Elsewhere
The New Republic‘s Leon Wieseltier on “Paul Ryan’s nasty ideal of self-reliance“:
Ryan is animated as much by a theory of government as by a theory of life; but his theory of government is erected in part on his theory of life. For government, limits; for the individual, no limits. A terrible fear of dependence has led him to a terrible exaggeration of independence. The self in Ryan’s self-reliance is a monster. I would not raise a child, let alone design a budget, on this stunted ideal. In a new book on child-rearing, I recently read this: “We tend to encourage self-reliance (a good trait), but resourcefulness is even better. Why? Because resourcefulness is the ability to both independently and optimally solve daily problems and to seek help from others when we can’t problem-solve independently.” It does not exactly sing, but it is exactly wise. We are not only a self-reliant nation, we are also a resourceful nation. But Paul Ryan’s plan for America would undo its magnificent inclination toward community, and leave us not only economically insolvent but also morally insolvent.
Historian Timothy Snyder on why Romney chose Ryan as his running mate:
Romney’s choice of an ideologist as his running mate made a kind of sense. Romney the financier made hundreds of millions of dollars in an apparent single-minded pursuit of returns on investment; but as a politician he has been less noted for deep principles than for expediently changing his positions. Romney’s biography was in need of a plot and his worldview was in need of a moral. Insofar as he is a man of principle, the principle seems to be is that rich people should not pay taxes. His fidelity to this principle is beyond reproach, which raises certain moral questions. Paying taxes, after all, is one of our very few civic obligations. By refusing to release his tax returns, Romney is likely trying to keep embarrassing tax dodges out of public view; he is certainly communicating to like-minded wealthy people that he shares their commitment to doing nothing that could possibly help the United States government. The rationale that Ryan’s ideology provides for this unpatriotic behavior is that taxing rich people hinders the market. Rather than engaging in activist politics, such as bailing out General Motors or public schools, our primary responsibility as American citizens is to give way to the magic of the marketplace, and applaud any associated injustices as necessary and therefore good.
Paul Krugman on Ryan’s undeserved reputation as an “Honest, Serious Conservative”:
What Mr. Ryan actually offers…are specific proposals that would sharply increase the deficit, plus an assertion that he has secret tax and spending plans that he refuses to share with us, but which will turn his overall plan into deficit reduction.If this sounds like a joke, that’s because it is. Yet Mr. Ryan’s “plan” has been treated with great respect in Washington. He even received an award for fiscal responsibility from three of the leading deficit-scold pressure groups. What’s going on? The answer, basically, is a triumph of style over substance.
Wieseltier writes:
“In a new book on child-rearing, I recently read this: “We tend to encourage self-reliance (a good trait), but resourcefulness is even better. Why? Because resourcefulness is the ability to both independently and optimally solve daily problems and to seek help from others when we can’t problem-solve independently.” It does not exactly sing, but it is exactly wise. We are not only a self-reliant nation, we are also a resourceful nation. But Paul Ryan’s plan for America would undo its magnificent inclination toward community, and leave us not only economically insolvent but also morally insolvent.”
This is an illustrative point. The Ayn Rand conservative may scoff at the notion that resourcefulness consists of anything except providing – quite literally – resources for the masterful individual to exploit. The Tea Party conservative would claim that an all-pervasive government actually hampers resourcefulness because it crowds out mediating institutions which provide communal resources. And Wieseltier’s brand of progressivism apparently doesn’t conceive of any communal resources except those provided by government programs.
Jim,
You write: “The Tea Party conservative would claim that an all-pervasive government actually hampers resourcefulness because it crowds out mediating institutions which provide communal resources.”
No doubt some conservatives would claim this. But most Tea Party conservatives seem more interested in discouraging the vices of the poor (sloth, shiftlessness, dependency) than in encouraging the generosity of the rich. They describe those who receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes as parasites. Their world is not populated by the needy and the generous, but by “makers” being dragged down by “takers.”
You write: “And Wieseltier’s brand of progressivism apparently doesn’t conceive of any communal resources except those provided by government programs.”
That’s not at all apparent to me. First, Wieseltier would call himself a liberal, not a progressive (and there are a good many self-described progressives who would be unhappy sharing that designation with Wieseltier). Second, Wieseltier is a member of more than one “mediating institution.” He’s a proud citizen of the Fourth Estate, and he’s a Jew who attended the Yeshiva in Flatbush. So he knows a thing or two about communal resources. But he also knows, as Paul Ryan seems not to, that in a democracy government can be an instrument of virtue rather than just a substitute for it. The just distribution of goods is no less an expression of a democratic community’s virtue than alms are the expression of a rich man’s virtue. A democratic community that wasn‘t virtuous wouldn’t tolerate the redistribution of wealth to those most in need of it.
“But most Tea Party conservatives seem more interested in discouraging the vices of the poor (sloth, shiftlessness, dependency) than in encouraging the generosity of the rich. ”
Matthew – the Tea Party itself and what it believes in is difficult to define because it’s not a formally organized movement. But I don’t think you’ve characterized the Tea Party accurately if you think what animates it is making war on the poor. In fact, I believe Ryan has fond hopes that the gaps in the social safety net that will occur as some social service programs are curtailed will be bridged by private charitable giving – i.e. by the generosity of the rich. Mitt Romney is being lionized this week as a shining example of this generosity.
The Tea Party, at its essence, is about limited government and fiscal responsibility. There are a lot of ways of getting there, and in fact Ryan said all the right things last night about preserving the promise of government social insurance programs.
When I wrote, “Wieseltier’s brand of progressivism apparently doesn’t conceive of any communal resources except those provided by government programs”, it’s because I don’t know how else to make sense of his claim that “Paul Ryan’s plan for America would undo its magnificent inclination toward community”. Paul Ryan’s plan is designed to limit government growth and reduce the deficit. If Wieseltier doesn’t equate limiting government growth with undoing America’s magnificent inclination toward community, then what does he mean?
“But he also knows, as Paul Ryan seems not to, that in a democracy government can be an instrument of virtue rather than just a substitute for it. ”
Certainly, a conservative like Ryan would argue, at the very least, that to the extent that government can be an instrument of virtue, it’s a blunt, crude, expensive and ineffective instrument. He might add that government is also an instrument of vice – of cupidity, corruption, injustice, cronyism, etc.
Jim P. –
Would you say that our military is a blunt, crude and ineffective instrument? Does the government build bad bridges and roads? Are all the public schools no good? Are the courts a sham? The foreign service? The IRS? Etc., etc.