SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Persecution Of Paul Ryan

JONATHAN CHAIT AUGUST 12, 2010

The Persecution Of Paul Ryan

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

The Wall Street Journal has an editorial today whose headline, "Washington vs. Paul Ryan," captures its basic contention that the the poor right-wing congressman is being ganged up on and maligned by the establishment. It's a fairly odd premise. Ryan has been riding months of slobbering praise from the conservative press. I realize that doesn't count, because "Washington" in conservative-speak is an epithet that by definition excludes conservatives.

So, working within the conservative movement's definition of "Washington," let us tally up the litany of Ryan's persecution:

  1. He was the subject of a flattering Washington Post profile about the boldness of his plan that featured no policy analysts pointing out that the Ryan plan would increase the deficit over the next decade even if its wildly implausible spending caps were implemented.
  2. The same day he was the subject of a flattering New York Times profile that expounded the same theme and suffered from the same cripplinng flaw.
  3. Then Paul Krugman wrote an opinion column pointing out some of the massively misleading or unrealistic aspects of Ryan's alleged plan to balance the budget.
  4. Next my friend Ted Gayer, who runs the economic department at Brookings, wrote an item defending Ryan on the grounds that he means well and deserves to be granted an extreme benefit of the doubt when judging the massive flaws in his plan.
  5. Then Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein wrote a blog item also vouching for Ryan's character and good faith.
  6. Then today, the Times wrote another story about Ryan, saying he'd be the perfect person to negotiate a balanced budget with, regardless whether his plan really would balance the budget or massively increase it.

Is this really a picture of Washington ganging up on Ryan? It seems just the opposite. He is being embraced and defended by the establishment and credited with good intentions that are not at all manifest in his record or in his proposal, with one opinion columnist being the sole dissenting voice.

Now, maybe those defenses are right. I don't think they are -- even if you accept Ryan's crazily optimistic assumptions about everything, his plan would increase the deficit over the next decade. Getting a free pass time and time again because everybody knows your heart is in the right place is the sign of a man who has been fully embraced by the establishment.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 18 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

18 comments

But Jonathan, Paul Krugman is the Washington establishment. He equals one thousand Ezra Kleins. If the right's current top policy boy isn't treated in a totally hagiographical manner, with no dissent, they will complain. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page isn't an actual editorial page, it is a swamp that is mired in supply-side economics, phony accounting, and a campaign platform for right-wing politicians.

- liberal reformer

August 12, 2010 at 1:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Are you really trying to rationalize a classic Librul Media's Out to Get Us piece?

- greenmiles

August 12, 2010 at 1:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You left out Andrew Sullivan, who has been effusive in his praise of Ryan as the conservative's Messiah.

- rayward

August 12, 2010 at 1:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Surprise! Once again, an error by a commenter out here. Initially, Andrew praised Paul Ryan for putting forth a serious budgetary plan, but even then he had reservations. He has said that Ryan is hopeless on defense. And as it has become clear that Ryan's tax proposals are a joke as regard closing the deficit, Andrew has given voice to that. A number of days ago, he linked to Paul Krugman's devastating column on the Ryan plan and said that Krugman's case was strong. Effusive praise for a conservative Messiah, indeed. Sometimes, I wonder if some of you can read.

- liberal reformer

August 12, 2010 at 2:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Sometimes, I wonder if some of you can read." I can't. Luckily I have a friend who helps me out with these blogs and figuring out what those red octagonal signs at street corners mean. I can't type either, but I have a very clever cat who is taking dictation at this moment.

- Fishpeddler

August 12, 2010 at 2:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fish - you're lucky man. Where I live, up here in Canadia, we have not yet invented the alphabet. Or the wheel. We do have skidoos and large snowplows, and libref should consider using one - to plow himself.

- icarusr

August 12, 2010 at 3:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Isn't this really a case of conservative "grade inflation?" As the Warren Rudmans and Alan Simpsons are no longer around in the party power structure, the quality of actual conservative arugments put out by people like Palin, Boehner, etc. is so pathetic and so slogan prone that no real dialouge was taking place. The fact that Ryan seems reasonable and uses real numbers (even if they are dubious to say the least) is such a breath of fresh air that many people were falling over themselves to praise him. I think this shows not the hatered of the right by the "mainstream media." Instead it shows the opposite. People being so joyful that they found a member of the right in a responsbile position whom they assumed they could dialouge with in the real world and not supply side fantasyland that they jumped the trigger and didn't really look at Ryan's ultimately dishonest plan.

- MikeB.

August 12, 2010 at 3:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't think it's appropriate to judge WSJ editorials on veracity. They're not intended to be true, nor are they intended to survive critical scrutiny. The WSJ assumes that anyone with critical thinking skills is too smart to be a conservative in the first place, so they write for unreflective idiots. I'd like to think that the WSJ has misjudged their audience, but they probably know better than I do how stupid they are.

