There are two forms of conventional wisdom when it comes to presidential running mates. One is that they are a game changer. The other is that they don’t matter. Both are, for the most part, wrong.
First let’s consider the first. According to a couple of polls by Gallup, voter response to Republican Mitt Romney’s picking of U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan came in two forms: no reaction or the least positive reaction.
“But Republicans are relatively pleased,” the poll noted.
That, I think, tells you why Romney picked Paul.
Whatever the reality might be, Romney was always considered the weakest conservative among an already weak field of Republican presidential contenders. You may have noticed that the general election effectively began when Rick Santorum dropped out of the running, but Romney has looked as if he’s still in the primary. That’s because his record as governor of liberal Massachusetts, his Mormonism and his establishment credentials as representative of the business lobby have meant that conservatives of various stripes have tended to look askance at Romney. If you have any doubt, consider that arch-conservative radio-show host Rush Limbaugh gushed at the news of Ryan’s entree into the race:
One of the reasons that so many conservatives, all during the Republican primary process, were so forlorn, was that there wasn’t anybody that could articulate what we believe. (chuckles) They were all on the radio. Where are they in the Republican Party? Admit it! Well, we now have somebody on the ticket who’s us. Somebody’s on the ticket who can explain all of this, who believes all of this in his heart and in his soul [my emphasis].
By that, Limbaugh means the Wisconsin congressman has impeccable credential among conservatives. He is seen as a deficit hawk, devotee of free-market principles and author of a federal budget twice passed by the Republican-controlled House. For these reasons, it was very shrewd to pick Paul.
But risky too. There are two important and conflicting theories to keep in mind in this election. One is that Romney had to move to the political center to appeal to that wide middle ground of coveted centrist voters. The other is that there are fewer centrist voters to fight over. President Barack Obama has been appealing to centrist voters pretty much since he first ran for the White House, and this campaign season is no exception. Romney, on the other hand, is betting that there are fewer centrists to court. That’s why he hasn’t pivoted to the center when everyone thought he should. And that’s why he’s picking Paul Ryan.
Defining Republicans — personally and politically
It’s a gamble but Romney doesn’t have a choice. The president has successfully defined Romney mostly because Romney failed to define himself (because his right-wing was a constant threat). He wanted to make this campaign all about the economy, but no candidate for the American presidency can win without telling a story about himself. You can’t just say what you are against and not say what you are for. With Ryan, he can finally say, without making too much of it, what he is for.
As I say, not making too much of it. That’s the problem from here on out.
Ryan’s signature achievement in his decade-long career has been getting Republicans in the House to pass a federal budget that fundamentally redefines Medicare and Social Security. It’s this achievement that has given him the reputation of a fiscal conservative. But let’s be clear. Paul Ryan isn’t a fiscal conservative.
He voted for the Bush tax cuts. He voted for war in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which were debt-financed during a time, as former Vice President Dick Cheney said, when “deficits don’t matter.” And he voted for Medicare Part D, which amounted to billions in giveaways. So Paul Ryan wasn’t a deficit hawk when a Republican sat in the Oval Office. He is known for worrying about the future of American children, but whatever hard times those children face will be in part thanks to Paul Ryan.
None of this caused our deficit woes, according to Ryan. The real culprit is “entitlements” like Medicare and Social Security. These are socialist programs (his words) that are weakening the hardy can-do spirit of America. That is a powerful argument, as I say, among conservatives, but a death knell (literally) for a critical voting bloc: elderly whites who depend on social insurance programs like Medicare.
If Ryan got his way, he’d issue vouchers to the elderly for a set amount of money to be used for medical costs. If those costs exceed the amount of that voucher, well, that’s your problem. In his view, our country will be better off if you’re on the hook, not the government. Medicare currently pays for all costs, no matter how old and sick you are. That wouldn’t be the case if Ryan’s vision for America became reality.
So to recap. Ryan is partly to blame for our deficits. Now that he’s a self-style deficit hawk, he’s at least a hypocrite. But it’s worse than that. He believes, or says he believes, that the old and sick should fend for themselves. It’s better the federal budget. He’s not just hypocritical; he’s inhumane as well.
The role of a vice president
And here’s where I return to conventional wisdom. Ryan is a game-changer — for Republicans. But is it true that vice presidents don’t matter much? Probably to voters, but that’s probably not the case, again, for Republicans. Democratic presidents have tended to demonstrate clearly who’s in charge. There was abundant worry when Obama chose Hillary Clinton, his former rival, to be Secretary of State. Would this be the Obama’s Cabinet or Clinton’s. No one doubts who’s the boss nearly four years later.
But already Romney has had to make of point of saying that this is going to be my budget and my administration and not Paul Ryan’s. That’s fine, but Republicans don’t have a good track record. Remember how much influence Cheney had on George W. Bush. And Grover Norquist, whose anti-tax pledge Romney has signed, has notoriously said that Republicans don’t need someone in the White House who can think, just someone who can follow instructions. If there’s anything we have learned about Romney in the past year, it’s his willingness, even eagerness, to please his Republican Party.
Romney wants to believe Americans are so worried about the deficit that they’d vote for his ticket. And I’m guessing he’s hoping to see the same energy that we saw in 2010. But I seriously doubt anyone — especially the elderly, who vote more constantly than any other kind of American — is so worried about the federal deficit that he or she would sacrifice the guarantees of Medicare. That would assume that Americans are not pragmatic, and if nothing else, Americans are just that. Romney shouldn’t underestimate that national quality. Maybe he doesn’t, but his party won’t allow anything else.