Disrupting the Narrative of the New Left, its allies in Academia, Hollywood and the Establishment Media, and examining with honesty the goals of cultural Marxism and the dangers of reactionary and abusive political correctness.
THE NARRATIVE AND POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
“Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen.”-George Orwell
For a year or so, House Budget Committee Chairman and possible 2016 presidential candidate Paul Ryan has been making trips to the inner city to help understand urban poverty and how the federal government can help fix it.
The trips have been kept mostly hush-hush, but in the wake of a recent controversy about remarks Ryan made about generational poverty, he allowed a reporter to tag along for the first time. That reporter? BuzzFeed's McKay Coppins.
The results are predictable. Ryan comes across as a deeply awkward millionaire paralyzed by political correctness as he struggles to identify with a black church congregation in Indianapolis, Indiana. In one particularly embarrassing moment, Ryan corrects himself from uttering similar language to that which got him in trouble, only to nervously search for something more appropriate and settle on a comically bland statement that the Romney campaign wanted to "try for everybody's vote."
Another painful anecdote is a joke Ryan told about how early he was meeting with the group at the church. "Usually when I get up this early, I get up to kill something," Ryan said. He was referring to hunting, but no one in the audience understood him until he clarified it.
In the wake of Coppins' piece on Donald Trump in which he described the real-estate mogul as a con-man perpetually pretending to run for office to bask in the attention that came from the ruse, some GOP operatives warned Republican flacks not to let Coppins anywhere near their bosses. Looks like Ryan didn't get the memo.
If you want to know how fearful the left is of Paul Ryan, consider the efforts they make to slander him. In the past, they've portrayed him as someone eager to (literally) throw grandma over a cliff. The reason? Ryan wanted to make eminently sensible and absolutely necessary changes to Medicare.
Then came Barack Obama, who, when describing Ryan's budget, made recklessly untrue assertions, saying (among other things) that Republicans want the elderly and autistic and Down syndrome children to "fend for themselves."
And now, as Jonathan Tobin has written, comes the latest attempted mugging of Ryan, this time for what he said on Bill Bennett's "Morning in America" program last week. When discussing his forthcoming effort to combat poverty, the House Budget Committee chairman and 2012 GOP vice presidential candidate said this:
We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with.
The left immediately attacked. Some, like Representative Barbara Lee, accused Ryan of mounting a "thinly veiled racial attack" - one that "cannot be tolerated." Others, like New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, wrote that Ryan's words amounted to a "racial dog whistle."
Why are some liberals doing this? For one thing, they are intellectually exhausted. They know they cannot win the debate on the merits, and so they resort to ad hominem attacks.
But as Jonathan points out, there's something more fundamental going on here. Liberals who have complicity in the problems plaguing America's inner cities are attempting to make an honest conversation about poverty impossible.
On Friday, it was reported that Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Patty Murray were "just a few billion" dollars apart on a 2-year budget deal. The two Budget Committee chairs are expected to work through the weekend to finalize a deal that is expected to replace some of the sequester cuts and, possibly, raise government revenue. Even if a budget deal passes Congress, it would be up to the appropriations committees to enact the deal. Still, the closeness of a deal represents a significant shift from the past few years, when Congress failed to pass even a budget framework. It also represents Ryan's growing power in the House.
The House Republican caucus gives Rep. Ryan considerable sway over all budget matters. For the past several years, almost unilaterally, he has crafted the caucus's policies on spending and entitlements. Unusually, Ryan also holds a seat on the powerful Ways and Means Committee, which sets tax and entitlement policy. House Republicans even gave Ryan a waiver on committee chair term limits so he could continue to run the Budget Committee. No other chair was given such a waiver.
To a certain extent, this isn't surprising. Ryan has long been considered a policy wonk on fiscal matters. He has a detailed understanding of the America's long-term budget challenges and understands the trade-offs necessary for a viable solution. Ryan, however, is emerging as a leader on issues outside fiscal issues.
The Democrats engaged in a great deal of demagoguery during the 2012 campaign regarding Paul Ryan's dedication to fixing our Social Security and Medicare systems so that they can avoid total collapse in the decades to come. They utilized the standard scare tactics (throwing granny off a cliff) as well as accusing Ryan of being "stupid" and a "liar." The one thing they did not do - because they could not do - was offer any kind of solution of their own. Obama and Reid didn't even bother kicking the can down the road. They simply ignored the can altogether and counted on the ignorance of Democrat voters to see them through to election day.
Well, the strategy succeeded but it was surely a hollow victory since the iceberg is still lurking out there in the future.
A central factor in the looming financial crunch is the fact that our
society is aging. The “Baby Boom” generation has already started to
collect their Social Security retirement benefits. As a result, there
are fewer workers to support each retiree than when Social Security was
created. Increasing life expectancy and the approaching retirement of
more Baby Boomers continues to put increasing pressure on Social
Security each year. Over the next several years, the number of retirees
is expected to grow more rapidly than the number of individuals whose
taxes will pay for future benefits. Because of this, the number of
workers supporting each Social Security recipient is projected to fall.
