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 Just One Reason to Pick Ryan: Blame the Loss on...

PLANK AUGUST 11, 2012

Just One Reason to Pick Ryan: Blame the Loss on Conservatives

BY NOAM SCHEIBER

There are two ways to think about Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan this morning. The first is how it affects Romney’s prospects for winning in November. The second is how it affects the internal struggle between conservatives and moderates within the GOP.

Regarding the first question, the Ryan pick is, of course, lunacy. Ryan’s claim to fame is a long-term budget blueprint that would massively cut Medicare over the coming decades while essentially zeroing out domestic spending on everything else but defense. It would pair this unprecedented austerity with enormous tax cuts for the wealthy. All of these things are, to varying degrees, wildly unpopular. Which makes it hardly surprising that the only time the Ryan budget actually came before voters—in a 2011 congressional special election in upstate New York—it was a political disaster, handing a safe Republican district to a little-known Democrat. 

The argument that Ryan could help Romney in November hinges on the enthusiasm conservatives have for him, and on his personal political dexterity. But, whatever conservative elites may tell themselves, Romney’s problems are emphatically not with the right, which is already highly motivated thanks to its mania over ousting Obama. As one top Republican operative recently told me, “the base’s hatred of the president is so intense that [Romney] has all kinds of room to maneuver.” Rather, Romney’s problem is his historically dismal standing among undecided voters, which Ryan will only weaken. 

As for Ryan’s political talent—well, he’s undeniably talented at something. He’s managed to charm the political press corps by putting a reasonable face on extreme policies and routinely wins plaudits as the most thoughtful man in Washington. Unfortunately for the GOP, the relationship between this talent and the talent you need as the front-man for a national political ticket is exceedingly weak. Writing in anticipation of a possible Ryan pick, Jon Chait explained: “The major argument of my profile of Ryan from last spring is that his public persona is a giant scam; but pulling off a scam like that is the mark of a skillful pol.” No, it’s not. It’s the mark of a skillful political operative. And if being a skillful operative could put you in the Oval Office, my family would be visiting the Karl Rove Presidential Library on our vacation this summer. Alas, we are not. 

Having said all that, there is a rationale for picking Ryan. It just has little to do with strengthening Romney’s chances this fall. In recent weeks, the presidential race has fundamentally changed. Where the polling once showed Obama with a consistent but easily-surmountable lead, it now shows the race moving out of reach for Romney. As the sober minds at NBC’s political unit put it yesterday:

[W]hen the Olympics began, we wrote that we were basically at halftime of the general election -- and Obama had a narrow lead. Well, it’s a little bigger than that now. (People may want to quibble, but you can’t dismiss every poll on sampling.) There’s clearly movement toward the president and clearly problems for Romney personally.

Predictably, this development has unnerved conservatives, who correctly view Team Romney as whiffing on a once-in-a-generation chance against an incumbent president (albeit for the wrong reasons). The most recent outburst resulted in a fatwa against Romney’s perfectly anodyne press secretary, who had the temerity to channel Romney’s pride over his Massachusetts health care law, which is undeniable. 

So, to review, the key recent development is that Romney is poised to lose a race he should by all rights be winning, and conservatives are poised to blame this loss on his ideological moderation. (He not only gave people health care, he wants credit for it!). Against this backdrop, the rationale for the Ryan pick strikes me as pretty clear: Ryan is the way Romney and his aides escape blame for their now-likely defeat—blame which would be vicious and unrelenting—and pin it in on conservatives instead. With only minor historical revisions, they will be able to tell a story about how Romney was keeping the race close through early August, at which point the party’s conservative darling joined the ticket and sent the poll numbers into steady decline. 

According to this narrative, the campaign will merely be guilty of a political misdemeanor—being bullied by conservatives into a lousy running mate—not the felony of strategically miscalculating against a historically weak incumbent (which is where the existing storyline was headed). That’s a plea bargain any right-minded politico would take, even if they didn’t consciously consider it in those terms. Moreover, there’s a whiff of Pascal’s Wager to the whole gambit: God (in this case, political salvation through ideological extremism) may not exist. But you don’t lose anything by pretending he does. And, who knows, he may surprise you!

Better still, this won’t just be good for Romney’s historical reputation, and for the future career prospects of his campaign team. It will be good for the entire GOP. Pre-Ryan, a Romney loss would have led to the nomination of a Neanderthal in 2016—someone, like Rick Santorum, who could say he warned the party against a candidate too moderate to take on Obama. Post-Ryan, a Romney loss will be read as a Goldwater-esque act of ideological self-immolation, which the party must resist at all costs if it hopes to win another election. Paradoxically, the Ryan pick is both selfish and selfless at the same time. 

What it isn’t, as all the commentators keep insisting, is “bold.” It’s a highly risk-averse move—one that assumes a loss and tries to make the best of it. In that respect, Romney is staying true to himself till the bitter end. 

Update: Credit where due—Ezra Klein made a similar point a few days ago. I'd say “great minds,” but his is vastly greater than mine... 

Update II: See my follow-up item here, in which I deal with a lot of reader comments. 

Follow me on twitter: @noamscheiber

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 50 comments

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

50 comments

A well argued case, Noam. But one question I would have is this: if so, the why on earth would Ryan accept the job of being the scapegoat-in-waiting for Romney's defeat?

- ironyroad

August 11, 2012 at 11:11am

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

Interesting and valuable analysis but it doesn't sound plausible to me that Romney would pick Ryan to save face. The statement that Ryan "routinely wins plaudits as the most thoughtful man in Washington" is baffling. Before Reagan, I felt that if Republicans wanted to cut taxes, that was fine as long as they explained who would be hurt by it, and then Reagan announced that nobody would be hurt by it because revenues would bloom wildly (but instead almost tripled the national debt). Now, the trick is to claim a balanced budget, claim the elimination of unspecified deductions, and just not explain anything. How is that so thoughtful?

- Nusholtz

August 11, 2012 at 11:14am

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

Same reason he made House republicans vote on his crazy budget: He's delusional.

- Noam Scheiber

August 11, 2012 at 11:14am

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

Will that go viral?

- Nusholtz

August 11, 2012 at 11:23am

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

I agree with Noam. If you have the ego to be a politician and upend your party's moderate image by pushing as hard as possible its raw underbelly, then you have the balls to bet that you can sell it to the American public on the big stage as a vice-presidential candidate. Especially when you witness how Cantor et Tea emasculated Boehner. A similar phenomenon will happen to Romney, wherein the personal political goals of the #2 overshadow those of the man with the moderate image that can actually be sold to Americans. Nush, you have to remember how aghast Ryan was when Obama called him out on his BS. He had been winning over centrist pundits (the Friedmans and VSPs) for so long that he was convinced that those blue eyes and midwestern charm could sell the liar loan of his budget.

- chaitless

August 11, 2012 at 11:26am

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

Sorry, Noam, I don't buy it. This is Romney's one bite at the apple; he's doing all he thinks he can to win this thing. Ways of excusing his losing is the last thing on the mind of Romney and his staff. Now, I agree that this hurts Romney's chances. I'd even go so far that this reflects poorly on his judgement, in that in a panic he's abandoning his previous strategy (make the race a referendum on Obama) and playing into Obama's hands (make it a clear choice). But let's not project our analysis onto Romney. His calculations, however flawed, are very different.

- Thunderroad

August 11, 2012 at 11:30am

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

Very interesting and helpful, but you make the mistake nearly all moderates do: overestimating the reasonableness of the Republican base (and underestimating the accompanying cravenness of most Republican "leaders"). A Romney-Ryan loss will not be enough to knock the Right off its perch. Ryan's only the Veep nominee, for criminey's sake. All this will do is spread, not shift, the blame, and set things up for a true Gotterdammerung in the Republican primaries for 2016. Which the conservatives will win, and go down in flames in the general - with Ryan at the top of the ticket? Only after 8 years of President Clinton, God willing that she lives that long, MIGHT the Repubs be finally willing to nominate an old-school conservative. (Remember, Goldwater was followed by Nixon.)

