Guardians of Our Country When Her Life is at Stake
Let it be said of us, as Churchill said of his people in their most difficult hour: 'We ought to rejoice at the responsibilities with which destiny has honored us… and be proud that we are guardians of our country in an age when her life is at stake.'
That was Congressman Paul Ryan, speaking yesterday evening at the Claremont Institute's annual Churchill dinner, and if there's a more bracing or enjoyable way of beginning a Sunday morning than by savoring Paul Ryan's latest speech, I have yet to come across it. Another couple of excerpts:
[W]e are in our own 'Churchillian moment' – threatened, not by foreign aggression, but by a titanic fiscal imbalance that has the potential to crush America’s prosperity and diminish its capacity to lead the world....The thing I’ve learned, talking to the men and women I work for in Southern Wisconsin, is that Americans know we’re in trouble, and they’re ready to be talked to like adults, not pandered to like children. Churchill had a great faith in the good sense of the British people. This was the source of his ability to inspire all who heard him – he didn’t merely believe in his words, but also in those he was speaking to.
[T]he President...still has not put forward a credible plan to tackle the threat of ever-rising spending and debt. He has deferred the task of solving these challenges to one commission after another, only to ignore their recommendations. And it has been over 900 days since his party even bothered to pass a budget in the Senate....
Your leaders owe you a real choice. Do you want the President’s path of debt, doubt and decline, where government goes from promoting equal opportunity to equalizing the results of our lives? Or do you want the American idea: the opportunity society with the safety net, dedicated to liberty, equality of opportunity, and upward mobility...?
It is our moral obligation, as elected representatives, to give the American people this choice.
Read the entire magnificent address right here.
- Comment (30)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: Guardians of Our Country When Her Life is at Stake
Remember, too, that the distinctions between Britain's parliamentary system and our form of representative democracy are significant enough to put a big hole in the "Ryan as Churchill" metaphor, even if it is just a metaphor. Churchill was literally selected by his predecessor, opponents, and colleagues, and symbolically called by the King. Ryan, as Palaeologus pointed out, was being called "merely" to jump in with ten other candidates in the primaries. He would still have had to face the voters, many of whom would not have in his camp. He would not have been negotiating with Cain and Bachmann, convincing them to get behind him in a coalition government following the resignation of Obama. He did not walk out on meetings with Boehner, McConnell, and Priebus where he had been selected to fill the position, telling them no. I know that the point is not to make a direct comparison, but again, I think that the differences are significant enough that the premise of the comparison as made above borders on unreasonable.
Having said that, would the race have been better had he gotten in? Of course.
Dec '10
Re: Guardians of Our Country When Her Life is at Stake
Paul Ryan
I'm wondering how many of you agree with Ryan that the American idea includes a (presumably government sponsored) safety net. Has that always been part of the American idea? If not, has it become so? And if it has become so, should we accept and embrace this new version of the American idea, as Ryan apparently has? Ryan rates to become an ever more important voice going forward. If we choose to support that voice, we are also choosing to endorse his characterization of the American idea. Seems to me this is something we should carefully consider.
Dec '10
Re: Guardians of Our Country When Her Life is at Stake
Churchill was truly the consensus candidate among Labour, the Liberals, and the Tories to lead the country, whereas Ryan was the favorite of a subset of his own party.
Beyond that, here's one more point: in addition to wanting to see his kids grow up (which I agree is not enough of a reason), maybe Ryan genuinely believes that he can best fulfill his duty to his country by staying where he is. If that is the case he hasn't weaseled out of a Churchillian situation, and maybe we should take his rhetoric and run with it rather than disregard him as a hypocrite. Labeling him a pretender and calling down shame on his family goes too far.
Edited on Nov 13, 2011 at 8:56pmDec '10
Re: Guardians of Our Country When Her Life is at Stake
This conversation has been great, among other reasons because it prompted me to pull Manchester's "The Last Lion," off the shelf for the first time in a while. What a magnificent work.
