Those of us who are conservative believe in government, we just believe government has limits. We want government to do what it does well and respect its limits so civil society and families can flourish on their own and do well and achieve their potential.Damn straight. But before he gets to the real point, he goes all Government 225 Western Political Thought Seminar on us:
Every now and then, he pierces the veil. He’s usually pretty coy about his ideology, but he lets the veil slip from time to time. … His straw man argument is this ridiculous caricature where he’s trying to say if you want any security in life, you stick with me. If you go with these Republicans, they’re going to feed you to the wolves because they believe in some Hobbesian state of nature, and it’s one or the other which is complete bunk, absolutely ridiculous. But it seems to be the only way he thinks he can make his case. He’s deluded himself into thinking that his so-called enemies are these crazy individualists who believe in some dog-eat-dog society when what he’s really doing is basically attacking people like entrepreneurs and stacking up a list of scapegoats to blame for his failures.Emphasis mine. Couldn't agree more, but let's be honest here -- if you were to ask 100 people on the street what a "Hobbesian state of nature" is, how many would know? I'd say the over/under is about 10. Although I would say sneaking the dog-eating reference in there was pretty clever.
His comments seem to derive from a naive vision of a government-centered society and a government-directed economy. It stems from an idea that the nucleus of society and the economy is government not the people. … It is antithetical to the American idea. We believe in free communities, and this is a statist attack on free communities. … As all of his big government spending programs fail to restore jobs and growth, he seems to be retreating into a statist vision of government direction and control of a free society that looks backward to the failed ideologies of the 20th century.
Knowing your audience matters. Now Ryan's remarks appear in a think-tank publication, so I think it's fair to assume that the audience reading James Pethokoukis will get the reference to Hobbes. I would also wager that most people who read this blog would understand the reference as well. But if Ryan is going to take on a larger role, he might want to tone things down a bit. What he's saying is important, but if you need footnotes to understand it, you're going to lose a lot of people. Just sayin'.
13 comments:
Reminiscent of when Dennis Miller said Harry Reid could make Mr Limpet sound like Demosthenes or that Reid's place in history is a mediocre man's Thermopylae.
Exactly, Brad. But with one distinction -- I'm pretty sure that Dennis Miller isn't on anyone's short list as a potential VP.
True. But I was thinking more along the lines of needing an encyclopedia when certain people (e.g. Ryan and Miller) pontificate.
Yep.
When one is able to get Miller's references he is hilarious. He is an acquired taste which is why he washed out on Monday Night Football. I still think one of his best lines was during a Viking Game. The camera showed a Viking fan with a shaved head and a painted Viking Helmut on his scalp. Miller saw the shot and quipped: "I didn't know Uncle Fester was a Vikings Fan."
Mr D's point about dumbing down the message is valid, but I'm at the point where I wonder how far one has to go.
When one is able to get Miller's references he is hilarious.
True — one of my favorites; one time he was discussing bad behavior he’d witnessed and called it a “B. F. Skinner hoe-down.”
One of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 guys once said of their more obscure jokes, “the right people will get it.” That’s totally cool, so long as you’re one of the right people.
I see a lot of similarities between Ryan and Obama, actually, in that they are both really smart guys with a much more sophisticated view of the issues than the typical pol (though they obviously approach things from different ideological first principles.)
Ryan, as you show here, is probably talking over the heads of the average voter, which makes his point a bit inaccessible to a lot of them. It reminds me of a GOP debate back in '08 when Ron Paul made a reference to Newspeak that fell flat, but when someone else (Tancredo, I think) made a reference to Jack Bauer, the audience cheered wildly.
Obama, if anything, tends to err in the other direction...the most recent example being his speech about how entrepreneurs don't succeed in a vacuum...in other words, he's making a point about the contribution of public goods to private enterprise. That's a fairly sophisticated argument, in that falls outside the easily grasped "business good, government bad" (or vice-versa) narrative, and I think that in his attempts to make it accessible, he also makes it easier to poke holes in.
I disagree, Brian. Obama is a Chicago pol and he looks at the world the way a Chicago pol does. Where he comes from, the government is a protection racket. Power is what matters.
