Paul Ryan: A Duty to Serve
On Monday – which is to say, on Memorial Day – Jennifer Rubin posted a short squib on The Washington Post website. In it she goes after politicians of merit who shy away from running for higher office with the excuse that their decision was based on the needs of their families. She asks pointedly whether this is supposed to mean that those who do run are therefore “less devoted” to their families. She intimates that the whole thing may be “a bit of a dodge.” And to make her point, she directs our attention to the women and men serving in the armed forces.
This weekend, however, I saw firsthand why this reason (however true) is really not an appropriate rationale for politicians. My family and I spent the weekend in Norfolk. There are multiple Army forts and Navy bases in area. On and off base there are thousands of homes, filled with a single spouse and multiple children. Usually it is the dads who are gone six months, but often it is much longer. Having a spouse deployed is not reason for complaint. Life goes on, children go to school, mothers cope and there are no weekends home for the absent dads.
So if a pol doesn’t want to run for office, that’s fine. If he thinks his family is a higher priority than serving in Congress or the White House, many of us can relate. But they should save the sanctimony. Who’s more noble: the pol who decides not to run for the White House or the soldier, marine or sailor who goes overseas no matter how much he loves his family?
If a pol believes his country needs him, is the family dislocation — which involves no personal danger, comes with many perks, permits weekends and vacations with the family, and allows (if they so desire) relocating the family to Washington — justification for not serving? Patriotism, the extraordinary courage and everyday stress borne by our military and their families are something to admire. Many of us could not imagine undertaking it. So if a pol can’t tolerate a far more minor inconvenience, perhaps he should keep it to himself, lest the rest of us think worse of him.
This could be read as a dig at Governor Mitch Daniels, and it does give one pause. But I think that Rubin has Paul Ryan in mind. She has already made it clear that she thinks that he should run, and she has an argument.
There are times – let’s face it – when one woman or man may be as good as another. Virtually any Republican in office (apart from Ron Paul) would be more serviceable as President than the current incumbent. But there are other times when one woman or man is not as good as another. George Washington brought something to the Presidency that no one else could have brought, and it may have made all the difference. Abraham Lincoln did the same in circumstances that were even more trying.
We are not in a crisis as grievous as the crises that these two Presidents faced. The survival of the Union is not at stake. But I believe that there is a great deal on the line – as much as, if not more than at any point in my lifetime. We face a grave crisis, and every such crisis is a golden opportunity.
If President Obama is re-elected, I fear that the die will be cast – that we will go the way of Europe: dependency, crony capitalism, personal irresponsibility, economic stagnation, and military weakness. We are already a long way down that road. What Barack Obama is doing may make our further progress down that road irreversible.
If, on the other hand, we elect a Bob Dole clone – someone more serviceable than the incumbent who would be content to be the tax collector for the welfare state (a category that has long encompassed most Republicans) – there will be a pause in our progress down the road to perdition. But it will only be the kind of pause necessary from time to time if a man on the march is to catch his breath and pull himself together for further marching. The direction will remain the same. The only thing at stake would be the pace. That is what we chose when we elected Eisenhower, Nixon, Bush père, and Bush fils. Every single President on this list increased the size and the scope of the administrative state – just not as much and not as fast as their Democratic opponents would have done.
There is a third possibility. We could actually nominate and elect someone who recognizes the problem as a problem, someone who sees that soft despotism really is liberal democracy’s drift, someone who recognizes the moral resources that the American regime has within it to combat this tendency and who understands how to capitalize on them, someone who would seize the opportunity afforded by the crisis of the entitlements state, make the American people look into the abyss, speak truth to them about the necessity for and the virtues of limited government and personal responsibility, and persuade them that we must now decisively reverse our course.
I do not mean to pour scorn on Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, and George Pataki. They all possess estimable qualities. But I do not think that any of these men have the wit to rise to the occasion. At best, they would do an unseemly imitation of Bob Dole. I think highly of Herman Cain, but he is politically unseasoned, and he knows far too little about the larger world. Businessmen tend to get sideswiped when they become political executives. Service in a cabinet post might down the road make of him a better candidate.
