The Palm Beach Post

Ryan was a party man, not firefighte­r for a GOP ablaze

- Ross Douthat He writes for the New York Times.

The mistake about Paul Ryan, the one that both friends and foes made over the years between his Obama-era ascent and his just-announced departure from the House speakershi­p, was to imagine him as a potential protagonis­t for our politics, a lead actor in the drama of conservati­sm, a visionary or a villain poised to put his stamp upon the era.

This Ryan-of-the-imaginatio­n existed among conservati­ves who portrayed his budgetary blueprints as the GOP’s answer to the New Deal, among centrist deficit hawks who looked to him to hash out their pined-for grand bargain, and among liberals for whom Ryan was the most sinister of far-right operators, part fanatic and part huckster.

It existed among the donors who wanted him to run for president, the pundits who encouraged Mitt Romney to choose him as a running mate, the big names who pressured him into the speakershi­p. And it existed among anti-Trump conservati­ves who looked to Ryan to be the Republican of principle standing athwart Trumpism yelling stop.

But the real Ryan was never suited for these roles. He was miscast as a visionary when he was fundamenta­lly a party man — a diligent and policy-oriented pilot who ultimately let the party choose the vessel’s course. And because the institutio­nal GOP during his years was like a bayou airboat with a fire in its propeller and several alligators wrestling midship, an unhappy end for his career was foreordain­ed.

This is not to say that he lacked principles. The frequent descriptio­ns of Ryan as a Jack Kemp acolyte — a supply-side tax cutter and entitlemen­t reformer and free trader who imagined a more immigrant-welcoming and minority-friendly GOP — were accurate.

But even there, he came to those principles at a time when they were ascendant within the party — in the period between the supply-side ’80s and the late-1990s window when centrist liberals seemed open to entitlemen­t reform. And then as Republican­s moved away from them, tacking now more compassion­ate-conservati­ve, now more libertaria­n, now more Trumpist, his resistance to the drift was always gentle, eclipsed by his willingnes­s to turn.

Then came the 2016 election, in which Ryan temporaril­y resisted Donald Trump and then surrendere­d lest he break the party (which a party man could never do), and after that the Trump administra­tion, in which Ryan has obviously steered Trump toward standard Republican policies — but has just as obviously been steered as well. Most of Ryan’s past big-picture goals are compromise­d or gone, and while he attempted Obamacare repeal and achieved a butchered version of corporate tax reform, he’s accepted spending policies that make a mockery of any sort of libertaria­n or limited-government goal.

In a dispensati­on where the GOP was leaderless, rudderless, yawing between libertaria­n and populist extremes, he was never the kind of figure who could impose a vision on the party.

Instead, he only knew how to work within the system, which because the system had turned into a madhouse meant that his career could only end where it ended: in a record of failure on policy and principle that he chose for himself, believing — as party men always do — that there wasn’t any choice.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States