- floydsm8

August 11, 2012 at 11:37am

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

PS: Noam, I think your stronger point comes near the end, when you suggest that Romney's choice today will save the GOP from nominating a neanderthal come 2016. This in fact decreases that chances of that, but does not eliminate them. If Romney loses, the Tea Party types will blame it on his weakness as a candidate, including how he let Obama swift boat him via the early negative ads and attacks. They will argue that at true conservative with true principles won't face the same likeability problems as phoney Romney. Their arguments won't be quite as strong as if the VP candidate had been someone more (relatively) moderate, such as Portman. But they certainly won't be deterred by a Romney loss. In fact, if Ryan acquits himself well as a campaigner in 2012, he could well be the leading ultra-right light in 2016.

- Thunderroad

August 11, 2012 at 11:38am

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

Ditto Thunderroad (at least his first paragraph). Lefties should be careful what they wish for--the O-team was already fully geared up to run against the Ryan budget, and no one is better equipped to explain and argue for it than Ryan himself. It's a no-lose choice for Romney: he shores up the base without providing any more ammo for the opposition than they already had. Plus Ryan is personally appealing and fully qualified. I think Romney still loses, but this at least helps him overcome a "platform" that so far has consisted of only five platitudes, and gives him a lead in the straight talk sweepstakes.

- Robert Powell

August 11, 2012 at 11:41am

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

I will try to be unbiased and analyze this choice but to be completely honest I am utterly baffled by it. The only explanation I can muster is that Romney is completely weak minded and allowed himself to be bullied into the Ryan pick. If he wanted to go long he could have chosen Rubio or Jindal and still satisfied the base. Does Romney not care remotely about governing? Is he this empty that he would sell his soul utterly just to be called Mr. President? if America is dumb enough to elect these two, then Democrats should make sure they enact the full Ryan budget and then when the whole house burns down can rightly say to the American people that they have brought this upon themselves. My one great fear is that Democrats themselves will obstruct Romney and Ryan and Republicans will deficit spend themselves towards lowered unemployment.

- blackton

August 11, 2012 at 11:44am

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

This piece is nonsense. Romney is not stupid -- quite the contrary. He knows how to operate and how to get what he wants, regardless of the consequences to others. Nobody, absolutely nobody, voluntarily blows the greatest opportunity in the world -- to be president of the U.S. -- simply to be able to say that it wasn't his fault. That type of analysis might (??) make sense if Romney were 15 or 20 points behind in the polls, but according to the consensus the race is very tight and Gallup shows a tie. By the way, I have some experience in politics and I have never known a candidate, other than a purely symbolic one, to not believe that he or she has a good chance of winning. Never. Romney believes that he will win and he thinks Ryan will help him, period. One of Romney's main weaknesses as a candidate has been that he is seen as without any core principles, someone who will say anything to anyone to gain an advantage. By choosing Ryan he makes the statement that he really is a right wing conservative, for better or worse, that he is to be admired for the consistency of his principles. He has also firmed up his base and will be rewarded with millions of dollars and millions of hours of volunteer work. There is no more risk that right wingers will stay at home on election day. Also, Ryan has shown himself, as a person (not as an idea generator) to be an effective campaigner -- the results in his district prove it. Instead of being gleeful, we should be worried. As I said in some other posts, now is the time to fight back as best we can -- make a contribution, volunteer some time, help keep Romney and Ryan away from the White House.

- PeteBeck

August 11, 2012 at 11:58am

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

I agree with Pete Beck a fount here of common sense. My view is it's a Hail Mary pick, trying to rejuvenate a failing campaign. I think Obama wins to it.

- basman

August 11, 2012 at 12:24pm

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

Unless it's the mirror image of Truman and Dewey? No. Anti-Matter does not exist in this universe. Or, it goes up in a poof of annihilation once it accounts positive matter.

