When Paul Ryan left me for another lover

PAUL RYAN:…[W]hat I’ve been trying to do is indict the entire vision of progressivism because I see progressivism as the source, the intellectual source for the big government problems that are plaguing us today and so to me it’s really important to flush progressives out into the field of open debate.

GLENN: I love you.

PAUL RYAN: So people can actually see what this ideology means and where it’s going to lead us and how it attacks the American idea.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on just a second. I ‑‑ did you see my speech at CPAC?

PAUL RYAN: I’ve read it. I didn’t see it. I’ve read it, a transcript of it.

GLENN: And I think we’re saying the same thing. I call it ‑‑

PAUL RYAN: We are saying the same thing.

GLENN: It’s a cancer.

PAUL RYAN: Exactly.

The above exchange, from a first “meeting” that went on for a good while, occurred on Glenn Beck’s radio show on April 12, 2010, then was re-broadcast on Beck’s Fox News Channel program. It has recently been dug up at the Nation and on the Ed Show, among other places where human carcinogens learn their trade, but it has a personal meaning for me.

At that time in 2010, I was still writing at HotAir.com as a guest blogger. Congressman Ryan, then in the House minority, had just published his “Road Map 2.0,” but for my own reasons I was more interested in some remarks he had made ten days earlier in Oklahoma City, on the subject of Progressivism:

Early Progressives wanted to empower and engage the people. They fought for populist reforms like initiative and referendum, recalls, judicial elections, the breakup of monopoly corporations, and the elimination of vote buying and urban patronage. But Progressivism turned away from popular control toward central government planning. It lost most Americans and consumed itself in paternalism, arrogance, and snobbish condescension. “Fighting Bob” LaFollette, Teddy Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson would have scorned the self-proclaimed “Progressives” of our day for handing out bailout checks to giant corporations, corrupting the Congress to purchase votes for government controlled health care, and funneling billions in Jobs Stimulus money to local politicians to pay for make-work patronage. That’s not “Progressivism,” that’s what real Progressives fought against!

Ryan’s language on “real progressives” seemed to echo a piece I had written at the beginning of March concerning certain contemporary Republicans including Ryan himself.  His language was close enough to mine to make me wonder if he or some aide of his had noticed the post, either through HotAir or via a link at The Weekly Standard blog.

Sensing that I might be on to something, and in any event feeling grateful for the new ammunition against my “true conservative” critics, I blogged a follow-up on “Paul Ryan’s Real Progressivism,” hoping for more validation, dreaming a little about joining together with my new friend in the good fight against lunacy and extremism in our own ranks…

…but it wasn’t Ryan or one of his aides, it was lunacy and extremism himself who got to “Paul Ryan’s Real Progressivism” first. The day after I posted, Beck was on his radio show quoting from the piece – though without naming me – and wondering whether Ryan might not turn out to be “the next John McCain,” which in Beck-world means a disease attacking America’s essence of purity. In short order, Paul Ryan had swept into action against “that blogger” who done him wrong, and the rest is never having to say you’re sorry.

As for “that blogger” – that is, as for me – I might even stand by some of the arguments and observations that got Glenn and Paul so bothered and hot two Springs ago, but I won’t link the pieces: I don’t have time for wanna-be rightwing hacks anymore, especially when they’re me.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

6 comments on “When Paul Ryan left me for another lover

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. link the stuff in a comment for me …… even when you were writing rightwing, you weren’t stupid or a poor writer.

    • Au contraire, I was quite stupid and stupid writes as stupid is… which even worsern stupid is boring.

      Anyway, it’s easy enough to find the pieces. Trust the Google. Betcha if you put my name and either title in a Google search box you’ll be taken right to the versions here or at HotAir. You can try something similar using the site Search box down below. Or you can click on the Paul Ryan or Progressivism “tags.” Many wonderful options available just like that, but all will take you to the same unfortunate destinations. I will say though that the Wilson pieces and a couple others from back around then I can still stand by. The horrible stuff was whenever I was trying to prove I “belonged.”

2 Pings/Trackbacks for "When Paul Ryan left me for another lover"
  1. […] Log in ← When Paul Ryan left me for another lover […]

  2. […] Tim Kowal continue a debate over the “American-ness” of progressivism that, if only certain familiar cranks and leading politicians were not determined to advertise their apparently as invincible as influential misconceptions, I […]

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins