Was Romney’s Ryan Pick Bold or Desperate?

by Robert Creamer

Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book: "Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win," available on amazon.com.
Since Mitt Romney named Paul Ryan as his running-mate on Saturday, right wing pundits have done their best to frame his pick as a “bold” choice.  In fact, it appears to have been a choice born of the dawning realization at Romney’s high command, that his political situation was becoming increasingly desperate.
And the notion that Ryan himself is a “bold visionary” is nothing more than sheer fantasy – unless, of course, your “vision” of the future is the “Gilded Age”.
Before the announcement, conventional wisdom held that Romney would make a safe, boring choice for Vice President – somebody like Tim Pawlenty or Rob Portman.  The thought was that he would be cautious, both because he is, by nature, a cautious kind of guy – and because he was doing well enough that he didn’t want to make the a rash move that could blow up the way McCain’s decision to enlist Sarah Palin as his running mate exploded four years ago. 
But let’s face it, Romney was having a terrible summer. According to Nate Silver’s 538.com – the most sophisticated forecasting model around – Romney’s chance of winning this fall had dropped to under 30%.  His Las Vegas odds – and odds on the Intrade political market – weren’t much better.
Romney’s foreign trip was a disaster.  As much as anything it demonstrated that he lacks the most important single trait of successful political leaders: empathy.  Romney seems constitutionally incapable of putting himself in other people’s shoes.  He launched his expedition to Europe and Israel to demonstrate that he was a capable statesman, and looked instead like a bull in a china closet – insulting everyone in sight. Worse yet he looked out of his depth – like a student who was allowed to create his own SAT test and still failed to pass.  Or, as former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs put it – he looked like a guy who struck out at T-Ball.
His refusal to release his tax returns has continued to focus attention on Romney’s wealth – and the fact that in the one full year of returns he has opened to public scrutiny, he paid only a 13.9% effective tax rate makes it look like he plays by a different set of rules than ordinary mortals.  Matters got worse when the a non-partisan Brookings Institute Study found that his tax “reform” plan would increase the taxes of 95% of Americans, and give him – and millionaires like him – hundreds of thousands of additional tax breaks.
Romney’s history of outsourcing American jobs, his record at Bain Capital, his Swiss Bank Accounts and cash in the Caymans, have all begun to convince persuadable voters that he just isn’t on their side.  And it has become apparent that the more voters learn about his record as Governor of Massachusetts – 47th out of 50 in job creation – his claims to be an effective job creator were just so much hot air.
And finally there was the indisputable fact that Romney seems incapable of relating to ordinary Americans and their lives (e.g. “corporations are people too”, “Ann drives two Cadillacs”, “I love firing people”, etc.).
That’s not to say that Romney doesn’t still have a lot of chips on his side of the table.  The long recovery from the Great Recession – which was, of course, caused by precisely the same policies that Romney would like to revive – presents a headwind for President Obama.  And that headwind has been amplified by Republicans in Congress who have intentionally sabotaged the American economy for their own political advantage -- doing everything in their power to prevent passage of the infrastructure and jobs programs that independent analysts say would have created at least another million jobs.  
And, of course, there is the advantage bestowed by the unprecedented tsunami of money with which multi- millionaires like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson hope to buy the outcome of the election.
In fact, a good case can be made that Romney still has a pretty good chance of beating the odds in November.  But the Romney campaign – and its super wealthy right wing supporters -- were starting to panic.  And the forces that wanted to bet the ranch on a real, radical right-wing take over of American government used that panic to successfully promote their choice of most right wing Vice Presidential candidate since 1900.  They convinced the campaign high command to double down on the view that this election is ultimately about mobilizing their base – and, they argued no one could do that better than Paul Ryan.
Ryan’s choice must have been controversial among Romney’s advisors.  Medicare is enormously popular in America – especially among senior citizens who make up a disproportionate percentage of the vote in swing states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Nevada.  Ryan is – after all – the leader of the movement that no kidding around, wants to abolish Medicare as we know it.  Presumably they believe that they can spend enough to confuse older voters into believing something different.  Don’t bet on it.
And the leaders of the Republican National Congressional Committee must be furious.  The choice of Ryan will nationalize the race for Congress and bring new focus on the dominant theme of many critical house races: Medicare, Medicare, Medicare.   It will also, allow President Obama to run against the physical embodiment of the obstructionist Republican Congress that has about a 15% approval rating.  It will make it easy for the Obama team to make the politically toxic Ryan budget a centerpiece of the race.  And, finally, perhaps most important, it virtually guarantees that the race will ultimately be viewed by many voters as a choice not simply a referendum on Obama’s performance or the economy.
But one thing is clear.  By choosing Ryan, Romney proved once and for all, that if he wins, right wing strategist Grover Norquist will have what he says wants: a President who has enough digits to sign whatever the Tea Party gang in Congress passes – a guy with no core values of his own who is perfectly willing to be led around by a ring in his nose to do whatever his right wing backers and the passionate partisans of the radical Tea Party in Congress demand of him.
Romney’s choice of Ryan proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that Mitt Romney will never revert to his “moderate” former self if he were elected President.  He, Paul Ryan, the Tea Party and his billionaire contributors will try to fundamentally transform America into a plutocracy that is of, by and for a tiny number of very wealthy families.
And the notion that Paul Ryan is a “bold visionary” – as his book  “Young Guns” would have us believe -- is simply laughable.
Is it “bold” to abolish Medicare, convert it into a voucher program, and raise the annual out of pocket health care spending of a senior citizen making $14,000 or $15,000 a year by $4,000 – just so you can give hundreds of thousands of dollars of additional tax breaks to the wealthiest people in America?  Outrageous, but not “bold” – unless you think that it’s “bold” for a street thug to steal a senior citizen’s purse – or a juice loan operator to prey on low income customers who are desperate for credit.
Robinhood was bold.  “Romneyhood” is not.  “Romneyhood” is about the strong victimizing the weak.  That’s not “bold”; that’s brazen.
And if you think abolishing Medicare is “visionary”, think again.  Republicans have been trying to get rid of Medicare since they opposed its passage in 1965.  It was former House Speaker Newt Gingrich who said he hoped it would “wither on the vine” two decades ago. 
Paul Ryan’s plan does not represent the future.  He represents the values and policies of the robber barons of the late 19th century.  He wants to go back to the discredited idea that tax cuts for the rich will trickle down to the rest of us – to the notion that we should allow the Wall Street Banks to run wild – ideas that caused the greatest financial collapse in 60 years and threatened the very existence of the American middle class.  Ryan and Romney are not “bold visionaries” – they are the “Go Back Team” that wants to return us to the warmed over, failed policies of the past.
And Ryan represents something even worse.  Romney is an unprincipled, willing vessel for any policy or position that will help him succeed – in business or in politics.  Ryan is a true believer.  He is a devotee of the radical libertarian philosophy that believes the highest value is selfishness – that greed is good – that society is better off, if first and foremost, we all look out for ourselves regardless of the consequences for everyone else. 
Over the weekend, the American Values Network put out a video and web site that demonstrates graphically the philosophy of the “visionary” Paul Ryan.  It includes footage of Paul Ryan praising the work of philosopher, author and libertarian icon, Ayn Rand, who died several years ago.
 Ryan says that “Ayn Rand, more than anyone else, did a fantastic job explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism…..If Ayn Rand were here today, I think she would do a great job in showing us just how wrong what government is doing, is.”
That footage follows excerpts from a famous Mike Wallace interview of Rand.    
In the Wallace interview, he asked Rand:
“Christ, and every other important moral leader in man’s history, has taught us that we should love one another.  Why then is this kind of love, in your mind, immoral?”
Rand responds, “It is immoral if it is placed above one’s own self.”
Ayn Rand says:
“What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty.”
“You love only those who deserve it.”
“Nobody has ever given a reason why man should be his brothers’ keeper.”

In his interview, Wallace asks Rand:   “You are out to destroy almost every edifice in contemporary American life – our Judeo-Christian religion, our modified government-regulated capitalism, rule by the majority will.  Other reviewers say that you scorn churches and the concept of God – are they accurate criticisms?”
Rand responds, “yes.”
Barack Obama and most Americans believe that we’re all in this together.  Paul Ryan and his sponsor Mitt Romney believe we’re all in this alone.
Barack Obama and most Americans believe we are our brother and sister’s keepers.  Most Americans believe that commitment to others, and devotion to our families, our community, our nation and to all of human kind, define what we mean by right and wrong.  Most Americans believe that we will succeed or fail together as a nation.  Most Americans believe in the military ethic that you never leave anyone behind.
Ryan and Romney believe that one’s highest calling is his own success – no matter what the consequence for anyone else.  
Those are exactly the values manifest in the stories of the workers who lost their jobs, their health insurance, and their pensions because Romney and his fellow investors at Bain Capital bought their companies, loaded them with debt, bled them dry to pay their fees and left them in bankruptcy while they walked away with millions.
They are the same values that lead Romney and Ryan to propose abolishing Medicare in order to fund additional tax breaks for themselves and the top 2% of the population.
Romney’s choice of Ryan is not bold at all, but it makes the choice facing America this fall crystal clear.
The election this fall is the most important single battle for the heart and soul of America that I have seen in the 45 years I have been involved in progressive politics.  This election, no one is mincing words.  We face a clear choice between two alternative visions of the kind of country we want to leave to our children.
Republican strategist chose Paul Ryan because they bet they could win this election by mobilizing their base.  They believe that progressives – and many of those who were inspired by Barack Obama in 2008 will be dispirited and uninvolved in 2012.  In the next 85 days, it’s up to us to prove them wrong.

