Many Canadian commenters are drawing comparisons between Republican heartthrob Paul Ryan and Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Some parallels do exist. Both are men of strong convictions; both gained prominence at relatively young ages.
More important than the similarities, however, are the differences: differences that have made one man a head of government -- and that are complicating the other man's run for the vice presidency. If not too late, here are three things that Paul Ryan could beneficially learn from Stephen Harper.
1) One reform at a time
Paul Ryan has achieved fame with his grand designs for big immediate cuts to social spending; joined to restructuring of the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs; bolted to a big cut in the top federal income tax rate to 28 per cent.The grand design is all to be enacted at once, in one big bang.
By contrast, there is no "Harper plan." Harper has in mind a general direction in which he'd like to move: lower taxes, limited government, balanced budgets. But every step is incremental. Only at the end of a period of years does it become apparent how far he has moved.
Each Harper reform has been offered as an independent proposal, to pass or fail on its merits. If any has to be abandoned, well then, move on to the next.
Ryan's method of interlocking everything together creates a tremendous opportunity for his political opponents. They can seize upon some spending reform and crow, "The only reason that you are cutting this program is to fund a huge tax cut for the very rich" -- because in fact all the parts have to be adopted together for the grand design to work.
Nobody can credibly hurl such a charge at Harper. There's a spending cut, to be debated on its merits. Then, later, there's a tax reform, also to be debated on its merits. Different measures. Different debates.
2) Adapt to circumstances
Paul Ryan has been concerned with government spending, debt, and tax rates throughout his political career. His consistency is impressive. Since 2008, however, the world has changed radically. Ryan's policy response has not changed with it. His budget plan disregards the Eurozone crisis. It has little to say about high unemployment in the U.S. It focuses in 2012 on exactly the same set of fiscal problems the U.S. faced in 2006.
Stephen Harper, first elected in 2006, has adapted his ideas to new facts. He deployed a fiscal stimulus program to cushion the global economic shock -- but carefully ensured that the stimulus would fade out as Canada recovered. Canada's stimulus, unlike President Obama's, was not a fig leaf for some pre-existing ideological agenda. Again unlike President Obama's, Canada's stimulus did not open the way to permanently higher federal spending. The Canadian stimulus did the job. Only when Canadian economic output returned to pre-crisis levels did the fiscal tightening begin.
3) Don't talk so much
According to legend, the Harper campaign war rooms are decorated with a big placard asking: "Why are you saying this?" The idea is to discourage what frustrated political communicators call "musing." Musing occurs when a politician begins talking about issues other than those immediately at hand.
"You say you want stricter standards for chicken coops. Tell me -- can you ever envision granting chickens full human rights protections under the Charter?" And there will always be some unwary soul who will answer the question.
Paul Ryan has described a vision of government extending into the 2040s. The one thing for sure is that whatever we'll be talking about in the 2040s, it won't be anything we imagine today. Leave the future alone to take care of itself. Don't answer questions about your "ultimate" goals. You're not going to achieve those "ultimate" goals. Nobody in politics ever does. Pretending that you can or will only alarms people, wholly unnecessarily, and makes it that much more difficult to achieve any of your goals, even the most modest.
"You don't have to explain what you never said," is a line often attributed to President Calvin Coolidge. If he didn't say it, he should have. But even better than saying it, is heeding it.
Follow David Frum on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@davidfrum
American conservatives dissed him, so he dissed back, sounding even thoughtful every once in a while.
Now, he has recovered fully and is in full dishonest, unscientific, non-factual rant mode again.
"So many lies, so little time to spew them," was and is his mantra.
What Ryan needs, as Harper has, is a lock-step media fully prepared to deny his policies - all based on the firm belief that the poor have too much money and the rich don't have enough - are fiscal nonsense for all but the wealthiest Americans.
Seems Frum is back on that beat.
I bet she is twirling, though.
Oh, David, I was reading along thinking o.k. until the above comment. How could you possibly be that inept to think that anyone was going to fall for it. Paul Ryan, your lovely little pet, has voted in favor of the following: Medicare Part D-unfunded, the Iraq War-unfunded, the Afghanistan War-unfunded, TARP-unfunded, the Bush Tax Cuts twice-unfunded. I believe I've made my case.
This is...a remarkable combination of lies.
THIS was also true for those who fell-- hook line & sinker-- for Obama's "oh-so-rosey" picture of HIS America back in `08. The current flood of "lies and bloviation" far DWARF what we've endured for the past 3 1/2 years. I am not in that top-tiered 1%. I never WILL be. But I'm smart enough to see that those promises of the campaign were smoke and mirrors, designed to bankrupt our banks, erode our housing market, and keep millions on the federal gravytrain.
Let's not forget, when the GOP party you worked for assumed power, you were handed a surplus which should have eliminated Federal debt in it's entirety shortly after Bush & Co. left office. Instead, size of government doubled during the eight year rein. And the deficit ballooned. For eight years no one bothered to support financial regulations of any kind either and subsequently Wall St. cannibalized itself, taking the U.S. and world to brink of financial Armageddon (fortunately level heads prevailed in Canada so the Canadian economy was well insulated and protected -- no mortgage crisis ensued.) As a result, Pres. Obama inherited 750,000 jobs lost/month when he walked in the door, two protracted unfunded wars, and an unfunded Medicare part D (gift to big pharma). TARP was expensive. GM and Chrysler were failing. The $787 stimulus bill was a one time event designed to avert financial disaster. What part of "permanently higher federal spending do you refer? And what part of the entire Bush & Co. cause/effect are you blaming on Pres. Obama?
I don't mind reasonable discussions among honorable people, but if one side simply is incapable of honesty & integrity (GOP), frankly, they don't deserve to be part of ANY political discussion. Pseudo economist, Paul Ryan is an extension of Bush & Co. economic policies -- on steroids.
The ONLY successful WORKING models we have in past history are models of spending to promote growth.
No economy has ever prosperously grown without massive spending.
In fact, when the Bush economy "seemed" to be good, and unemployment was low, MASSIVE spending by every every class in America was fueling it. And the appearance of a good economy was masked by easy credit for anyone with a pulse. Piling up debt.
At no time in history is there any evidence that economies have grown healthily without massive spending, and usually the most massive spending is done by Governments.
We only got out of the great depression by MASSIVE Government spending. I have read that adjusted for inflation the amount of spending would be today the equivalent of 30 trillion dollars. And we DID get out of that depression AND paid down our debt to controllable levels.
Before you disagree with me remember that Governments DO NOT operate the same way household budgets do. They work the opposite. Governments MUST spend when no one else is.
And in reality Government's JOB is to SPEND!!!!!!!!
You're right, government is the lender and spender of last resort, especially when investors all over the world are seeking safe haven in U.S. T-bills; driving rates to historic lows below 2%; basically begging govt. to borrow the money and spend/invest to repair long term cause/effect damage of Bush & C. economic policies.
Additionally, accompanied with modest/slight inflation, we could/would grow our way out of our massive deficit (monetary value resets at a higher level) and the deficit evaporates just like post WWll (which we really never paid off) when we experienced even higher debit/GDP than even today.
"Paul Ryan has been concerned with government spending, debt, and tax rates throughout his political career. His consistency is impressive."
Really? Can the ever-so-quick-to-sound-reasonable Mr. Frum explain why, then, paul Ryan voted for all of the following:
Medicare Part D
Iraq War
Afghanistan War
Unemployment Benefits
Massive Tax Cuts in 2002, 2004, and again in 2006
Extended UI, 2002
There are others, but you get the idea. Not one dime of which was paid for.
And don't forget the multiple votes to raise the debt limit - before the Black, Democrat president got elected, that is.
Unless and until the press (not the media, Sarah Palin and Mr. Frum are both part of the media), that is to say real journalists start asking the tough questions our nation will continue to wallow in the RW's pedantic demagoguery.
Now, I'm an old man and I'm tired of it. The United States fought a World War to prevent the spread of fascism, and I will be damned if I'll stand by silently and watch my nation adopt it sixty years later.
projecting spending of 3.5% of GDP on discretionary spending (INCLUDING defense) by 2050 is outright FRAUDULENCE.
IS IT NOT?
I believe the appropriate saying is-
With friends like these, who needs enemas?
The unsubstantiated digs at Obama hardly compensate for the harsh judgement.