Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! We only shake you down once a year, but when we do we really mean it. It costs a lot to keep the site afloat, and our growing audience, well over TWO million unique viewers a month, eats up a lot of bandwidth — and bandwidth isn’t free. We aren’t supported by corporate donors, advertisers or big foundations. We survive solely on your support.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

What Ryan and Obama Share

by PAUL A. PASSAVANT

When Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential running mate, progressive groups immediately began to message their networks.  They said Romney had committed “political suicide,” and openly asked, “Did Romney just give away the election,” to quote some of the hyperbole from MoveOn.org.  I disagree.  I think Romney made the smartest choice he could have made.

Let’s cover the basics first.  Ryan comes from Wisconsin, a swing state with 11 electoral votes.  Wisconsin went for President Obama in 2008, but recently refused to recall Republican Governor Scott Walker after Walker pushed through a measure to crush public sector unions.  Romney has just made an important play for Wisconsin.

Ryan also excites the conservative base, but isn’t a moron like Sarah Palin, John McCain’s infamous pick.  This avoids alienating older, long time Republican voters who are not idiots and who vote their economic interests.

Ryan is an acolyte of notorious libertarian and market celebrant Ayn Rand.  This could appeal to the youngest voter demographic – those who have grown up with the Internet and cell phones. These college-aged students, or those in their early 20s, get excited by the libertarianism of Ron Paul.  These  Net-libertarians have grown up in a historical period without meaningful ideological opposition to neoliberalism, which means they cannot tell the difference between a pyramid scheme and Social Security.

They have also experienced a generation of attacks on government, of cuts to government programs and agencies, and of Republicans who tell them not to trust government.  They have experienced Republicans who tell them that government screws up anything it tries to do, and then once elected, these Republicans prove their point by actively trying to screw up government. Not trusting government, these Net-libertarians gravitate to the Internet, that is to say, the market.

Of course, problems predictably occur. Government’s regulatory bodies (and public schools) have been systematically incapacitated, so their failures are preordained by policies designed so that they will “fail.” Market actors behave exactly as micro-economics predicts – in a self-interested, profit maximizing way. This means that people who are not profitable to insure will not receive healthcare.  This means that environmental damage is an “externality” and an attractive place to have the costs associated with certain businesses “socialized” rather than born by the corporation itself so the corporation can keep up with its competition (which is doing the exact same thing).  For market actors, the public interest or the common good is simply not the rule according to which one makes one’s decisions.  But when weakened public institutions and profit seeking behavior on the part of market actors produce their predictable, socially damaging consequences, Net-libertarians blame government for “failures” that are not “failures” from the perspective of market actors, while cynically shrugging off self interested behavior that leads to socially disastrous consequences: after all, they seem to reason, I would act in a self interested manner if I were in that position too.  If there is a reform they can get on board with, it is more “consumer choice,” that is to say, more of the same that neoliberalism – Ryan’s market libertarianism – has to offer.

Does Romney’s choosing the market libertarian Ryan as a running mate exploit a vulnerability of Obama’s or does it play to his strengths?  At this point, it is hard to say.  There are three issues to consider.

First, Obama was very popular with the youngest voter demographic in 2008 – that is, the Net libertarians.  But the 20-something Net libertarians clicked ‘like” on “hope” and “change,” but our political, economic, and social welfare problems remain.  In other words, the 20-something Net libertarians like the pseudo-inclusivity of consumer choice more than doing the hard work (and the resulting divisiveness) of exerting political force.  This means that the political force necessary to re-shaping the economic and social welfare aspects of our lives continues to be lacking, and so these problems persist four years later, hanging over us like a dark cloud auguring another economic calamity on the horizon.  As Obama’s campaign has found it necessary to air “negative” or critical ads of Romney, Obama now appears to this generation like just another politician, even though he is fluent in their language of Net-libertarianism and its pseudo-inclusivity.  In this scenario, Obama and Romney-Ryan split the 20-something Net-libertarian vote, which is a loss for the Obama camp and a victory for the Republican ticket that needs to overcome a “geriatric,” or “my crank grandfather,” image.