Browse articles by author

More Current Affairs

Added 18.06.2018
Daniel Wagner: "My prediction Korean War will be formally ended, the peninsula will be denuclearised, and a lasting peace will be the result."
Added 14.06.2018
Extract: PiS [ the ruling Law and Justice party] has established the most significant addition to the Polish social safety net since 1989: the Family 500+ program. Launched in 2016, Family 500+ embodies the nationalism, traditional family values, and social consciousness that the PiS seeks to promote. The program pays families 500 złoty ($144) per month to provide care for a second or subsequent child...........The program has been enormously popular. Some 2.4 million families took advantage of it in the first two years. The benefit, equivalent to 40% of the minimum wage, has almost wiped out extreme poverty for children in Poland, reducing it by an estimated 70-80%........... Liberal pro-European politicians and policymakers are not convinced. They complain that such a generous family benefit will weaken work incentives and blow up the government budget. But initial evidence suggests that Family 500+ has actually increased economic activity. It has also reversed the post-communist decline in fertility, increased wages (particularly for women), and enabled families to buy school materials, take vacations, buy more clothes for their kids, and rely less on high-priced credit for basic household needs. And, thanks to rapid economic growth, the government deficit has steadily fallen, not grown.
Added 12.06.2018
The depths of hypocrisy of the Republican Party in supporting Trump’s meeting with the North Korean dictator in Singapore are hard to plumb. This is a party whose leading members adopted the Ostrich Foreign Policy Principle for decades. If you don’t like a country’s government or political and economic system, pretend it does not exist.
Added 12.06.2018
US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has spoken out against China’s strategy of “intimidation and coercion” in the South China Sea, including the deployment of anti-ship missiles, surface-to-air missiles, and electronic jammers, and, more recently, the landing of nuclear-capable bomber aircraft at Woody Island. There are, Mattis warned, “consequences to China ignoring the international community.” But what consequences?
Added 12.06.2018
With a general election approaching in September, Swedish voters are being warned that now it’s their turn to be targeted by Russian interference in the democratic process. According to Sweden’s Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB), which is leading the country’s efforts to counter foreign-influence operations, such interference is very likely, and citizens should be on the lookout for disinformation and fake news.
Added 11.06.2018
Extract: "While the presidency has grown stronger over the years, during the Trump administration Congress has been timid and subordinate. That is because the leaders of the Republican Party – which controls both the House of Representatives and the Senate – are frightened of Trump’s base. They cannot afford to alienate the roughly 30-35% of Americans who passionately back him, ignore his personal transgressions, tolerate his degradation of the country’s civil discourse, favor his brutal treatment of immigrant families, and don’t mind that he is leaving the US almost friendless in the world."
Added 08.06.2018
Has North Korea’s ruler, Kim Jong-un, made a strategic decision to trade away his nuclear program, or is he just engaged in another round of deceptive diplomacy, pretending that he will denuclearize in exchange for material benefits for his impoverished country? This is, perhaps, the key question in the run-up to the summit between Kim and US President Donald Trump in Singapore on June 12. Until then, no one will know the answer, perhaps not even Kim himself.
Added 07.06.2018
Some analysts even project that, before long, Facebook will hold more data on its users than any government. Meanwhile, it makes a lot of money from this data. Its advertising revenues came up to around US$40 billion in 2017 (up 50% from 2016). With Google, it holds an 84% market share in online advertising.
Added 05.06.2018
Roseanne Barr is an American comedian whose fictional TV character of the same name is a working-class Trump supporter. For those who remember the show “All in the Family,” she might be usefully compared to Archie Bunker, the crude proletarian patriarch from Queens, New York. Barr’s show was swiftly canceled late last month by the television network ABC, not for anything her “character” said in her show, but for a tweet in which she described Valerie Jarrett, an African-American former adviser to Barack Obama, as the offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood and “Planet of the Apes.”
Added 04.06.2018

When Donald Trump was elected, I, like many others feared what his presidency might do to the country. A year and a half into his term in office, our concerns have been justified. 