Tim Pawlenty is, I believe, the only plausible candidate in the race – and the truth is that he seems plausible only because we do not yet know him well. He may pan out, and I hope that he does. But he may not. I would hate to have to bet my last dollar on him.
I was of the opinion that Governor Daniels might be the man. I hold to my high opinion of him. But for reasons all his own he has not made himself available. That leaves Paul Ryan – whom I have long thought the best of them all. He has considerable experience in government; and though he has never served in executive office, he has demonstrated in the course of the last year that he has an executive temperament, and he has managed to unite his party behind a program. He is certainly not afraid of taking responsibility.
I could reel off the names of various Congressmen – stretching from Carl Albert to Nancy Pelosi – who have played a prominent role in my lifetime. None of them could be called a statesman. They were competent, clever partisan politicians. Ryan is something different. He has attained a stature that no Congressman in my lifetime has achieved. When I cast my mind back in the past in search of comparable figures, I can come up with only two – James Madison in the First Federal Congress, and Henry Clay, when he was Speaker of the House. There were no doubt others, but the list is not long, and I doubt whether there would be anyone on it who served in the last hundred years.
Ryan is already the standard-bearer of the party. When anyone, such as Newt Gingrich, departs in any serious way from the program that Ryan has outlined, he is told in no uncertain terms by nearly everyone he meets to sit down and shut up. Ryan understands what is at stake. The speeches that he has given indicate that he understands the connection between the social issues (abortion, out-of-wedlock births, and the like), the crisis of the entitlements state, the growth of the administrative state, and the likelihood that we will face economic stagnation and a high level of structural unemployment. He understands this, and he has outlined a program that will start us in the direction of fixing what is wrong.
Some would argue that we need Ryan in the job he now holds. “For what?” I would reply. The man has already done everything that a Congressman could possibly do. To implement the program that he has so skillfully developed and so persuasively presented, he would have to be . . . President of the United States.
I do not know Paul Ryan. I am not acquainted with him. I have never even met the man. If I knew him at all well, I would walk into his office and slap down on his desk Jennifer Rubin’s post. As she points out, lots of Americans in uniform have answered their country’s call. Here is the question I would ask Ryan: “In this crisis, how can you of all people justify not doing what those soldiers have done?” And here is the argument that I would make: “You have the preparation; you have the training; you have the temperament; you have the knowledge; you have the persuasive capacity. We now face a great crisis, and you understand what has to be done better than anyone else. Your country needs you. In the circumstances, what possible excuse could trump that? You have a duty to serve.”
| > |
- Comment (43)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments:
Re: Paul Ryan: A Duty to Serve
StickerShock: This is an excellent draft Ryan argument.
Have you read the exchange between Ryan & Archbiship Dolan from NY regarding the Congressman's budget proposals and their place alongside the Church's call for social justice? http://www.catholicadvocate.com/2011/05/archbishop-dolan-and-rep-paul-ryan-exchange-positive-letters-on-the-budget/?amp&
Ryan is clearly a cut above. · May 31 at 8:22pm
Yes, it was in part that exchange that caused me to write this post.
Jan '11
Re: Paul Ryan: A Duty to Serve
I couldn't agree more with the good Professor. I'm assuming that Rep. Ryan is being inundated with e-mails & calls, but I'm just assuming (you know what that stands for).
Has Professor Rahe forwarded any of his posts or these threads of interest to Rep. Ryan? I think it would have more effect coming from him and all Hillsdale represents than little old me.
Feb '11
Re: Paul Ryan: A Duty to Serve
katievs:
But I can't agree that it's his patriotic duty to run, or that "family concerns" are selfish and/or petty.
· May 31 at 8:50pm
I could not agree more with katievs. I just disagree with Jennifer Rubin's and your argument comparing soldier's service and politician's service to the nation. In both cases, they know what they are getting into and it should be THEIR free choice to do so. Service men are eligible to receive large benefits after their military service, not least of which is hiring preference in life-time employment with the federal government. Why conservatives go all weepy-eyed over military service is a mystery.
I am also beginning to agree far more with John Derbyshire about the Ryan plan and Medicare. Yes, Medicare is unsustainable. But that does not mean that you should throw seniors of a later generation to the wolves of Wall Street who will come up with incomprehensible plans for medical insurance that the federal government will probably re-insure as with Freddie and Fannie leading to yet another huge financial disaster. Republicans will need to learn to square this circle or they face electoral doom.
