More Buzz About Bill; or, R&R’s Empty Campaign

Interesting observation from The American Conservative, where Daniel Larison admits that the case Clinton made against Romney and Ryan was devastating —

… it was all the more devastating because Romney and Ryan made no concerted effort to make the case for their ticket and their agenda last week. … Part of what made Clinton’s speech so devastating is that he compiled all of these objections, linked them together, and presented them to a large television audience all at once in a way that was easily digestible.

Another reason the speech was so devastating to them was that he gave the sort of speech that Ryanmaniacs might have once imagined that Ryan would deliver and the sort that some Romney supporters still imagine Romney is capable of giving. Romney-Ryan was supposed to be the presidential ticket of the “data-driven” manager and his budget wonk sidekick, and between the absence of any significant policy discussion last week and what happened tonight that has lost all credibility. Clinton outperformed both of them in terms of discussing policy details, and underscored just how meaningless the “campaign of ideas” phrase has been. Ryan fans had been convinced for over a year that the election had to be a contest over “big ideas,” and when it came time to engage in that contest their party leaders didn’t even try.

There are several possible reasons they didn’t even try. It might be that they do have a substantive argument for themselves tucked away somewhere, and they haven’t trotted it out because they think the electorate is bored with that detail stuff. I get that vibe from a lot of the Right, actually; they just want the red meat, not the wonky vegetables.

So instead, the GOP decided to package Romney as a swell guy who can be trusted to take care of things, and you don’t need to worry your pretty little head how he’s going to do it. That approach also assumes that people are so disappointed with Barack Obama that no one has to make a substantive pitch about why Romney would be better. They think the electorate is so desperate to find an alternative they’ll vote for anybody who has a nice family and looks good in a suit.

If that’s the case, IMO it’s a miscalculation. A lot of people probably would consider voting for someone else, but not necessarily ANYBODY else.

Or, maybe Romney and Ryan are saving the juicy details for the debates. They aren’t trotting them out beforehand because they don’t want to give the Dems time to craft counterarguments. In which case, maybe those arguments aren’t all that solid.

Another possibility is that they have a substantive argument, but they are keeping it hidden because they know most of the electorate would run away screaming if they knew what it was. (Along those lines, do read Tom Levenson, “Visions of the Apocalypse: Not in Fire, Nor in Ice, But in the Emptying Beds of a Nursing Home.”)

Or, maybe they don’t have a substantive argument, just a facsimile of one. Ryan’s budget possibly seemed brilliant to a lot of journalists who briefly looked at it — I assume it has, like, numbers and stuff — but the few knowledgeable people who actually studied the thing generally have been aghast at how flimsy it is. Krugman has been calling it a “fantasy.”

This takes us to two sets of sub-possibilities — I should be diagramming this — one, they honestly didn’t understand their calculations were hallucinatory; or two, they knew all along the calculations were hallucinatory and didn’t think anyone (but a few liberal wonks) would notice.

If we go with sub-possibility one — I can easily imagine that Ryan has such faith in his ideology that he didn’t think he had to make all the numbers crunch; his ideas are just so self-evidently true (to him). However, if he still thinks that, I don’t know why he would be shy about defending his ideas. Possibly someone recently got through to him that his grand ideas really are not defensible. Drag them out of the Fairy Castle of True Belief and they melt into a pathetic little puddle.

And, finally, maybe they’ve both been faking it. In which case the debates will be fun.

Update: Another possibility, from Ed Kilgore:

Larison’s analysis strengthens my growing belief that in choosing Ryan as a running-mate, Romney had zero intention of making a robust defense of the Ryan Budget or pursuing anything else the conservative movement was panting for him to say or do (other than the racially-tinged demagoguery about welfare). It was precisely the opposite: he figured he could shut up the noisy ideologues by offering them the symbolic prize of Ryan and then running his campaign in exactly the non-substantive way he always intended. This end-the-primaries strategy, as I’ve called it earlier, depended, of course, on swing-voter ignorance about Ryan and indeed the entire GOP agenda, and on Democratic complicity in a campaign about pre-set cartoon caricatures rather than anything that might look like an “idea.”