- skahn

August 11, 2012 at 12:35pm

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

Yep, spot on Noam, exactly right. I'd also say, Ryan must know that the chances are slim with this candidate, so he's seeing this as a perfect platform for a 2016 run. Indeed, he does better if they lose cause of Romney's incompetence on the campaign trail, especially if he does well himself, like in the debates for example. Romney's so awful a candidate that he spoils the video introducing Ryan as "the next president of the United States". Resulting in Drudge only being able to link to a wordy article instead of the stage managed walk off a battleship video. O'bama can sleep walk this if you ask me. Could probably improve his game on the court over the next three months and still win.

- IggyPop

August 11, 2012 at 12:40pm

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

So much for the idea that Romney would be a moderate in the Oval Office. He's crossed the Rubicon. Ryan will make sure that there is a copy of Atlas Shrugged on the president's desk at all times. Ryan has said that he regrets voting for Medicare Part D. That's gonna go over big with seniors, as is his plan to get rid of Medicare. Romney is simply doing what McCain did--desperately bringing a Right wingnut on board to arouse the base. Remember, McCain was (and is) mistrusted by the ever-more-powerful Right in the GOP, too. This is not complicated. Republicans are not complicated. They abandoned subtlety a good while ago. They're going for the blockhead vote. Pragmatism be damned. Ryan will also bring out the Left base. It should be an interesting election--dueling bases trying to energize those in the middle. I don't trust Independents and undecideds to vote in their self-interest either. Unlike Noam, I have no idea who's going to win in November.

- magboy47.

August 11, 2012 at 12:47pm

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

"Nobody, absolutely nobody, voluntarily blows the greatest opportunity in the world -- to be president of the U.S. -- simply to be able to say that it wasn't his fault. That type of analysis might (??) make sense if Romney were 15 or 20 points behind in the polls, but according to the consensus the race is very tight and Gallup shows a tie." I am still waiting for a rational explanation for McCain's choice for VP? When dealing with conservatives in the Republican Party any rational explanation is pure guess work. I am guessing that Romney is used to getting his way and probably believes that his choice was brilliant because he made it. Still, what needs to be answered is why Romney would someone who would not have approved of the kind of health care legislation he passed in Massachusetts? This is beyond hypocrisy and points to Romney having a change of mind about the role of government in the economy. Romney too and not just Ryan are against government programs like social security and medicare. It's not just Ryan who is the right wing fanatic, Romney is also a right wing fanatic. I hope this will become the main campaign issue.

- arnon1

August 11, 2012 at 12:48pm

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

"Still, what needs to be answered is why Romney would someone who would not have approved of the kind of health care legislation he passed in Massachusetts?" Should read: Still, what needs to be answered is why Romney would pick someone who would not have approved of the kind of health care legislation he passed in Massachusetts?

- arnon1

August 11, 2012 at 12:50pm

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

I agree with arnon -- this is potential gold in the debates: the Republican nominee for VP is someone who clearly despises, with intensity, the major political and policy achievement of the Republican presidential candidate's career.

- ironyroad

August 11, 2012 at 1:05pm

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

I have trouble understanding this pick other than as a base rev. If the fight is truly over a thin slice of undecideds, I.E. people who swing between Ds and Rs, then I fail to see how Ryan, properly understood as ideological supply side, libertarian, spending slashing, limited government purist, which is how Obama will rightfully paint him, appeals to independents. I'd think he, properly understood, would scare them. Cohn's "five things you should know about Ryan" posted here today, is a good primer on the man's policies. This move has resonances of the Palin pick, but with the choice of a more rhetorically able, intellectually sturdier, politically more capable and ostensibly appealing individual. One argument made for Ryan is that he repeatedly and largely wins his district that went D presidentially and he knows how talk about what he believes in a way that appeals to voters. This, it goes without saying, will be Obama's job to disspell. All that said, it's way overstated that Obama has matters locked up and it's rightly and tritely stated that the race will be close with the outcome in the air, the days left being that many political lifetimes left.

- basman

August 11, 2012 at 1:11pm

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

I think it is a disastrous choice for Romney, but I don't buy Scheiber's argument. I agree that this looks like a desperate attempt to shore up the base, much like McCain's pick of Palin.