According to the 2012 Social Security Trustees Report, beneficiaries
will face a painful 25 percent benefit cut in 2033 when the Trust Funds
are exhausted – three years sooner than projected just last year. At
that time, even those who are currently on Social Security – those now
62 and older – may experience indiscriminate cuts in benefits at a time
when they are increasingly reliant on the program.
Luckily, we still have Paul Ryan working hard in the House of Representatives on behalf of the American people.
The conventional wisdom has always been that presidential debates are almost never game-changers. It's true, some debates stand out in hindsight but were not recognized as being significant at the time. Last week's debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama was not only a game-changer but a historic one. Not in recent memory has one candidate so effectively eviscerated his opponent as Romney did Obama.
The gutting was so comprehensive that even Obama's loyal allies in the media were unable to escape the effects of their own meltdown. Clearly they were fully primed to spin his performance in a positive way but wound up sputtering in impotent rage, lashing out at Jim Lehrer and even Obama himself. The fallout over the past week and the satisfying turnaround in the polling has merely emphasized Romney's magnificent victory in the Rockies.
Which brings us to the vice-presidential debate tonight between Paul Ryan and Joe Biden. If presidential debates are rarely significant the same is doubly true of veep debates. There have been, of course, a few memorable encounters. The 1988 debate between Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen is particularly well-remembered, thanks to the devastating zinger delivered by Bentsen when he let Quayle and the world know that he (Quayle) was "no Jack Kennedy."
Among other things, that debate featured a true generational difference: the 67-year-old Bentsen versus the 41-year-old Quayle. Tonight, 24 years later, we will witness another veep debate that features opponents from different generations: Joe Biden, who will turn 70 next month going up against 42-year-old Paul Ryan. And rest assured that Biden would LOVE to land a blow as devastating to Ryan as Bentsen's was to Quayle. Unfortunately for Biden, Paul Ryan is no Dan Quayle.
Expect Paul Ryan to talk about the role of government, balancing the
budget, taxes and especially Medicare, which he will bring up before
Biden in an effort to thwart an expected onslaught of accusations and lies.
"Because of the President's terrible performance, because Mitt Romney
did such a good job of giving the country a choice, they don't have a
choice but to have Joe Biden come at me," Ryan said in an interview that
aired Sunday on Milwaukee radio station WTMJ. "He's a very disciplined
person when he speaks in these kinds of situations. He doesn't produce
gaffes in these moments," Ryan told Fox News last week, making a
reference to Biden’s tendency to say stupid things in campaign speeches.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus admitted the vice
president is no stranger to the pressures of debates, given his 2
previous presidential campaigns and 36 years as a senator. "Joe Biden is
a gifted orator. He is very good at rhetoric, and I think is he very
relatable," Priebus said Sunday on CNN's State of the Union. "They are very two different people. And I think it's going to be a great night."
Former debate coach for Mitt Romney, Brett O’Donnell told Fox News he
expects Biden to come out with guns blazing. "I am sure that Vice
President Biden got a phone call from the White House, and said, you
know, 'Look, we didn't go after Governor Romney as much and so you have
to turn up the heat.”
Tonight's debate has taken on heightened significance because of what Romney did to Obama last week. Everyone agrees that Biden needs to score a knockout of his own simply to even things up again. A clear victory for Ryan tonight would mean another five days of round-the-clock discussion as to how the wheels have come off the Obama campaign. At that point Democrats across the country will begin jumping ship in order to salvage their own reelection chances. Another five days of despair in the media, lamenting the looming defeat of their creature, would demoralize the base.
It's well-known that Team Obama has long since given up any hope of capturing independents and swing voters. The only chance for an Obama victory is to energize the base and get out the vote. Repeated thrashings at the hands of Romney and Ryan would negate all Team Obama's efforts to do that. That is what's at stake tonight.
Which is why the first thing you need to understand about tonight's debate is that there is exactly zero chance that the Establishment Media will describe tonight's encounter as anything other than total victory for Biden. I've said it more than once that short of Biden bursting into angry, frustrated tears on stage there is no way the media will allow itself to have another meltdown. If Ryan wins the debate in the eyes of the viewers the media will call it a draw - which will then be spun into a net positive for Team Obama. If Biden wins a close one the media will claim it was decisive and spin it into a game-changer for Team Obama and the inevitable-Obama-Biden-victory-in-November meme will be given new life...at least among Obama's cadre of media bodyguards.
But Biden, despite his reputation for being a reliable gaffe machine, should not be underestimated. He is - and has always been - a thoroughly nasty piece of work. He is an OG demagogue who has been making an ass of himself in Washington since he was elected to the Senate in 1972.
