It seems that every pundit has a slightly different take on Ryan and his legacy. The latest is Ross Douthat, who calls Ryan a “party man” and insists that anyone who thinks he is an Ayn Rand acolyte in practice is “daft.”
Well, color me daft, because I think Douthat’s analysis, as usual, is incomplete. Here’s why:
- It is true that Ryan has shown a degree of tactical flexibility. When his “makers and takers” shtick didn’t go over well in 2012, he changed the message to “tough love” for the poor. He never tried to shut down the government. He gave up on BAT. He always did whatever was necessary to keep the GOP in power and provide big tax cuts for rich people.
- But to what end? Even today, he’s talking about pivoting to entitlement cuts in light of the explosion in the deficit that was caused by his tax cut. The difference between “makers and takers” and “tough love” rhetoric is in spin, not the actual measures he is proposing. For him, it’s all about afflicting people he views as being unproductive and giving money to the rich, because rich people are responsible for all of the good in the world, and the rest of us are just moochers. Keeping the GOP in power is the only plausible way of getting from Point A to Point B. Hence, the tactical flexibility.
Notwithstanding Douthat, supporting entitlement cuts after 2010 wasn’t just the zeitgeist; it was a choice made by the GOP at Ryan’s insistence. That conversion, even if it has come to little in practice so far because the base doesn’t like it, will be his most enduring “accomplishment.”