- JEFF FREY

August 11, 2012 at 1:22pm

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

Romney has gone bonkers. First, he picks Ryan for VP, and now I understand that he has promised to create 12 million new jobs in his first 4 years as president. Of course, he would start this grand economic recovery by cutting the corporate tax rate by 10 percent. He assumes, wrongly, that this will prod corporations into hiring Americans. But hiring Americans would mean that corporate CEO's and stockholders would take a serious hit, maybe even losses, on what they make. The only possible way 12 million new jobs could be created over 4 years is with a bubble, and we know what happens to bubbles. Ryan's job as VP would be to work with Congress to cut the Federal budget not to the bone, but to the marrow. Ryan & Co. would try to make the Federal government so small that Grover Norquist could drown it in a bathtub. Of course, the GOP would rule it justifiable homicide (as would Lenin, if he were still alive). The once-moderate Romney has become a moonbat. His job now is to think of a way to create a massive economic bubble while he is president, and the crash on his way out the door be damned. G.W. Bush redux. As bad as this would be, it might serve the positive purpose of weakening the GOP. If the disastrous policies of Romney and Ryan and Norquist and Rove can't weaken the GOP, I don't know what can. But then, there are still those 50-million-plus voters who don't want to think and who will vote for Romney-Ryan in November.

- magboy47.

August 11, 2012 at 1:55pm

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

If I was an independent American voter who swung between Ds and Rs and was underwhelmed by O and was kicking R's tires, this VP pick would move me solidly to O. Save as a base rev, even as a Hail Mary I can't see this pick, considering the c.w. that finally independents will decide the election. Ryan properly understood should be scary to independents, centrists by definition.

- basman

August 11, 2012 at 2:04pm

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

It's true the Ryan budget was already in play with campaign wonks but it hadn't reached the masses. Americans don't plan ahead, they react to things they should have seen coming. Having Ryan on the ticket means this radical budget is real, not an empty campaign talking point. Moderates will run, not walk, back to Obama. They will clearly understand what is at stake for them right now.

- turntxblue

August 11, 2012 at 2:05pm

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

Magboy I've just scheduled an emergency consult with my medical team--my cat and a disgraced ex orderly I know. I find myself agreeing with you lately.

- basman

August 11, 2012 at 2:07pm

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

"According to this narrative, the campaign will merely be guilty of ....being bullied by conservatives into a lousy running mate....That’s a plea bargain any right-minded politico would take, even if they didn’t CONSCIOUSLY consider it in those terms." It's indeed interesting to speculate about how conscious or not the motivations may be which lead to such a choice as picking a Paul Ryan for VP nominee. Freud said that symbolism in dreams is "over-determined", i.e., there are multiple layers of meaning operating in any particular case. I think that's often the case with the making significant "rational" decisions, too, in our waking hours. Yes, Romney wants to win, & thinks Ryan may help, by firming up his conservative credentials with the base, & by making him seem a little less flip-floppy. That's all conscious, accessible to the candidate in his waking mind. I don't believe Romney is willing to consciously concede that in choosing Ryan he is somehow insulating himself from blame in the event of a defeat in November - but that may well be an unconscious motivation, another layer in the complex of mental processes at work.

- Haole45

August 11, 2012 at 2:26pm

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

"Magboy I've just scheduled an emergency consult with my medical team--my cat and a disgraced ex orderly I know. I find myself agreeing with you lately." Hold on, basman. Help is on the way. You live in Canada, where health care is guaranteed. But is Canadian health care as bad as the wingers in America say it is? A cat and a disgraced ex-orderly? Hmmm.

- magboy47.

August 11, 2012 at 2:56pm

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

Why not call it what it is, a choice made in panic? As of now, the RCP average is 4.6 for Obama. It keeps going up. For now, Grover Norquist, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter will be thrilled. Problem is, they're just three votes.