Regardless of his status, I agree with Ryan that we are in a crisis of historic proportions. I hope that by some miracle whomever is the nominee can, in the words of Manchester (quoting Isaiah Berlin) "[impose] his 'imagination and his will upon his countrymen,' idealizing them 'with such intensity that in the end they approached his ideal and began to see themselves as he saw them.'"
Dec '10
Re: Guardians of Our Country When Her Life is at Stake
Did Ryan ever offer that as a reason for not running?
Dec '10
Re: Guardians of Our Country When Her Life is at Stake
Freeven
Did Ryan ever offer that as a reason for not running? · Nov 13 at 8:49pm
Feb. 2010 - "I'll give you as Shermanesque a quote as I can," said Ryan. "I am not going to run for president. I'm just not going to do it. My head's not that big, and my kids are too small.”
August 2011 - "I remain grateful to those I serve in Southern Wisconsin for the unique opportunity to advance [debt and entitlement reform] in Congress."
Edited on Nov 13, 2011 at 9:05pmJul '10
Re: Guardians of Our Country When Her Life is at Stake
Good questions, Freeven.
No.
Freeven
If not, has it become so?
Yes.
Yes. If we don't, we're marginal. We have a fiscal crisis, yes. But it is a rich country's fiscal crisis.
It is absolutely necessary to point out the often counterproductive nature of entitlement programs. It is right to note that those who push these programs tend to dig the power they accrue from spreading, and controlling, the wealth.
But we're fools if we won't temporarily help those who've had bad breaks.
It is sad that we've reached the point where a 99 week limit for unemployment benefits is a "draconian cut-off" but the answer isn't to pretend that no bennys would be a popular alternative.
Dec '10
Re: Guardians of Our Country When Her Life is at Stake
I predict the Republican nominee will not try to enlist Ryan as VP. Can you imagine Romney, or any other of the current field having a VP nominee who is more knowledgeable and eloquent regarding the crisis at hand out there stumping for him? Has a president ever had "the better man" in the number 2 spot?
People who say a small subset of Republicans would have supported Ryan are wrong, in my experience. People in my circle know I'm a political junkie. When they ask me who I like, I say, "my guy isn't running." To which every one of them has replied, "Paul Ryan. I would have voted for him."
May '10
Re: Guardians of Our Country When Her Life is at Stake
If all of the above Ryan adoration is sincere (which I do not doubt), Why is there not more enthusiasm for Huntsman? He is the only candidate actually running who has tabled an entitlement reform proposal along the lines of Ryan's. From what I have seen, he has a pretty good handle on both the opportunities and approach for achieving the economic growth we so desperately need. He has a pragmatic, practical and experienced view on foreign affairs. He speaks well.
In short, at least on what has been put on the table so far, he has presented a Ryan + set of policy proposals.
I am not saying that Huntsman is my preferred candidate - I am saying that if you really like Ryan, he should be at least somewhat attractive.
Rock ribbed conservative he may not be (or may be, I don't know) but his combination of proven experience plus proposals more in line with what everyone is saying they like, should in theory at least make him a serious contender. Why isn't he?
Apr '11
Re: Guardians of Our Country When Her Life is at Stake
Western Chauvinist
I predict the Republican nominee will not try to enlist Ryan as VP. Can you imagine Romney, or any other of the current field having a VP nominee who is more knowledgeable and eloquent regarding the crisis at hand out there stumping for him? Has a president ever had "the better man" in the number 2 spot?
People who say a small subset of Republicans would have supported Ryan are wrong, in my experience. People in my circle know I'm a political junkie. When they ask me who I like, I say, "my guy isn't running." To which every one of them has replied, "Paul Ryan. I would have voted for him." · Nov 14 at 5:36am
Pierce, Taylor, Harding, Ike, JFK, Reagan, Bush 43, and Clinton both had more knowledgeable VPs. Jackson had 2 of 'em.
Ford, Dole, and McCain ran with superior VPs.
Romney and Ryan get along, and approve of each other's (pretty similar) economic plans. They're both team players and would be good teammates, but Ryan's position in the House is vital for the moment.