As Jeffrey Lord of The American Spectator points out, Ronald Reagan himself referred to Biden as a "smooth but pure demagogue." Throughout the Reagan years Biden was notoriously soft on Communism and totally defeatist in his outlook regarding the Cold War. It's fair to say that if things had ever gone Biden's way back then the Soviet Union would probably still be around today. But while Biden has been 100% wrong in everything he's said or done when it comes to foreign policy there's no doubt that he has earned his reputation as a loudmouthed legislative thug. Reagan identified him as part of a "lynch mob" that included Ted Kennedy and Howard Metzenbaum (of Ohio).
Paul Kengor tells a story in The American Spectator about a classic example of Biden demagoguery that occurred in 1981. It was during the Senate confirmation hearing for Judge William P. Clark, who had been nominated by President Reagan to be the number two man at the State Department. Unlike Secretary of State Alexander Haig, Judge Clark was a close personal friend of Reagan's and everybody knew how important this confirmation was to the President. Biden knew it and took it upon himself to make things as difficult and humiliating as possible for Clark during the questioning.
Biden began by patronizing Clark for his ability to put himself
through school as the son of a poor rancher. "I, for one, think it
admirable the way in which you have conducted yourself in getting
to and through school," began Biden. "I have a great deal of
admiration for you."
Biden then expressed his admiration by placing Clark in the
stockade, asking him a series of specific questions he knew the
judge would not be able to answer.
"I sincerely hope you can answer these questions," averred
Biden. "Let me begin with southern Africa -- not South Africa, but
southern Africa, such as Namibia, Zimbabwe, Swaziland, Mozambique,
Angola and so on…. Can you tell me who is the prime minister of
South Africa?" Clark answered: "No, sir, I cannot."
As the cameras clicked and the evening-news crews started
salivating, Biden pressed on: "Can you tell me who the prime
minister of Zimbabwe is?" Clark: "It would be a guess."
Senator Biden then ran through other policy specifics, curiously
avoiding the Soviet-Cold War issues that Clark knew well. As he did, Biden inter-mixed
his questions with feigned apologies. Biden: "I really don't like
doing this, Justice Clark, but I don't know how else to get at the
point."
But what exactly was Biden's point? He knew perfectly well that Clark was not going to be making policy decisions. His role as deputy was to be more of an administrative one. Technically he would function as Haig's right-hand man but in reality would be Reagan's personal eyes-and-ears within the State Department. It hardly mattered whether or not he knew the name of the current prime minister of Zimbabwe.
For his part, Clark was a paragon of restraint and civility,
calmly telling Biden, "I respect that position, senator," before
adding, "I just have one point to make." Clark then explained, as
he had in his opening statement, that President Reagan did not
bring him on board as a policy expert, particularly on individual
issue areas. "Regarding making policy," said Clark, "I have
discussed this with both the president and the secretary [Al Haig].
Perhaps I did not make that clear, or maybe you came in a little
after my description of what we consider to be the role. My
position will not be involved in making policy, but rather in
coordinating and implementing in the position as deputy secretary
of state."
Clark had indeed made that clear, as did the other senators, who
jumped in to reiterate the fact. Even the ultra-liberal Senator Alan Cranston (D-CA) rushed to Clark's defense. Biden
didn't care.
The damage to Clark was done. Joe Biden may have been "sorry,
Judge, really," but he had so humiliated Clark that the judge
became the laughing stock of the world, as the international press
lampooned him. Most appreciative of Biden's performance were the
Soviets, who turned Biden's work into basically a TASS press
release.
Viewers of tonight's debate should expect to see Biden attempt to pull off a similar stunt against Ryan, who is unassailable on economic policy but who is not known for his knowledge of foreign policy. Which is not to say that Ryan can't hold his own on the subject of foreign policy. It's just that it's not his main area of expertise. Although Biden's judgment in foreign policy matters is suspect to say the least, he does have an undeserved reputation as a foreign policy "expert." Certainly Biden himself thinks so. He will try to exert his "mastery" while highlighting Ryan's "ignorance."
There
is no need for Ryan to play that game. When Biden asks one of his
what-color-is-the-sky-in-the-universe-he-lives-in questions, Ryan should
flash a look of utter incredulity and pivot to what Americans most care
about -- how the middle class has been "buried in the last four years." If Ryan does that, which I fully expect him to, he will
further cement what is going to be an overwhelming Republican victory,
up and down the ticket, on November 6.
I agree with that assessment, despite the presence of a moderator who under other circumstances would have been disqualified due to her prior associations with the President and one of his underlings. This three-way dance should be of maximum interest for all those who care about their future and the future of our nation.
This election year is vital to the future of the country we love so much. It has now become a campaign of ideas and visions (at least for Republicans) and Mitt's tapping of Paul Ryan as his VP draws a line in the sand. This is just a taste of what is to come! Well played, sir!