- timteeter

August 11, 2012 at 2:59pm

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

Well I see Noam's point. If he thinks he's losing anyway why not pin the tail on the donkey? What's wrong with this conclusion: as pointed out in the thread, Romney probably still thinks he can win; he doesn't care how he wins; he sold out to the far right in the primaries and has already endorsed the Ryan budget. Now, the American people get to see what's in there. Bring on the ads quoting the Catholics: "immoral budget" indeed. I hope people will be dismayed by it and also see clearly what the Right is up to. Incidentally it would be possible to create all those new jobs IF we're not paid for doing them. Back to the 19th century before the Civil War. Take THAT China.

- Sophia

August 11, 2012 at 4:20pm

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

I meant, pin the tail on the rogue elephant:)

- Sophia

August 11, 2012 at 4:21pm

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

Romney has discredited any notion of his right leaning moderateness with this pick. I still can't understand its rationale. His excited base will not win him the election--he needs independents--and in the meantime the pick fortifies and energizes Obama's base.

- basman

August 11, 2012 at 4:22pm

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

I agree that it's a signal that the Romney people think he can't win. "Let's go all in and get the most conservative guy who's not a birther."

- dstatton

August 11, 2012 at 4:23pm

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

"Incidentally it would be possible to create all those new jobs IF we're not paid for doing them." Make Gingrich secretary of labor. "Sweep for America", the K-12 Klean Krew. Pay the kids Medicare vouchers they can put in their Junior Achievement 401K's.

- koppgeo

August 11, 2012 at 5:20pm

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

"Post-Ryan, a Romney loss will be read as a Goldwater-esque act of ideological self-immolation, which the party must resist at all costs if it hopes to win another election." This ignores the Palin precedent. The Tea Party right didn't recognize Palin as a costly mistake, so they're certainly not going to recognize Ryan as one. If I were a conservative blogger, I'd already be drafting my Nov. 7 day-after blog post, which will explain that you can't win with mushheads at the top of the ticket and true believers only as veeps -- you have to go for the gold. Ryan will instantly be the favorite for the 2016 nomination after this ticket loses. Oh, and I also agree with those here who don't think that presidential candidates who are trailing by a few points in August ever assume they're going to lose. There have been lots of late-October surges and lots of obviously losing candidates who campaigned their asses off at the end, evidently convinced that they still had a chance. Romney thinks, for whatever reason, that picking Ryan is a winning move.

- Jeff_Smith

August 11, 2012 at 6:54pm

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

I'm with PeteBeck and the rest who think that there's no way in hell this is actually the calculation at work in Romney's mind.  Scheiber's analysis of the effects that the Ryan pick will have on Romney's election chances may well be accurate, and there may also be some validity to his read on how it will guide the postelection loss recriminations in the GOP (though I think here he is on much shakier ground). But the idea that Romney could consciously be planning for loss mitigation already simply flies in the face of any mature understanding of human nature. This kind of thing is catnip for political junkies, and it may will score Scheiber a few hundred tweets, (I have a friend at The New Yorker who tells me that nowadays the staff writers there watch the tweet-count for their articles with all the anxious anticipation of candidates watching the poll returns) but I cannot see how it works as any serious analysis of Romney's motives. 

- AaronW

August 11, 2012 at 7:15pm

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

If Romney does win in Nov (It's still the economy, stupid), it sure is God's Gift to Progressive Dems. If there is ever a combo designed to make sure that Mittens doesn't accidently rescue the economy and ensconce trikle-down economics for a generation, this is it. As for the analysis that a Repub loss prevents a far-right Repub ticket in 2016, that is just vbackward reasoning. If the economy regresses or doesn't recover in 2013 (HIGHLY likely), BHO and the Dems not undeservedly for political ineptitude and inadequate policies get the blame. And the Repub will be we told you so-- and that will be most believable, whether or not it is true.