Dec '10
Re: Paul Ryan: A Duty to Serve
Paul A. Rahe
There is a third possibility. We could actually nominate and elect someone who recognizes the problem as a problem, someone who sees that soft despotism really is liberal democracy’s drift, someone who recognizes the moral resources that the American regime has within it to combat this tendency and who understands how to capitalize on them, someone who would seize the opportunity afforded by the crisis of the entitlements state, make the American people look into the abyss, speak truth to them about the necessity for and the virtues of limited government and personal responsibility, and persuade them that we must now decisively reverse our course...
Virtually any Republican in office (apart from Ron Paul) would be more serviceable as President...
So, despite the first paragraph, Prof. Rahe is on record that he prefers President Obama to Ron Paul. Let that sink in.
This is a perfectly mainstream opinion, of course. But it makes very clear, yet again, that Prof. Rahe cares much more about items not listed in that first paragraph, nor listed anywhere else in this post.
Dec '10
Re: Paul Ryan: A Duty to Serve
katievs: But I can't agree that it's his patriotic duty to run, or that "family concerns" are selfish and/or petty.
He's a religious man.
Someone else may have said selfish, but I used the phrase short-sighted and petty. My argument is the country is at a crossroads this election which will determine whether we go forward in the essential American character of liberty and self-reliance, or we make a left-turn on a one-way street to European social democracy and all the attendant malaise and societal decay. If America's future character isn't a family concern for someone in a position to affect it, it certainly should be!
Paul Ryan knows not to bury one's coin. If he is a good Catholic, he knows obligation.
When I'm not working to recruit him and, hopefully one day soon, working for his campaign, I'll be on my knees begging God for release from this wicked administration. And asking Mary to intercede on behalf of the Ryan family concerns and everyone else's in this great nation.
Re: Paul Ryan: A Duty to Serve
Claire Berlinski, Ed.: Paul: Do you remember when I asked whether anyone had actually changed his or her mind as a result of something written on Ricochet? While my opinion wasn't fixed before, on reading this, I found myself nodding with each sentence, thinking, "You know, that's a good argument," and by the end, was persuaded completely. I had been thinking, "Well, if he doesn't want to do it, he doesn't want to do it, you can't demand that of someone." But now that you've made this case so persuasively, I've changed my mind. If he at all understands the implications of what he himself has argued better than anyone else now in politics, he'll run.
And perhaps that's just what he plans to do. There's some wisdom in leaving the others to destroy one another first before announcing it. · May 31 at 11:06pm
I am glad to have done a service. I hope that you are right in your last paragraph.
Re: Paul Ryan: A Duty to Serve
Frozen Chosen: Might I remind everyone that Paul Ryan - who is very smart and appears to be a fine man and a great congressman - has absolutely zero executive experience. He simply has no experience managing a large organization.
If people want to take a flyer and hope he can figure out the executive part as he goes maybe it will turn out well - or maybe the guy will fall flat on his face!
As an academic, Paul, I think you may have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to practical real world experience which counts just as much as ideology. Successful organizations do not run themselves.Dole. · May 31 at 8:50pm
Actually, last summer, I wrote five posts -- which you can find here -- on the importance of executive experience as an indicator of executive temperament. My argue here is that Ryan has been conducting himself in the manner of an executive this last year. He does not evade responsibility; he seizes it. He makes decisions; he takes controversial stands; he does not evade risks: he welcomes them. This is the primary quality that it takes to run a successful organization -- and Ryan has it in spades.
Re: Paul Ryan: A Duty to Serve
Frozen Chosen:
Finally, I think you do Mitt Romney a great disservice by comparing him to Bob Dole. After his heroic service during WWII, Dole - like McCain - became a political hack. Neither of them accomplished anything (after their brave service) other than stewing in the senate forever. Romney may be a lot of things but he is no Bob Dole. · May 31 at 8:50pm
Actually, after re-reading my piece, I thought that I had done Dole a disservice by mentioning him in the same paragraph with Romney. Dole throughout his career harped on the need for balancing the budget. Romney's greatest accomplishment, as he says himself, is Romneycare.
