Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Speaker Paul Ryan
So, yesterday Speaker of the House Paul Ryan gave a press conference:
Any thoughts?
I thought it was impressive. I like the phrase, “The people’s house.” I like the idea of bills coming to the floor for debate, and bills being passed even if they don’t have a chance of being signed by the President. I like the idea that he wants the members to feel they’ve got a voice even if they’re not in leadership positions.
I don’t remember John Boehner giving weekly pressers. Which is probably a good thing, considering how weepy he is …
Published in General
It’s much more fun to flay, slowly…
What’s it been? 8 days since Ryan was duly elected Speaker? Prepare the bonfire…apparently…because he’s just as bad as Boehner.
There is an eerie resemblance to the days of terror after the French Revolution when Citizen Robespierre held sway.
And this is what I get for asking a factual question of Brian Watt.
I’m so sorry. Was there another reason you brought up John Boehner’s previous referenced but not cited remarks? Here’s an opportunity to provide to us the reason for doing so. And if you could provide the citation that would be welcome. Cheers.
In the spirit of Ricochet, where we assume good faith despite any prior knowledge (no Bayesians we!), I accept your apology. I had rather wondered if you found value in the words you cited as a contrast to Boehner, in light of the same sort of thing having been said by John Boehner when he was returned to power. I presume you are familiar with it, being knowledgeable in these things.
The claim that both men said the same thing appears to be yours. Please provide the quotation and the context of the quotation and let’s compare it with the remarks in the video above. Then if the similarity of the remarks are unmistakable then you are still compelled to explain why you’re bringing it to light…is it because you feel that they are empty promises and Ryan, like Boehner, is not to be trusted? Or was there some other reason?
Here’s an article from around those times.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111205863.html
Yeah, why don’t you go ahead and investigate more if you’re interested. That would be great. It was kind of a Big Deal back then. Then you can determine how different the statements are, and explain why you find it so objectionable to point out the similarity. Unless you intended to simply throw up some rah-rah talking points and take umbrage at a few facts.
Never said it was objectionable. Asked why you were bringing it up. Are you suggesting that Ryan will act similarly to Boehner? If so, is it because he’s promising the same things? Is it your feeling that Ryan will eventually become dictatorial, vindictive and close down debate amongst his colleagues? Is there something about Ryan’s personality and experience that suggests that’s the case? Is that how he’s behaved to date?
And while I’m not throwing things at Ryan (hey, somebody has to be Speaker), it’s not correct that we have never seen him in action before. If you imply that we have not, and have no basis on which to judge performance so far, you are wrong. Unlike Ricochet, we get to remember the last time we got hosed by a person, and apply it to future dealings. And still I’m taking a wait-and-see attitude toward Ryan. Conservatives are winning big battles, and I know how to take Yes for an answer. Meanwhile, I’m under no obligation to let fatuous claims go unanswered. I think I’ve simply and adequately backed up my refutation of your claim that this is an improvement over by Boehner, by pointing out that Boehner started out the same way.
It may be better, but as you point out, it remains to be seen. That’s hardly hanging him up by his thumbs. So am I Robespierre, or only CB Toder? Or was there somebody (anybody) else you had in mind? At Ricochet, or was that a comment about, oh, the Tea Party, or conservatives, or the country in general? Now where did I put my guillotine? Must be around here somewhere.
fat·u·ous
adj.
Foolish or silly, especially in a smug or self-satisfied way[…]
Wait, what’s this? Are you outfitting me with words, or do you feel that Boehner “[was] dictatorial, vindictive and close[d] down debate amongst his colleagues”?
Did you feel that way before conservatives ppried him out, or only after? If you supported removing Boehner, I missed it, no sarcasm. Doesn’t sound like your end of the pool.
Or was Boehner a case of “a bastard, but our bastard”?
Just to be clear, because you said that this quote amounts to an improvement over Boehner. Well Boehner said much the same. I hope you’re not going to mount a Clintonian defense based on my using the term “exactly”. We can talk about concepts and not get caught in silly gotchas, right?
I’m saying that so far, the evidence chosen does not show a difference. So far, it shows a similarity.
Yet you wonder why I bring it up. It is amazing that you did not catch the relevance of this similarity even after apparently accepting the quote. Yet, at Ricochet, I must assume that you truly do not grasp the argument, because we are not permitted to assume rhetorical tactics. We reset our memories after each comment. This way, nothing can ever be taken out of context.
