In the New York Review of Books, Timothy Snyder has fun with Ryan’s ideas (“A specter is haunting the Republican National Convention”), and presents Romney and Ryan as a marriage of convenience:
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 then 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.
This is where Ryan comes in. Romney provides the practice, Ryan the theory. Romney has lots of money, but has never managed to present the storyline of his career as a moral triumph. Ryan, with his credibility as an ideas politician, seems to solve that problem.
I really like the idea of Rand and Hayek getting to be the haunting specters this time around.
More subtly snarky than David Brooks column today (which he is now saying was a parody of what he’s seeing in the media, not a shot at Romney) but almost as much fun.
Good piece; I nearly posted on it. I liked this at the end:
“The way to national prosperity in the twenty-first century is surely to think non-ideologically, to recognize that politics is a choice among constraints and goods rather than a story about a single good that would triumph if only evil people would allow it to function without constraints. The market works very well for some things, the government is desperately needed for others, and stories that dismiss either one are nothing more than ideology.”
“Insofar as he is a man of principle, the principle seems to be is that rich people should not pay taxes. ”
It is odd that in America we pass laws about taxation and then when a citizen follows those laws he is somehow immoral and unpatriotic. Oh well ….. It’s campaign season
@ Franklin. Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence. Since Romney refuses to release his tax returns, we have no idea whether he has followed all tax laws or not. One common theory about why he is refusing to disclose is that he actually evaded taxes for several years and then took advantage of IRS amnesty programs during the Bush Administration to bring assets back to the US from overseas without having to pay back taxes. Another is that he used illegal tax dodges (like “Son of BOSS”) which the IRS did not catch but which might be discovered by Democrats going over his taxes more carefully.
Alan. Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence. In fact, you say so before you go on to present the facts. (One common theory – can we say this has as much merit as Senator Reid’s claims of what “somebody, I’ve forgotten who, said….)
Currently there is no law that a candidate has to release any tax records while a candidate. The only reason this has come up this year is that BHO has tried to make it an issue that “HE THINKS” his opponent this year should release the number of years returns that “HE THINKS” should be released. HE has determined that to be 10 this year. Four years ago, he didn’t insist that his opponent then should do anything more than his opponent decided to do – which in that case was the more normal two years. But of course “HE” was not annointed as the all-powerful determiner of what should be required, no matter what the statutes might say.
So now – because a “common theory says” – that this year, the challenger should do what the challenged thinks is right. Interesting concept for a democracy, or a republic. But as long as you have the MSM on your side in raising the issue, rather than looking at the problems with the country (i.e. real concerns about where and how the country is headed) you can keep them screaming from the rooftops, repeating “common theories”, and what “somebody said, but I can’t remember who” as the issues in the country.
But more interesting is your “2nd theory” – guess it is not a “common one” but hey, what’s the difference. Maybe the truth is he filed according to what the laws allowed, but he doesn’t have any reason to release his returns just because you want them.
BTW, were you on board asking Democrat Molpus for his tax returns in 1995? I seem to remember that he wouldn’t release his then – and my theory was that although he was making a lot of money, he didn’t pay any, or many, taxes because he took advantage of all the benefits allowed by our tax codes. (Many section 8 type projects – perfectly legal, and good ways to avoid taxes). Might not have been the reason, he might just have wanted to not release them. It wasn’t required and nobody really screamed about him not releasing them.
Just asking. :)
Alan–Exception! I presume innocence. It is also the law.
Are not all 2012 politicians ideologues of some form? Do we have a true pragmatic politician? Is not pragmatic politician oxymoronic? Obama is a strong ideologue yet the phrase is thrown around to suggest blindness or shadow-boxing.
The only people who think Obama is a “strong ideologue” are themselves irredeemable ideologues. You can be sure than none of the strong ideologues on the left (among whom I am not counted) don’t think that for one second. Assuming one knows the meaning of “ideologue,” it’s an idiotic thing to think, embarrassng to say out loud.
Is not pragmatic politician oxymoronic?
Scarcely. Disraeli defined politics as the art of the possible. FDR, Eisenhower, LBJ were pragmatic politicians. Even the healthcare law was pragmatic – why do you think the Dems went with a version of a Republican governor’s state program?
Anderson makes a valid point. PBP, “irredeemable”? “idiotic”? Rather ideologuish don’t you think?
No, HD, that’s not what “ideological” means. The most important part of my comment was “[a]ssuming one knows the meaning of ideologue…” I was trying to give you an out there, since you don’t know the meaning of the word or, apparently, much of anything about government or history, thus necessitating Anderson’s quick instruction on the already widely known.
PBP, you do this blog an injustice by attacking me personally. I shall ignore any of your future posts.
“Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them.” – Vaclav Havel
I don’t know anything about you personally, HD. I attacked your ability to support an argument. That’s pretty much all I ever do here with the people with whom I disagree. My calling a point you tried to make “idiotic” is no more personal than calling a mistake you made “stupid.” Smart people make stupid mistakes every day. (I know I do.) And your wondering out loud whether there can be any such thing as a pragmatic politician demonstrates, as Anderson proved, a shortage of understanding very basic things about government and history. You can take that personally, but it doesn’t mean it is personal. It’s really just a sharper way of saying “You don’t know what you’re talking about.”
It’s understandable, though, that many people have a blurred view of the difference between a personal attack and an argument: personal attacks on the president, for example, have been passing as policy arguments for four years now. It’s unfortunate, particularly when those attacks are dished out by people who don’t know how to take it.
Oh for pity’s sake, James and Franklin, I was being flippant with my objection. In the Court of Public Opinion, there is neither a presumption of innocence nor any Rules of Evidence, two facts of which the GOP has taken great advantage for many years. Romney refuses to release his taxes, so it is entirely his fault if people logically assume that there is something in his taxes that is more embarrassing than the stigma of being the first candidate in decades to refuse to release them (and, on top of that, being the SON of the FIRST candidate to make a big show of voluntarily releasing them). Since his refusal to release his taxes is compounded by both his decision to keep money in foreign bank accounts not subject to any disclosure laws and most of his money came from the ethically dubious Bain Capital, the stigma of non-disclosure is only heightened, which means that whatever he is concealing is presumed to be that much worse.
At this point, I think opinions about Romney’s taxes fall into one of two categories. One group thinks Romney’s refusal to disclose his tax returns demonstrates a lack of ethical character that renders him unfit to be President. The other group thinks Romney’s refusal to disclose his tax returns WOULD demonstrate a lack of ethical character that WOULD render him unfit to be President BUT FOR the fact that he is running against Barack Obama, and any moral deficiency is acceptable in order to defeat Obama.