- Geoff G

August 12, 2010 at 3:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would also add that the WSJ completely ignored the chief point made by Krugman. Ryan's massive tax cuts to the rich are not paid for in his plan. I mean is the WSJ, to paraphrase John Nance Gardner, worth a bucket of warm spit?

- MikeB.

August 12, 2010 at 3:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Geoff: the best fucking explanation of the WSJ editorial pages I have ever read. Thanks. MikeB.: against every instinct in my body - other than its imbecile editorial pages, the WSJ is by far the best newspaper in the US in terms both of depth of coverage and even "objectivity" of reportage. I don't subscribe to it because it would offend my principles to pay to read the garbage they spew in their editorial pages, but if I need sound reporting, I turn to the WSJ, much as I would turn to the Economist or the FT for sound analysis.

- icarusr

August 12, 2010 at 3:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To add to icarusr, WSJ has been for some time the premier training paper in America, and is today just about the only major daily that retains any commitment at all to training young journalists. The rigorous standards of empirical reporting employed at the WSJ are a throwback to the 1950s, as is the paper's commitment to hiring and molding young reporters. If I had to choose only one American publication to survive the deluge, I don't know if I'd choose WSJ, but I do know that it would be one of my two finalists, execrable editorial page and all.

- rhubarbs

August 12, 2010 at 3:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ryan is an assclown, his medicare voucher plan is not slated to take place for 10 years, but if it is a good idea, do it now. No one says lets do school vouchers in 10 years. He simply is a hack, his ideas are bogus since he is not advocating doing them now but later, and this because he knows he would lose now. This is just Ryan loving himself.

- blackton

August 12, 2010 at 4:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AS has been a promotor of Ryan for months as a serious conservative legislator, and praised him for his proposal to cut the deficit. Only after somebody (Krugman) pointed out that Ryan's proposal was a fraud did AS turn ever so slightly to a Ryan critic - though almost all of his posts about the Republicans being deficit frauds have singled out Boehner, Spence, and Cantor, not Ryan. Indeed, AS's last post directly on the subject of Ryan quoted from and linked to a defense of Ryan by Megan McArdle. It's vintage AS, taking a position on a matter of economics without any understanding of the subject or the issue, without even any effort to understand the subject or the issue, only to retreat in silence when his gut instincts turn out to be so wrong about something he knows nothing about.

- rayward

August 12, 2010 at 4:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Persecution? I was taken out to dinner, went to a club and someone ponied up for my drinks and the lapdance, and finally a limo brought me home for free. I'm mad as hell and I'm not taking it anymore!

- ironyroad

August 12, 2010 at 5:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, the WSJ editorial board is disingenuously trying to stir up conservative ire about the supposed mistreatment of Paul Ryan. Yes, it makes sweeping generalizations about Rep. Ryan's plan while at the same time acknowledging that the board hadn't actually taken the time to "inspect the details" of that plan. But the underlying point is important. "Official Washington" is so overjoyed that someone on the GOP side is actually putting forward SOMETHING that they are willing to give him a HUGE amount of leeway on the details. I would just lock Paul Ryan in a room with the President and not let them out until they had hammered out some sort of agreement on entitlements.

- flynnb_az

August 12, 2010 at 5:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All of the time people who are wrong try to weasel out of their errors. A few days back, as I wrote - but apparently I need to repeat it - AS linked to Paul Krugman's fabulous column on Paul Ryan's budgetary proposals. Krugman denominated them fraudulent and Andrew wrote that Krugman "made a very strong case" that Ryan "is still drinking supply-side Kool-Aid." This is effusive praise of a conservative Messiah? Paul Ryan isn't the only one who is a fraud here. I can imagine if rayward ripped into individual x and person y wrote that r. regards x as an oracle. Would he take that lying down? Almost certainly not. Also, I have found that often those who are not especially concerned about facts and veracity go the craziest when someone gets them wrong.

- liberal reformer

August 12, 2010 at 7:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AS's strength is commenting on subjects requiring an emotional response, torture and discrimination (against gays) for example. But any subject that requires one to roll up his/her sleeves and learn the subject first and then comment, he is nothing short of lazy. War in Iraq, health care reform, economics. It's all the same AS. Wrong. Wrong because he is too lazy to learn the subject. War in Iraq. Favor. Health care reform. Oppose. Economics. Promote a fraud. Sure, he came around on Iraq. After the disaster. And he came around on health care reform After its passage was assured. And he sort of has come around on Ryan. After Ryan became an embarassment. I read AS's blog and enjoy it. But with no illusions.

- rayward

August 12, 2010 at 8:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And still no admission of error.

- liberal reformer

August 12, 2010 at 9:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close