I think there is quite enough in Paul Ryan’s personality, demeanor and reputation to suggest that he doesn’t have a vindictive personality or is cut from the same cloth as John Boehner. And yes, vindictiveness was one of the criticisms of Mr. Boehner, that whoever (whomever?) crossed him was summarily dealt with or lost his/her appointment(s) on committees. Have I been critical of Boehner on Ricochet? Well, yes I have come to think of it. Several times. Especially when he chose to openly mock conservative members of Congress. So, I may have been swimming in the same end of the pool as you but maybe before you dove into Ricochet.
Some of the remarks are similar and the proof will be in the performance but my sense is that Ryan will be a much better Speaker than his predecessor because of what I and many others have seen of him to date especially when compared to what we’ve seen of Mr. Boehner. It’s commendable that you and others are wary of any promises made but it’s even more commendable for those to give the guy a chance since he’s only been on the job for about eight days.
The reference to the Terror was a general comment in response to some to the vitriol about Ryan that I’ve seen elsewhere on Ricochet and other more extreme conservative sites.
I agree with almost everything you’ve said there. Except for the part about my wariness being commendable. I have a reputation to consider.
Mama Toad, I would not have watched this if you had not brought it up, mostly because it is too early to speak with any chance at persuading people; or being thoughtful. I get the sense that American conservatives do not understand that politics is simply inseparable from people–conservatives above all in American politics seem to think that principles have a motor force of their own…
So I would have preferred to leave it aside for now & ask all of you later about how the personal is the political, Is Speaker Ryan conservatism embodied?
In an obvious sense, no one is conservatism embodied: Conservatism is not a victorious faith, or much of a fighting faith. But if it were, it would implicitly have accepted a champion. One often hears that complaint among conservatives–we do not have a fighter, we want a fighter. The people who complain so bitterly seem to me to forget, because they are decent people, that the requirements for such a man include an extraordinary level of support. That support is rendered impossible in advance of any test or prudential judgment by the prim habit of holding on to principles–especially holding on to principles to use them as weapons against whoever makes conservatives angry.
So long as conservatism remains a mysticism, free of faults, a series of principles that drive people crazy sometimes but remain inert otherwise, there is no way to know how to treat politicians & what their relation to the electorate is…
A few notes on Speaker Ryan. He is not as good a politician as people fear or hope. He does not get that policy expertise is not the core of politics. So long as wonky types think, you need to add some rhetoric, then it’ll work!, conservatism is not going to be much more successful than it’s been. I can tell you why they think that way, though, & it’s got nothing to do with science–however blind that is to human concerns–or expertise. The cause is a kind of moralism you cannot escape on the right: Conservatism is really the solution to all America’s problems, or at least all the big ones, but Americans just won’t accept that! Conservatism only needs better messaging! I think we’ve all heard it & believed it at least some of the time…
I would say, this delusion is especially typical of the fiscal / libertarian / moderate wing of the party when it comes to policy; & of the moral part of the party when it comes to the far bigger questions that cannot fit within policy–the concern with national character.
Speaker Ryan is on the fiscal side of the party. He does not get much about what it would take to inspire loyalty in the GOP electorate & he will never be successful at it. Those who take his guidance will never get in what ways the House is tied up with public sentiment. But he might thrive as manager-
Why do you think Ryan does not understand politics? Based on this presser? Based on his legislative record?
I disagree with you but think time alone will prove which of us is right.
Yes, time will tell. This presser I think just shows how he thinks about these things. The question about what the role of the House is in American politics–a bunch of sweaty losers Senators contemn & presidents bully for fun–is completely absent from his boasts about how he’s going to change how business is done. I’m of course all for changing it & if anyone knows what the Speaker thinks he & the GOP conference can & should do, please help out with some links or summaries…
Meanwhile, the best policy guy I know on House reform is Mr. Christopher DeMuth. See this long piece here, from October 2014. Or youtube it:
See more sophisticated stuff here.
I’ve been meaning to talk about this on Ricochet, but the ridiculous character of a foreigner telling you about your most popular–so to speak–branch of gov’t keeps getting to me…
For now, let me leave it at saying that bragging about changing things to meet the Founders’ intent, aside from pretending that there’s no powerful motive force behind the changes to the House in the last hundred years, is really deceiving people about whether the GOP Conference even wants this. Lots of troublesome things here, so I do not expect honesty or straightforward talk from…
The changes he wants add up to less power for the Speaker while giving power to committee chairman & influence to members. Really tricky stuff.