If you haven't done so, put Mike Royko's masterpiece "Boss on your reading list. It's been more than 40 years since the book was printed, but it's still 100% germane. I lived in Chicago for five years and I wouldn't vote for any Chicago politician for national office, under any circumstances.
Sorry, the link didn't work on that one. The book is here.
Mark,
I really don't mean this as a criticism. More, as an observation. You are a very astute observer of things, but probably weren't in Chicago, and Illinois, long enough to get the entire picture.
First of all, it isn't just Chicago. It's the entire state. There are 2 Illinois Governors sitting in Federal prisons right now. One is a Conservative Democrat who worshipped Richard Nixon, was a Republican his entire life, till he married Dick Mell's daughter and figured out he could ride Mell's coat-tails into political office, and is from Chicago's Polish North side. The other is a Liberal Republican Pharmacist who was major domo of the Kankakee political machine. Both are pure political animals who played their cards right and kissed all the right rings on both sides of the aisle, in Springfield, Chicago, and every town on I-57 between those two cities. Downstate pols get indicted just as frequently as Chicagoans. The whole state is corrupt.
There are a few people who flourish in Illinois politics without ever actually being a part of the Chicago Machine. Or, more appropriately, the Illinois Combine. Obama is one of them. As is our current Governor (Pat Quinn is decidedly not part of any clique except his own), and former Senator Peter Fitgerald. So is Joe Walsh (a GOP Tea Party guy) and so was Abner Mikva. (A well established Dem Rep and Federal Judge). All 5 of these guys were a pain in the ass to the IL Establishment, because they got where they got through persistence, happenstance, and their own merit. While all 5 of these guys have had to operate in the cesspool that is Illinois politics, they really aren't a product of them. They simply don't have a Chinaman. If you can't tell me who your Chinaman is, then you ain't got no clout.
A story that perfectly illustrates just what I am talking about: A young and idealistic Abner Mikva, while a student at U of C Law School, was trying to volunteer his time to the Democratic Party in a local Hyde Park office. The Ward Healer that was running the office looks at this outsider (Mikva was a Jew from Milwaukee with no Chicago ties) and asks him "Who sent you here?" Mikva replies "Nobody, I just want to volunteer." and the Ward Boss says "Kid, we don't want nobody that nobody sent." That was in 1949 and nothing has really changed. Mikva went on to have a pretty notable career, in Illinois and nationally, but he was never a part of the Machine, and they attempted to screw him over on redistricting every time it came up. The same thing is happening to Walsh right now, after only one term. It's just how it works. It's kinda like the Mob. You are either an insider or an outsider. If you are an outsider, they will let you hang around, and you might even be able to slip one by them once in a while, but you will never be of them.
This is why Obama, the sitting President, wasn't going to have any say in who would be awarded his seat in the Senate.
Regards,
Rich
Rich,
I never met my Chinaman, but I saw some things.
I lived in Chicago from 1987 to 1992, which was an interesting time to be there. When I arrived Harold Washington was mayor and Big Jim Thompson. Both of them were theoretically supposed to be reformers, but from what I could tell, all they did was redirect the power that the Machine/Combine had accumulated and directed to their own purposes. Washington died before he got in too deep and they never caught Big Jim, but they were corrupt. I’m not sure if Jim Edgar was corrupt, but he certainly didn’t change the overall culture.
During the five years I was there, I saw the desultory post-Washington mayoral term of Eugene Sawyer and the Daley restoration. During the course of the five years I was there, I worked on LaSalle Street and got a chance to meet some of the old hands like Tom Foran (who prosecuted the Chicago Seven) and Seymour Simon, among others — Simon was of counsel at the law firm I worked at. I saw how it all worked pretty clearly.
Well...you seem confused over who is an Illinois politician, and who is a politician who happens to work live in Illinois. Believe me, there is a difference. A pretty big one.
Regards,
Rich
Well...you seem confused over who is an Illinois politician, and who is a politician who happens to work live in Illinois. Believe me, there is a difference. A pretty big one.
Not with this president, Rich. I see plenty of Chicago in the Obama administration. And even more in Obama himself. Ask Alice Palmer about his probity. Or ask Jack Ryan. Or refer to your repeated "politics ain't beanbag" references.
The president is a Chicago politician. He is thoroughly of his milieu, with all that implies. You're okay with it. I'm not.
Post a Comment