Electing the Wrong People, or Why We Shouldn't Mourn Paul Ryan (and Mitch Daniels)
Mark Wilson ·
Aug 24, 2011 at 9:05am
Lately, and earlier this year, Ricochet contributors and members alike have found ourselves swooning and fawning, heaving and hoing, rising and falling, over the latest news about which of our to-be-standard bearers is running, or deciding not to run, or reconsidering and then confirming once more that they are definitely not thinking about possibly running for president.
I say we should keep a more even keel and avoid this taxing emotional mania. Let the great Milton Friedman remind us why it's not always so important to get the "right" people into office, and why we shouldn't wait for a hero.
- Comment (32)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Sep '10
Re: Electing the Wrong People, or Why We Shouldn't Mourn Paul Ryan (and Mitch Daniels)
Shame on MF for insinuating that these politicians are self-serving and engaged in the business of advancing their own careers, this would not be a popular view on Ricochet. The myth that these people are patriots engaged in public service has been sold not only by the politicians, but by the people who have been writing about them. On another post Jeb Bush was lauded for saying we should not question politician’s motives. I would submit this is the first thing that should be questioned.
Apr '11
Re: Electing the Wrong People, or Why We Shouldn't Mourn Paul Ryan (and Mitch Daniels)
In what might be the most winnable election against an incumbent president, the GOP leaders and voters insist on behaving as the Party of Stupid. All of our best presidential candidates are sitting this one out, and the top-tier of the current crop consists of candidates with fatal flaws that will make a general election win impossible. I am concerned that we are letting this one slip through our fingers, so I do mourn the non-entry of both Daniels and Ryan.
Mar '11
Re: Electing the Wrong People, or Why We Shouldn't Mourn Paul Ryan (and Mitch Daniels)
I don't agree - Mr Obama will never to the right thing. Neither will Ron Paul - the person does matter. Let's not even mention Mr Biden.
As others have commented, an endorsement from Ricochet seems to be the kiss of death for a potential candidate, so we should maybe just sit back and let it all happen, and vote for whoever seems best next year.
I'm still a secret Sarah Palin admirer, but don't tell anyone ...
Edited on Aug 24, 2011 at 9:15amSep '10
Re: Electing the Wrong People, or Why We Shouldn't Mourn Paul Ryan (and Mitch Daniels)
The only thing that would have made this video perfect would have been for Uncle Milt to take a sip of tea at the end.
Apr '11
Re: Electing the Wrong People, or Why We Shouldn't Mourn Paul Ryan (and Mitch Daniels)
Well, he does have a point. Like other dogs, the politician will respond to training with the proper stimuli. It is the responsibility of the owner to provide consistent messaging towards the desired behavior and negative messaging at each occurrence of undesirable behavior. One issue is that we seem to have a few million owners and many don't even know their dog's name.
Apr '11
Re: Electing the Wrong People, or Why We Shouldn't Mourn Paul Ryan (and Mitch Daniels)
double post.
Edited on Aug 24, 2011 at 9:34amDec '10
Re: Electing the Wrong People, or Why We Shouldn't Mourn Paul Ryan (and Mitch Daniels)
So getting the government to do the right thing entails getting the people to want the government to do the right thing. If we run Friedman's logic backwards, the politically expedient thing is to buy votes with largess from the treasury because that is what people currently want. I think we're looking at a "hearts and minds" campaign like in Afghanistan and Iraq. How are those working out?
Todd Zywicki wrote a law review article a while back that delves pretty deeply into the motivations of certain of our elected officials. It's a long, but good, read.
Re: Electing the Wrong People, or Why We Shouldn't Mourn Paul Ryan (and Mitch Daniels)
Beautiful.
Lord, but I miss him.
Nov '10
Re: Electing the Wrong People, or Why We Shouldn't Mourn Paul Ryan (and Mitch Daniels)
It's a good clip -- thanks for posting. There's doubtlessly much truth to it. However, insofar as human beings are not merely utility maximizing beings responding to incentives, Friedman overlooks that part of human nature that is characterized by such things as honor/pride, desire to rule, and willingness to fight for notions of the good (and to do so in ways at odds with one's self-interest, whether we're speaking of steeled persistence at Valley Forge replete with hardtack and sub-zero temperatures, or Obama's famous statement that he'd rather go down as a one-term President). Politics shapes culture.
Conservatives, in contrast to libertarians, tend to understand human beings as moral-political beings, and therefore understand self-interest in terms of personal responsibility or accountability in a more comprehensive way than libertarians do. It’s a more complete way of looking at the world.
Jun '10
Re: Electing the Wrong People, or Why We Shouldn't Mourn Paul Ryan (and Mitch Daniels)
Bill Clinton would be an example of Friedman's rule. Barack Obama...uh...no.
Re: Electing the Wrong People, or Why We Shouldn't Mourn Paul Ryan (and Mitch Daniels)
There is one problem with Friedman's argument, and it points to the reason why we need a Mitch Daniels or a Paul Ryan. Friedman is no doubt right about Congress. The trick is to get the wrong people to do the right things, and that is what the Tea Party has achieved with the Republicans. But there is also a need for leadership and persuasion. Politics and elections matter a whole lot more than folks like Friedman are apt to think, and politics turns on persuasion. If we do not have a standard-bearer capable of making the case on behalf of the ideas we espouse, if there is no process by which we manage to persuade our fellow citizens, then the wrong people will continue to do the wrong things. It took the Lincoln-Douglas debates to bring home to the American people what was at stake in 1860. We need someone who is ruthless, cunning, and exceedingly persuasive to make the argument when the American public is listening -- in 2012. In the absence of the sort of debate that Paul Ryan would have fostered, we will lose. The natural tendency of democracy is soft despotic drift.