If it turns out 2015 will start a revolution in the conduct of congressional business comparable to the rise of the Progressives, your kids can laugh at me unto kingdom come. I wouldn’t even mind.
But let’s consider briefly the implications of House reform. We’re talking about people who need lots of money for re-elections for a measly two-year terms in an organization that keeps facing massive changes in membership while boasting such numbers as to make individuals mostly insignificant, which leads the more ambitious types to leap up to higher office. Because Americans are such a moralistic race, the happy days of pork barrel spending are not so happy anymore. How exactly can such an institution be run?
Well, it’s the people’s House! Every conservative enthusiastic about 2010 should remember the hysteria of 2006. & the other way around for liberals. That’s your people, Mama Toad, for better & for worse.
Public sentiment has among Americans a power, in certain moments, it has nowhere else. But it lacks influence on policy; it lacks any political education; it lacks, finally, staying power. How to build an institution on such a shaky basis?
The implications are quite radical. Speaker Ryan has said, he has no love of fundraising. What can replace money in American politics, Mama Toad?
Now, I do not mean this should not be done. This is a time for dark designs. American politics is such that only the House is guaranteed GOP…
I’m hoping the answer is, virtue.
I am that starry eyed.
Thanks for the links.
Surprisingly, that Conversations with Bill Kristol video from October 26, 2014 does not appear on his podcast feed. I wonder why.
It does appear in the transcript archive though.
The premise is wrong. Conservatism is not to solve all of America’s problems, big or small, but to restore American individuals’ freedom to themselves act in their own interest and solve their own problems without being violated by the faulty collective ideology imposed by Progressives. It’s not complicated.
I’m not sure about Ryan’s political acumen, but I sense his human fairness and goodness. We’ll see.
Human fairness is not political acumen, you are certainly right about that. It may help a man’s reputation, which may help or harm according to acumen…
Now, as to the other part, this is a dodge you cannot use in politics. You can spend the next few generations telling Americans: We don’t want to destroy the welfare state–just to restore your freedom to &c. &c. &c. See how persuasive it really is. Whether you concern yourself with direct rule or indirect rule, people know what they’re voting for. & this is politics, not let-me-explain-the-sophisticated-stuff-you-don’t-understand day at the community college.
There are lots of those conversations; sometimes one long one is truncated. Even the youtube channels are weird–there are about four…
By the way, Mama Toad, whoever wants to hear really clever stuff about politics & related matters, to say nothing of the learned man that have flourished in America in the last two generations, the Conversations are really useful. Hell, they might help to remind people that neo-cons were originally friendly critics of the Great Society–had nothing to do with foreign affairs…
Whoever think that I might be on to something when I start ranting, you’ve got a chance to listen to someone who really is wise. Mr. Harvey Mansfield has any number of talks on youtube there. Several with Mr. Kristol, another with Ricochet’s nicest interviewer ever, Mr. Robinson, & all sorts of other things. Mr. Mansfield also has a channel suitable for people with political concerns at a more theoretical level, the program in constitutional government at Harvard. From legal thinking in today’s America to political philosophy, there are lots of subjects. Including interesting talks on Jane Austen…
Thank you, Titus. I’ll look into them, although I am not sure “clever” is a compliment when you use it…
It’s tricky, we all have some experience of nodding along to someone thinking all the time, I’m not buying this… There is always a danger that being good at argument means you’re blinding yourself you to human experience.
Did I say ‘We don’t want to destroy the welfare state’. And as an individual, I’d rather be right and lose than wrong and win.
Please explain, do you mean, you in fact do not want to destroy the welfare state–or that you want to phrase it differently? If the latter, how?
I guess that’s as admirable as any profession of good or integrity, but what exactly do you have in mind in regard to our conversation?
I mean that I want to see the Federal welfare state disappear and the US Constitution restored to its original meaning that it establishes a Federal republic, including that the 9th and 10th Amendments actually have meaning. There is nothing extreme in such a position, not compared to the extremism of Sanders and Clinton.
Whether or not there is a path to such an outcome is as relevant to me as whether or not there is a path to the nomination for certain of the Presidential candidates of both parties.
I think the main point of those amendments is to remind people about revolution. Only then do natural rights become actual.
As for the nomination path: Please explain: Who do you think could find his way to a major party nomination on the ‘I WANT THE FEDERAL WELFARE TO DISAPPEAR BUT I DID NOT SAY DESTROYED!’ platform?
No, you please explain ‘Have the Progressives gotten us where we are today from a single campaign cycle or over a period spanning a century?’