign policy expertise as being crucial to our national security, has two novices. The Romney campaign attempts to give its candidate credibility, saying he has business experience overseas, which is almost as silly as claiming you can see Russia from your kitchen window.
Romney and Ryan have drifted into the neo-con or hard right of their party. Ryan believes government spending can be cut every which way except where the military budget is concerned. Like Romney, he expresses the belief in an open-ended commitment to keeping American troops in Afghanistan and believes in supporting whatever actions Israel’s right-wing government decides to take in the name of self-defense. While that government’s policies are fiercely debated by Israelis, apparently there is no room for such debate in the United States, just docile support.
Rand was decidedly anti-war going so far as admitting, in a 1967 appearance on “The Tonght Show,” that the government could not force a person to fight even if the country were attacked. Maybe Ryan would care to comment on just how it squares with the neo-con’s view that a pre-emptive strike in Iran is necessary. Would Ryan adhere to the Rand view that certainly would have made it impossible to support the Marshall Plan after World War II where we, in effect, saved Europe from communism? As you can see, these contradictions in Ryan’s professed beliefs don’t involve just social issues.
On domestic spending, Ryan is at odds with his own church. The church was at odds with Ryan’s proposed budget for lacking a “moral criteria.” His plan calls for slashing spending on social programs while at the same time proposing, beyond even extending the Bush tax cuts, up to a 30 percent reduction for the wealthiest Americans. On his plan to gut Medicare, Ryan leans toward Rand and away from his Catholicism.
The Ryan Plan is so toxic to even members of his own party that the best thing he can say is it won’t apply to people currently 55 years and older. Isn’t it the height of political cynicism to appeal to the senior vote by promising that they will be spared Medicare changes at the expense of their children and grandchildren? Seniors are not supposed to care what happens to future generations. Ryan tries to have it both ways — neither of which would satisfy his church or Rand. By making Medicare optional for those currently under 55 when they become eligible, all he does is insure that the healthiest Americans will likely opt out of Medicare. Herding the most ill elderly among us under Medicare would doom the program.
Rand expressed a belief in totally unregulated capitalism. Someone should ask Ryan whether he rejects child labor laws, food and drug regulations and environmental regulations. All of them? Rand does.
Ryan has shown the willingness to compromise his own principles when it comes to lobbying for government funds for constituent businesses or voting for an unfunded drug supplement to Medicare or for tax cuts while fighting the war in Iraq. He is complicit in turning a budget surplus into a deficit.
Is Paul Ryan really serious? I have a tip that will help his credibility. Either stop giving out copies of “Atlas Shrugged” or put away your “Baltimore Catechism.”
Contact the South Philly Review at editor@southphillyreview.com.
28043877