Nov '10
Re: Electing the Wrong People, or Why We Shouldn't Mourn Paul Ryan (and Mitch Daniels)
Or perhaps even worse?
"Tocqueville’s democratic despotism does not use criminal penalties . . . he did not expect democratic leaders to be tyrants, but rather schoolmasters. On the evidence of the twentieth century alone, he was drastically wrong. Democracies – in Tocqueville’s sense of that term – have proven capable of tyrannies more brutal and more pervasive than anything imagined in previous ages . . . it suffices to say that he misevaluated the human desire to rule. This is an error characteristic of modern political science from Machiavelli on: The assumption that human nature (or a part of human nature) is non-political."
--John Adams Wettergreen, Claremont Review of Books, Spring, 1988.
May '10
Re: Electing the Wrong People, or Why We Shouldn't Mourn Paul Ryan (and Mitch Daniels)
The Lincoln-Douglas debates are an excellent example of the persuasion you are talking about, but neither man was running for a popularly elected office at the time. So does this persuasion necessarily have to come from a presidential candidate this time around? Even if Ryan isn't running for president, he and many others are still making a strong public case for doing the right thing.
Dec '10
Re: Electing the Wrong People, or Why We Shouldn't Mourn Paul Ryan (and Mitch Daniels)
And Daniels/Ryan advocates are accused of swooning, fawning...? What recent evidence supports Friedman's theory?
You've got the wrong people doing the wrong thing: Democrats, acting against their near-term political interests, cram down ObamaCare (delenda est; the term and phrase are forever linked). Proof: 2010
You've got the right people doing the wrong thing: GWB increasing federal expenditures from 10% to 60% in every department and then signing the blank TARP check for Obama. Proof: 2008
If anything, I'm probably less alarmed by a potential Romney presidency than I should be because I'm guessing he'll be forced to do the right thing by large TEA Party majorities in the Senate and the House. Let's hope Friedman is right this time.
Sep '10
Re: Electing the Wrong People, or Why We Shouldn't Mourn Paul Ryan (and Mitch Daniels)
Have you considered that Ryan, Daniels, Rubio etc. sense something about what is gong on in the country that you do not? In the end FDR's fireside chats and vaunted New Deal had little positive effect. The depression more or less ran its course. The last down turn was a mere 5% not 25%,, if a severe down turn lies ahead the next President will not get to play sugar daddy as FDR did. Persuasion and leadership have minimal effects on angry mobs.
Sep '10
Re: Electing the Wrong People, or Why We Shouldn't Mourn Paul Ryan (and Mitch Daniels)
The bailouts were opposed by 70% of the public. At the time they were passed the Tea Party was in its infancy. If the bailout vote was held a year later when the Tea Party movement was more developed does anyone believe it would have passed? I am sure MF would say no.
Sep '10
Re: Electing the Wrong People, or Why We Shouldn't Mourn Paul Ryan (and Mitch Daniels)
Seems like a valid point. I wonder if he could perceive at the time when he spoke those words the impending death of honest journalism coming down the rails. With a 4th column that has devolved into such a vicious propaganda machine, maintaining honest pressure to make the "bums" vote right long for any extended period seems arduous. I guess we will find out. A voting demographic with large swathes of entitlement demented zombies, lobotomized from all work ethic and personal responsibility is not difficult to nudge, sway, or bait. The right people for the upcoming elections have never been so important in my opinion. We need someone believable, principled, and talented as an orator. Reganesque charisma, Clintonian grease?(maybe not). Most of the current candidates for GOP no matter how capable on paper or touching in bio ,do not have this gift. Chris Christie is the only one even on the radar in this category, salesman, cowboys, and novelties won't do this time I am afraid, if we want to cure what ails us... have you forgotten what a speech should sound like? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-p-Nuu8hYQ
Nov '10
Re: Electing the Wrong People, or Why We Shouldn't Mourn Paul Ryan (and Mitch Daniels)
Dr. Rahe again shows why he's number one on my Ricochet follow list. Many citizens who have yet to engage in the political process this cycle will learn of the candidates' and parties' positions through the media (distortions) and watching a debate or speech from the candidates. If we do not present a standard-bearer who is able to persuade our fellow citizens not only of WHAT we need to do, but WHY, we miss an opportunity to finally have a principled conservative at the national level. This is why I, along with Dr. Rahe and many others, were and are such strong supporters of Paul Ryan. He is the most persuasive conservative voice at the national level since Ronald Reagan. As much as I love Milton Friedman (he is my hero, after all, because I believe him to be perhaps the greatest intellectual freedom fighter of the twentieth century), I think even he might alter that stance were he still with us (R.I.P.). It does raise the question, though: who is the greatest intellectual freedom figher of our time? There doesn't seem to be anyone like Milton Friedman anymore, and more is the pity.
May '11
Re: Electing the Wrong People, or Why We Shouldn't Mourn Paul Ryan (and Mitch Daniels)
Milton Friedman's Free to Choose series on PBS in 1980 was instrumental in my conversion to conservatism. You can watch the whole thing here. Thank God for the internet.
Re: Electing the Wrong People, or Why We Shouldn't Mourn Paul Ryan (and Mitch Daniels)
Mark Wilson
The Lincoln-Douglas debates are an excellent example of the persuasion you are talking about, but neither man was running for a popularly elected office at the time. So does this persuasion necessarily have to come from a presidential candidate this time around? Even if Ryan isn't running for president, he and many others are still making a strong public case for doing the right thing. · Aug 24 at 10:47am
They were both running for the Senate at the time, pressing for a victory by their parties in the elections to the Illinois House and Senate. But you are right that one does not have to be a Presidential candidate to contribute to the debate. However, the nomination of a party provides one with a bully pulpit. None better.