Re: Paul Ryan: A Duty to Serve
KarlUB
Paul A. Rahe
Virtually any Republican in office (apart from Ron Paul) would be more serviceable as President...
So, despite the first paragraph, Prof. Rahe is on record that he prefers President Obama to Ron Paul. Let that sink in.
This is a perfectly mainstream opinion, of course. But it makes very clear, yet again, that Prof. Rahe cares much more about items not listed in that first paragraph, nor listed anywhere else in this post. · Jun 1 at 6:13a
Yes, indeed. In the nuclear age, if we have no national defense on a perimeter far from our shores, we are apt to have no country. Before he is anything else, the President is Commander-in-Chief.
Re: Paul Ryan: A Duty to Serve
Kowaliczko Tom: I couldn't agree more with the good Professor. I'm assuming that Rep. Ryan is being inundated with e-mails & calls, but I'm just assuming (you know what that stands for).
Has Professor Rahe forwarded any of his posts or these threads of interest to Rep. Ryan? I think it would have more effect coming from him and all Hillsdale represents than little old me. · Jun 1 at 4:38am
No, but I figure that Ryan or someone on his staff skims Ricochet.
May '10
Re: Paul Ryan: A Duty to Serve
Agreed. Ryan has already become Republicans' leader and spokesman for fiscal issues. He can continue to lead budget reform without need of the bully pulpit. We only need a President who will support budget reductions and sign them into law.
Ryan's more useful where he's at.
May '11
Re: Paul Ryan: A Duty to Serve
If Paul Ryan were to enter the race I am not sure anyone other than Ron Paul would continue to run. I wouldn't expect them to drop out until after the first few primaries but it would already be over.
Feb '11
Re: Paul Ryan: A Duty to Serve
As someone who works in the same building as Rep. Ryan and his staff, I believe that this article is about to be mysteriously taped to his Longworth door.
Nov '10
Re: Paul Ryan: A Duty to Serve
MfM,
Pls make sure he reads the posts of those citizens truly appreciative of his work running the Budget Committee.
Re: Paul Ryan: A Duty to Serve
Peter Robinson: Carl Albert? Carl Albert? You know the man from Bugtussle, Oklahoma? Thereby, I can't help supposing, there hangs a wonderful story.
Paul? · May 31 at 9:32pm
There is a story. How wonderful it is I cannot say. We were both Oklahoma Rhodes Scholars (as was Senator David Boren, whom I know tolerably well), and I did him a favor once . . . right down there on his home turf.
Re: Paul Ryan: A Duty to Serve
I sure hope that this was done.
Jul '10
Re: Paul Ryan: A Duty to Serve
I have to take exception to this. Yes, those are executive qualities, and yes Paul Ryan has them. But while those are necessary elements to an executive temperament, they are not sufficient.To wit: the ability to effectively manage people is absolutely essential to an executive.
I know that the term "managerial" is often (and not unreasonably) linked with "progressive" regarding governance. Nevertheless, an executive who accepts personal responsibility, but doesn't hold his own people accountable -a relatively common flaw among smart nice guy types- will constantly be fighting an uphill battle against micromanagement. Which almost inevitably leads to burnout and/or consistent underperformance.
May '11
Re: Paul Ryan: A Duty to Serve
Paul, what about Bobby Jindal? He said back in Dec that he wasn't going to run but I'm a little confused. Did he do something in the last 18 months to shoot himself in the foot? Why wouldn't an Indian-American Roman Catholic Southern governor be a great candidate? By all accounts he has done a great job in LA, right? I'm warming up to T-Paw and I concede that it is too early for Christie, Haley, or Rubio to jump in....but why can't we get Jindal?
Mar '11
Re: Paul Ryan: A Duty to Serve
Why not a BobbyJindal and Thaddeus McCotter?
Re: Paul Ryan: A Duty to Serve
I wrote a piece on him last summer, which you can find here. I like him. He may need a bit of seasoning (and in Louisiana he is getting it). When he responded to Obama's first state of the union message, he seemed weak. Jindal is a guy who makes mistakes once and does not make them again. He has a real future, and he might be vice-presidential timber now.