- drofnats1

August 11, 2012 at 7:38pm

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

Noam, When I heard Ryan had been selected for Romney's V.P., my reaction was the same as your analysis. But then, I reviewed it against the background of Mike Crowley's Time magazine piece on the GOP Plan, that highlights the role 'he who's name shall not be spoken' in the GOP race under the new 'political money is speech' regime, our John Roberts led Supreme Court created. No, not Voldemort, but our man, the Architect, Karl Rove. Say what you want about being patient, but Rove wants back in the White House in 2012. As you noted, Romney's numbers were falling before choosing Ryan, and Rove's PAC has been quite active in trying to help Romney get there. It looks like Rove's help...wasn't. If Ryan is such a dubious choice, I'd agree with that, and Rove is such a sharp political operative with the backing to go with him, how'd Ryan get through the door? I suppose the easy answer is 'in the end, it's Romney's choice', but you'd think Rove wouldn't let Romney get away with it, given Rove's own ambition (and the noted substantial backing).

- jet

August 11, 2012 at 7:40pm

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

In a few years we will have a book or ten that explains what is happening. Until then we are like scientists at the beginning of a new science when there are lost of different theories, like the cause of schizophrenia 30 years ago. None of us really has any idea what is going on in Romney's head.

- Vekert

August 11, 2012 at 7:52pm

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

Timteeter: You forgot Larry Kudlow. Meanwhile, Republican haters like Noam have missed the similarity between Paul Ryan and the late Jack Kemp. Paul Ryan, like Jack Kemp, is a supply-sider. He believes that the wealthy have the skill and the money necessary to take risks to initiate businesses, which will create jobs and economic growth. Free enterprise is the engine of growth, not government. Let's be fair. Moreover, I just heard one of the left-wing twits, Chris Matthews, ask a Democrat representative how people on Medicare would react to Paul Ryan's Medicare plan. The lying never stops on MSNBC. As anyone who reads and thinks is aware, Paul Ryan's plan does not affect anyone older than 54 years old. Meanwhile, Romney would not take Ryan to lose with an excuse. How stupid! Romney did not become wealthy by thinking so defensively. He took Ryan, because he is young, he is scandal-free, and he has the ability to defend his economic theories, whether you like them or not. Furthermore, Romney took Ryan, because Ryan has control of his emotions, and is unlikely to put his foot in his mouth.

- john336

August 11, 2012 at 8:10pm

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

All very defensive reasons for choosing Ryan, john336. Winning from behind requires taking chances and being aggressive. This is a defensive, passive play. Good, because I want Romney to lose. Of course, he doesn't think he will lose this way, but he has no guts. No guts, no glory. Good again. As for free enterprise being the engine of growth, that does not explain how we doubled output in a couple of years during WWII. Demand is the engine of growth, wherever the demand comes from, consumption, government, or from abroad. Demand is demand and elicits supply. Then the economy grows. As demand that hits the limits of output, new methods are devised to increase productivity and expand output. No demand, no reason to devise new methods to increase capacity. In short, Keynes was right and Ryan is wrong, an economic nitwit along with the rest of the supply-side nitwits, libertarian or otherwise, who have given us nothing but disaster since 1980.

- roidubouloi

August 11, 2012 at 9:25pm

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

Too cute by half. Noam sounds like a political operative himself. Others have already said it, but no way Romney doesn't give himself the best shot at winning - guy's been running for years. And what's with the consistent sniping at stuff that Chait writes? Is there some sort of fued between them from Chait's time at TNR or is Noam mad at Chait for leaving? Since I read both Chait and TNR, I now have to brace for a few days of ridiculous back and forth articles between these two about which one was right.

- austinous

August 11, 2012 at 10:45pm

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

Roid, if you can fashion your second paragraph into a winning message for Democrats, you can own your own personal mint.

- austinous

August 11, 2012 at 11:00pm

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

Great article. Nice to see something outside the box from TNR for a change.

- Tarquin10

August 11, 2012 at 11:13pm

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

I agree, austinous. But that work needed to be done 3 and 2 years ago. Obama blew it by giving credit and credibility to the right-wing austerity claims in his futile efforts at bipartisanship. It is too late to do this so close to the election. It would just give Romney a foothold. Better to bash the Republicans and Romney personally at this point.

