l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 By Glenn Harlan Reynolds
In Inman Majors' terrific novel The Millionaires, a consultant explains that
there are really only two themes to political campaigns: "It's A Bright New
Day," and "Back To Basics." Barack Obama's 2008 campaign was "Bright New
Day" raised to a higher power. Now, with the choice of Paul Ryan as his
running mate, Mitt Romney has signaled that he's doubling down on "Back To
Basics." That has risks, but they're risks worth running.
The 2008 Obama campaign was all about hope and change. Obama's nomination
was to mark the end of rising sea levels, his presidency was going to mark
the end of racial strife, and he was going to deliver "net spending cuts"
and reduce the budget deficit "by half" before the end of his first term.
The Obama administration sold its near trillion dollar "stimulus" plan by
claiming that without it, unemployment would reach 9% while with it,
unemployment would stay below 8%. Despite the bill, unemployment hit 10% and
has, in fact, remained more than 8% for the past 42 months. The "stimulus"
money, meanwhile, seems to have vanished into a welter of crony-capitalism
deals of which the Solyndra debacle is only the most famous.
And all that "hope and change" from the administration has turned to "attack
and blame" as Obama and his surrogates launch one assault after another in
an effort to turn the conversation to anything besides the economy. So much
for the promised Bright New Day.
With trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, and the exploding
national debt (which Obama called unconscionable when it was about half as
big as it has become under his stewardship) it seems time for a Back To
Basics approach. And that's clearly the direction favored by Romney, the
turnaround artist who specialized in taking mismanaged entities and making
them work. His choice of Ryan simply takes it to a new level. As Internet
humorist IowaHawk tweeted on Saturday: "Paul Ryan represents Obama's most
horrifying nightmare: Math."
Yes, math. Ryan is the expert on the often Byzantine complexities of the
federal budget. His budget proposal last year, though rejected by Democrats
in the Senate, represented a serious effort to rein in runaway spending. The
only cogent criticism, really, was that it didn't go far enough.
In fact, the math shows our spending is unsustainable. Nothing can save it:
Not higher taxes, not lower interest rates on federal borrowing, not
financial jiggery-pokery from the Fed. If we continue on this path, the
result will be disaster: We'll be Greece, with nuclear weapons.
Romney's selection of Ryan shows that he understands the dire nature of the
problem, and that he's serious about addressing it. But it also lays down a
marker.
If Americans take the future of their country seriously, they'll reject the
Obama approach, which has been disastrous, and elect Romney-Ryan, along with
a substantial number of fiscally conservative members of Congress. That
will give America a chance to avoid financial ruin.
But Back To Basics has its risks. Though most Americans realize that our
spending is irresponsible and unsustainable, there remain quite a few who
aren't prepared to end it, at least if doing so might interfere with their
ability to suck, unmolested, at the government teat. The Ryan choice leaves
them certain of where Romney stands. Only some of them will be patriotic
enough to vote against their own pocketbooks.
But even if the Romney-Ryan ticket loses, it will have provided a valuable
moment of clarity. If Obama is re-elected, there will be no doubt where the
responsibility lies when the inevitable financial catastrophe occurs. And
clarity, sometimes, has a value all its own.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds hosts InstaVision on PJTV and blogs at InstaPundit. |
|