Second, Obama’s center of gravity may have more in common with Ryan’s than Democrats, liberals, and leftists like to admit.  As Ron Suskind has described in Confidence Men, Obama was the candidate in 2008 who seemed to grasp most astutely the financial calamity as it was happening.  But the economic advisors who helped candidate Obama understand and criticize the wreaking ball of Wall Street on the nation’s wellbeing, like Paul Volcker, were marginalized in the Obama administration.  Meanwhile, those who had inspired and overseen the disastrous financial policies that caused the nation so much devastation, like Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner, received key appointments to oversee economic policy in the Obama administration.

In terms of Obama’s policies, we can see how much Obama shares with Ryan’s market libertarianism.  When Medicare was established, Democrats hoped that it would provide the foundation for a future system of universal health care.  Rather than building on this foundation, Obama abandoned it in favor of Romney’s model for health care that he had established in Massachusetts while governor (which had, in turn, been a policy model proposed by right wing think tank The Heritage Foundation in 1993): require everyone to purchase health insurance.  That is, instead of doubling down on the principle of universal health care and strengthening Medicare (by bringing younger, healthier people into its “pool” in addition to the elderly who require a lot of healthcare), Obama played into the hands of market libertarianism by forcing everyone to be a consumer of health insurance.

But nowhere do we see a shared gravitational pull between Obama and Ryan more than in Obama’s proposals during the debt ceiling negotiations of summer, 2011.  As reported by the Washington Post, in negotiations with Speaker of the House John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Obama proposed cuts to Medicare and Social Security.  (Mercifully, the senators known as the “Gang of Six” were moving to a compromise that, almost incomprehensibly, was more progressive, and this torpedoed the unfortunate efforts underway between the Obama administration and the Republican House leaders.)  If Obama were committed to the principles of Social Security as a universal program of social solidarity, then it wouldn’t be a bargaining chip in budget negotiations.  The difference, then, between Ryan’s well-known proposals to privatize Social Security while ending Medicare by substituting for it a policy of vouchers for consumers, is less a qualitative, principled distinction, and more a matter of marketized degree.  In this scenario, Ryan’s forthright advocacy of market libertarianism seems more honest, and therefore more appealing, than Obama’s furtive efforts to have Boehner return his phone calls during the summer of 2011 while simultaneously trying to persuade the public that he really still has our wellbeing at heart.  Who wants to be conned that way and taken for a fool?

There remains a third possibility.  A principled attack on the premises of twentieth century domestic policy and its attempts to make good — or at least make better — on the promise of “justice” and the promotion of the “general welfare” might force Obama to make the contrary case.  To do so, he would have to re-learn how to articulate why supporting programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the ever-evanescent aspiration of universal healthcare – to say nothing of improving the working and non-working lives of those who earn their livings from labor rather than from capital gains — is the right thing to do.  Democrats are rusty at making those arguments, though, so it won’t come easy.  But addressing Ryan’s market libertarianism head on could refocus public discourse on the class war that the one percent has made on the rest of us in a way that we have not seen since Occupy Wall Street a year ago.  What are the prospects for this scenario?  They are not bright.

On the one had, Romney is trying to walk back from Ryan’s aggressive advocacy of market libertarianism in order not to alienate the Eisenhower/ Rockefeller Republicans still among us. Romney’s position seems to be that Ryan is on the right track, but perhaps he is overly enthusiastic and goes too far.  On the other, Obama is banking on existing deep public support for Medicare and merely reminds us that Ryan would destroy it.  But the voter is left with the nagging question, after having witnessed the Obama administration in action: does Obama think Ryan is on the right track as well, but just “goes too far”?  If so, we will all be stuck in the same neoliberal, market libertarian place regardless, whether Romney or Obama wins.  If this is the case, voters may elect to go with the market libertarian who admits as much –what Ryan adds to the Romney ticket – over the guy we can’t be too sure about after the last four years.

Paul A. Passavant teaches Political Science at Hobart and William Smith Colleges.  He is the author of No Escape: Freedom of Speech and the Paradox of Rights (New York University Press, 2002), and the editor (with Jodi Dean) of Empire’s New Clothes: Reading Hardt and Negri (Routledge, 2004).  His current work addresses neoliberalism, the policing of protest, and urban transformation.