- roidubouloi

August 12, 2012 at 2:05am

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

Am no economist, but Romeny was in risk assessment. I certainly can suppose that he had back-up plan(s) for possible failure and it will might have been this "lateish" veep choice. He probably is not aware of his own personality failures, or maybe he is. Pride comes before the fall.

- kras

August 12, 2012 at 5:54am

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

"Romney picks VEEP to blame when he loses", sounds like a good NY Post headline. Yeah sure.

- Vogelfam

August 12, 2012 at 9:47am

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

"As for free enterprise being the engine of growth, that does not explain how we doubled output in a couple of years during WWII. Demand is the engine of growth, wherever the demand comes from, consumption, government, or from abroad. Demand is demand and elicits supply. Then the economy grows. As demand that hits the limits of output, new methods are devised to increase productivity and expand output. No demand, no reason to devise new methods to increase capacity. In short, Keynes was right and Ryan is wrong, an economic nitwit along with the rest of the supply-side nitwits, libertarian or otherwise, who have given us nothing but disaster since 1980." Roid, I agree with austinous. Excellent analysis. But the Dems can't fashion it into a winning message before the election or even in the next 100 years. The reason that over 50 million people are going to vote for Romney/Ryan (most of them against their own self-interest) is because they don't know the first thing about macro-economics. Some of them are CEO's who do very well in business, but that's micro-economics, even at the largest corporation. There are fools who work in private industry on government contracts who will tell you that gov'mint has no bi'ness interfering in bi'ness. These are some of the idiots who vote Republican. BTW, john, did you know that Obama's Jobs Act, which the GOP mercilessly voted down, had a provision in it for tax cuts for small businesses? Republicans voted down the engine that they say drives our economy! They're un-American, even by your standards!

- magboy47.

August 12, 2012 at 3:31pm

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

magboy, I think there is a wining message there based around international competitiveness and the need to invest, in infrastructure and people, as well as a strong contra-rightwing wacko message that income equality is essential for growth -- it is in fact, the biggest reason for our weak economy is income inequal which saps demand. However, this is something that has to be developed over an extended period, with lots of repetition and legislative proposals and battles designed to match the narrative. It is not the proper stuff for a campaign. A long game would have had Obama working this from the start. But he didn't. He didn't want to muddy himself with partisan politics (as if there is any other kind) and so will limp to victory (or lose if a couple of things break the wrong way). So it goes.

- roidubouloi

August 12, 2012 at 7:42pm

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

"a winning message" not a "wining message," whatever that is. "income inequality which saps demand" Gosh my typing stinks.

- roidubouloi

August 12, 2012 at 7:43pm

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

Bit of a silly argument by Noam. Of course Romney wants to win. Who else could he reasonably have chosen? Rubio? Maybe. Portman? If he were clearly leading, maybe. No, this is risky, but in a calculated way, and his best bet when behind, but close. I actually think it speaks well of Romney, in that he at least realizes that "Obama - no!" was not going to be enough.

- ds111

August 13, 2012 at 7:16pm

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

Roi, WWII was austerity on steroids. Production with only one consumer, defense. Everybody else got rations. GDP rose but living standards did not. We could surely do that again today, but it would lower, not raise living standards. It turned out to be a hell of an investment, and like most investment, required societal sacrifice for many years. More recently, credit inflation, unsupported by appropriate equity, caused wages to get out of line with production, the corrective for which is not yet more out of line production, but lower real wages, including fixed future obligations, until production and demand are back in line. The money illusion could perhaps work, a la Sumner, but the result is the same, just a more palatable way to smooth the realignment of supply and demand. Supply, not demand is the driver of living standards, as most demand is latent, awaiting supply, or productivity, to be fulfilled (think Apple). And productivity improvements are a function of supply not demand, ordinarily borne out of micro-competition. Government demand simply uses the supply of the past (savings), present (labor), and future (a bit of both) ideally for the benefit of all. But supply precedes demand, has to. No food until you hunt or gather first.

- ds111

August 13, 2012 at 8:07pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close