Added 01.06.2018
Extract from the article: "While the West’s relative decline is almost inevitable, its economic dysfunction is not. Yet pessimism can be self-fulfilling. Why undertake difficult reforms if a dark future seems preordained? As a result, accepting and anxious pessimists tend to elect governments that duck difficult decisions (witness Germany’s grand coalition), while angry pessimists make matters worse (by voting for Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda or for Brexit, for example). It doesn’t have to be this way. As French President Emmanuel Macron has demonstrated, bold leaders can succeed with a message of hope, openness, and inclusion, and by promoting a vision of progress based on credible reforms."
Added 30.05.2018
It has been nearly two years since the United Kingdom narrowly voted in favor of leaving the European Union. As the march toward Brexit – formally set for the end of next March – proceeds, fundamental questions about the nature of the future UK-EU relationship remain unanswered. Instead, every time a tough decision must be made in the negotiations in Brussels, British ministers kick the can down the road, or even into the long grass. This is somewhat surprising. Apparently, none of the politicians and newspaper editors who plotted for years to get the UK out of the EU thought much about what would happen if their machinations succeeded.
Added 30.05.2018
Discussions are now underway to establish a system of joint deposit insurance for eurozone banks. Proponents of the scheme, with the European Commission and the European Central Bank (ECB) taking the lead, point out that deposit insurance would avert the danger of a run on banks in times of crisis. While this argument is true, critics emphasize the disparity in risks, owing to the high share of bad loans on the balance sheets of banks in some countries. To address this risk disparity and move ahead with the plan, balance sheets will need to be cleaned up before considering the next step. While the share of bad loans for banks in the stable eurozone countries is just 2%, the most recently published International Monetary Fund statistics, from last April, show a share of 11% for Ireland, 16% for Italy, 40% for Cyprus, and 46% for Greece.
Added 29.05.2018
Trump’s decision cannot be justified by any breach of the agreement on Iran’s part. It is, rather, a return to the old, largely unsuccessful US policy of confrontation with Iran. The only difference this time is that the Trump administration seems determined to go to the brink of war – or even beyond – to get its way. If the administration has any plans for keeping Iran’s nuclear program in check in the absence of the nuclear deal, then it is keeping them a secret. Judging by some of the administration’s rhetoric, it would appear that airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities are on the table. But bombing would only delay Iran’s nuclear program, not stop it. Would Trump then consider a massive ground war to occupy the country and topple the regime? We know all too well how that strategy worked the last time it was tried.
Added 28.05.2018
US President Donald Trump’s abrupt decision to cancel his planned June 12 summit with Kim Jong-un represents a diplomatic coup for the North Korean leader, and an even bigger victory for China. In the space of just a few months, Kim’s image has gone from that of international pariah to that of thwarted peacemaker.
Added 23.05.2018
The good news is that the United States and China appear to have backed away from the precipice of a trade war. While vague in detail, a May 19 agreement defuses tension and commits to further negotiation. The bad news is that the framework of negotiations is flawed: A deal with any one country will do little to resolve America’s fundamental economic imbalances that have arisen in an interconnected world.
Added 21.05.2018
The cryptocurrency revolution, which started with bitcoin in 2009, claims to be inventing new kinds of money. There are now nearly 2,000 cryptocurrencies, and millions of people worldwide are excited by them. What accounts for this enthusiasm, which so far remains undampened by warnings that the revolution is a sham? One must bear in mind that attempts to reinvent money have a long history. As the sociologist Viviana Zelizer points out in her book The Social Meaning of Money: “Despite the commonsense idea that ‘a dollar is a dollar is a dollar,’ everywhere we look people are constantly creating different kinds of money.” Many of these innovations generate real excitement, at least for a while. As the medium of exchange throughout the world, money, in its various embodiments, is rich in mystique. We tend to measure people’s value by it. It sums things up like nothing else. And yet it may consist of nothing more than pieces of paper that just go round and round in circles of spending. So its value depends on belief and trust in those pieces of paper. One might call it faith.
Added 19.05.2018
The protests that rippled across Russia ahead of Vladimir Putin’s fourth inauguration as president followed a familiar script. Police declared the gatherings illegal, and the media downplayed their size. Alexey Navalny, the main organizer and Russia’s de facto opposition leader, was arrested in dramatic fashion, dragged out of a rally in Moscow by police. On May 15, he was sentenced to 30 days in prison. More than 1,600 protesters across the country were beaten and detained.
Added 16.05.2018
Many knowledgeable people dismiss the prospect of advanced AGI [=Artificial General Intelligence]. Some, ..........,argue that it is impossible for AI to outsmart humanity........Yet other distinguished scholars........do worry that AGI could pose a serious or even existential threat to humanity. With experts lining up on both sides of the debate, the rest of us should keep an open mind.
Added 15.05.2018
The world’s most important bilateral relationship – between the United States and China – is also one of its most inscrutable. Bedeviled by paradoxes, misperceptions, and mistrust, it is a relationship that has become a source of considerable uncertainty and, potentially, severe instability. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the brewing bilateral trade war.