Plausible. And if that’s the case, it’s also plausible Romney will shift and allow Ryan more leeway to make a case for his ideas. But his ideas are nuts — see above about the Fairy Castle. And if that’s what Romney thought he got very bad advice from somebody (Karl Rove?).

7 thoughts on “More Buzz About Bill; or, R&R’s Empty Campaign

  1. I think the marriage of Romney and Ryan will prove to be a stupid one – a better and better looking bet every day.

    Like a bad marriage, an older rich and entitled fool was forced to take on a political striver, a version of a male Eve Harrington, from “All About Eve.”
    To rename it, I call this, ‘Old Lace and Arsenic.’

    Or, “The Old Man and the Tea-bagger.”

    But the older corporate “Whiz Kid,” and his side-kick, “Wonkie,” are looking more and more to astute voters like what the people everyone feared in post-WWII businesses – “The Efficiency Expert,” and his “Hatchet Man.”

    Have fun selling THAT to the public, now that ‘The Big Dawg” has shone his light on you!

  2. Per Krugman, Ryan always knew his budget plan was a fantasy. He told the Congressional Budget Office to score it assuming that discretionary spending would come down to 4% of GDP (I think that’s what the number was – the actual number was unimportant), so they did, noting that he did not provide any explanation for why or how this would happen. It just would. He also instructed them about his tax cuts, I believe – same kind of thing, “assume revenue neutrality because we’ll cut deductions and loopholes”.

    The phrasing is in the CBO scoring – and Krugman has pointed this out at least a few times. It sticks out like a sore thumb if (generic)you know what it means, but if you don’t, if you think “yeah, blah blah, no mechanism provided, whatever” then it looks good. And you might not even realize that you need to ask an economist or someone similar to point out why you should be scoffing.

  3. I think what generally passes for conservative thought these days is just so much smoke and mirrors when exposed to the light of day. A party that keeps itself in its echo chamber of a closet, only appearing on Fox, does not get challenged when 2+2 does not add up to 4. A party that has spent four year bashing the president, and the previous eight years defending a clearly awful one, has not intellectually prepared itself to be challenged. In Christian men groups they use the metaphor of iron sharpening iron (meaning men being willing to challenge each other), to keep each other on the strait and narrow. I would say that is a great metaphor for what the GOP has NOT done. Horrible ideas, or criticisms of the president, which are just plain weak or bad arguments, are ballyhooed as great intellectual achievements. Truly, how can Ann Coulter simply slap a different title on the same damn book, and still be considered someone who should be on TV.

  4. Larison may be a conservative but a good guy and no fan of Romney. He has mostly been concentrating on Romney’s foreign policy which he sees as Bush redux and as a result very scary.

  5. Wasn’t Ryan’s budget based on some think tank budject, like the Heritage Foundation or something? And when it started getting attention they promply removed from their website? That tells me they know full well what’s in their budget.

  6. JR —You’re right about Ryan’s budget proposal. It wasn’t his work. He was just the front man…”Oh, let’s let Paulie do it”…Unfortunately, Paulie got his mask ripped off and has been exposed for the number crunching fraud he is.

  7. David Stockman on the recent. loosely called, budget. “Flimflam and swindle.” He goes on to call the Appropriation Committee in Congress, Rep and Dem, “cesspools of deceit, having endless ways to trick the rest of Congress into thinking they’re doing something.” Ryan’s budget is his way of tricking the American people into thinking he’s doing something.

    Then there’s Ryan’s faithful Tea Party fans, an audience the members of which, to quote a journalist with Rolling Stone, are “full of shit.”

    So we end up with a guy who’s a “cesspool of deceit” being believed by an audience that’s “full of shit.”

Comments are closed.