COMING IN SEPTEMBER

A Special Memorial Issue of CounterPunch

Featuring recollections of Alexander Cockburn from Jeffrey St. Clair, Peter Linebaugh, Paul Craig Roberts, Noam Chomsky, Perry Anderson, Becky Grant, Dennis Kucinich, Michael Neumann, Susannah Hecht, P. Sainath, Ben Tripp, Alison Weir, James Ridgeway, JoAnn Wypijewski, John Strausbaugh, Pierre Sprey, Conn Hallinan, James Wolcott, Laura Flanders, Ken Silverstein, Tariq Ali and many others …

Subscribe to CounterPunch Today to Reserve Your Copy

 

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

September 29, 2016
Jack Smith
Must They be Enemies? Russia, Putin and the US
Gilbert Mercier
Clinton vs Trump: Lesser of Two Evils or the Devil You Know
Tom H. Hastings
Manifesting the Worst Old Norms
George Ella Lyons
This Just in From Rancho Politico
September 28, 2016
Eric Draitser
Stop Trump! Stop Clinton!! Stop the Madness (and Let Me Get Off)!
Ted Rall
The Thrilla at Hofstra: How Trump Won the Debate
Robert Fisk
Cliché and Banality at the Debates: Trump and Clinton on the Middle East
Patrick Cockburn
Cracks in the Kingdom: Saudi Arabia Rocked by Financial Strains
Lowell Flanders
Donald Trump, Islamophobia and Immigrants
Shane Burley
Defining the Alt Right and the New American Fascism
Jan Oberg
Ukraine as the Border of NATO Expansion
Ramzy Baroud
Ban Ki-Moon’s Legacy in Palestine: Failure in Words and Deeds
David Swanson
How We Could End the Permanent War State
Sam Husseini
Debate Night’s Biggest Lie Was Told by Lester Holt
Laura Carlsen
Ayotzinapa’s Message to the World: Organize!
Binoy Kampmark
The Triumph of Momentum: Re-Electing Jeremy Corbyn
David Macaray
When the Saints Go Marching In
Seth Oelbaum
All Black Lives Will Never Matter for Clinton and Trump
Adam Parsons
Standing in Solidarity for a Humanity Without Borders
Cesar Chelala
The Trump Bubble
September 27, 2016
Louisa Willcox
The Tribal Fight for Nature: From the Grizzly to the Black Snake of the Dakota Pipeline
Paul Street
The Roots are in the System: Charlotte and Beyond
Jeffrey St. Clair
Idiot Winds at Hofstra: Notes on the Not-So-Great Debate
Mark Harris
Clinton, Trump, and the Death of Idealism
Mike Whitney
Putin Ups the Ante: Ceasefire Sabotage Triggers Major Offensive in Aleppo
Anthony DiMaggio
The Debates as Democratic Façade: Voter “Rationality” in American Elections
Binoy Kampmark
Punishing the Punished: the Torments of Chelsea Manning
Paul Buhle
Why “Snowden” is Important (or How Kafka Foresaw the Juggernaut State)
Jack Rasmus
Hillary’s Ghosts
Brian Cloughley
Billions Down the Afghan Drain
Lawrence Davidson
True Believers and the U.S. Election
Matt Peppe
Taking a Knee: Resisting Enforced Patriotism
James McEnteer
Eugene, Oregon and the Rising Cost of Cool
Norman Pollack
The Great Debate: Proto-Fascism vs. the Real Thing
Michael Winship
The Tracks of John Boehner’s Tears
John Steppling
Fear Level Trump
Lawrence Wittner
Where Is That Wasteful Government Spending?
James Russell
Beyond Debate: Interview Styles of the Rich and Famous
September 26, 2016
Diana Johnstone
The Hillary Clinton Presidency has Already Begun as Lame Ducks Promote Her War
Gary Leupp
Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Against Russia
Dave Lindorff
Parking While Black: When Police Shoot as First Resort
Robert Crawford
The Political Rhetoric of Perpetual War
Howard Lisnoff
The Case of One Homeless Person
Michael Howard
The New York Times Endorses Hillary, Scorns the World
Russell Mokhiber
Wells Fargo and the Library of Congress’ National Book Festival
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail
[i]
[i]
[i]
[i]