Paul Ryan: A Bold, Risky Choice, or the Safest Choice?

Paul Ryan: A Bold, Risky Choice, or the Safest Choice?

By R. Alan Clanton
Thursday Review Editor

Democratic strategists and the Obama campaign hadn’t been idly waiting around for this day to arrive: they had been attacking Congressman Paul Ryan for over a week in a series of tough, preemptive advertisements slamming some of the names on Mitt Romney’s much discussed short list.

So when Romney, the presumptive GOP nominee, made his announcement earlier today in Norfolk, Virginia, there were few surprises—on either side. Ryan’s name had been floated for many weeks, but within the last few days—as Romney’s list apparently grew shorter—Ryan’s name landed near the top of what seemed a rapidly narrowing field of contenders.

Ryan’s choice clarifies the big question: would Mitt Romney, after a year of slow, complex dance-steps toward the Right, move back to the middle with a centrist choice as running mate, or would he make a selection designed to solidify his conservative credentials with many still-skeptical Republicans. Romney’s selection of the seven term Ryan, a bona fide Wisconsin conservative, budget policy wonk and author of sweeping belt-tightening fiscal legislation (popular with conservatives but frequently bashed by liberals), crystallizes Romney’s decision: forget outreach to moderates or independents—it’s all about burnishing his support on the Right.

The bottom line: game on. And get ready—whatever negative narrative we’ve seen in the ad trenches so far is likely to get a lot nastier.

Paul Ryan will surely cleave away that always elusive ethnic and social outreach that some people imagined Romney might choose—Marco Rubio of Florida, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Susana Martinez of New Mexico, et al.

As for recent or past high profile GOP contenders (Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann), well, those names were already mostly out of contention. Not only would their own anti-Romney words from the primaries and debates be used against the Republican nominee, but Romney didn’t want to make the same mistake made by McCain by picking someone who might easily hog the headlines and overshadow the news feed. The largely non-vetted Sarah Palin didn’t just steal McCain’s thunder, she stole all the thunder…for better and for worse.

Despite all the talk of risk, Ryan is straight from the contemporary running-mate textbook—a good choice in terms of age (he’s younger; in the handbook see: Cheney, Dick), compatibility (he’s popular with Tea Partiers and slightly to Romney’s right without being Curtis LeMay or those apish pre-humans in 2001: A Space Odyssey), geography (Ryan hails from the Midwest and a possible key swing state), religion (Ryan is Catholic, a religious group recently disposed toward Democrats in some states), brains (Ryan will be to Romney what Gore was to Clinton), and looks (easy-on-the-eyes while not being an empty suit). Think of what might have happened if you could put the passion of Rick Santorum and the intellect of Milton Friedman inside the body of Dan Quayle.

The smart money had been telling us that Romney’s ongoing risk aversion meant that Ryan was out of the question. Indeed, Ryan’s sweeping proposals on budget-cutting, Medicare, welfare and entitlements, and government spending draw about as much liberal lightning as anything else conservatives could do—short of parading Rush Limbaugh around in a Speedo swimsuit. Analysts like Newsweek columnist Paul Begala and NBC News political reporter Chuck Todd had been predicting that Romney’s risk-averse behavior would narrow the choice to basically two names: Rob Portman or Tim Pawlenty But this made little sense, especially in an environment where the incoming fire had already reached blitzkrieg proportions.

Ryan is something of an intellectual when it comes to numbers and budgets, perhaps the most thoughtful fiscal conservative and budgeting wonk in Congress since Jack Kemp in the 1970s and 80s, and Robert A. Taft in the 1940s and 50s. But, Ryan draws more negative reviews by the few truly moderate and unaligned members of the press than Taft and Kemp combined. Unlike Kemp or Taft, he is truly disliked by some liberals, especially for his tax proposals, legislation which they view as lopsided in favor the richest Americans. In a tough economy still stuck deeply in recession, Ryan may be an easy target for Democrats.

On the other hand, any choice by Romney would have been held in low esteem by Obama’s team, and most of the names on the short list were already being used for target practice. In the hours after today’s announcement a consensus quickly formed among many political reporters and analysts that Ryan was a “bold” but risky choice. The adjective most often employed on the web and among the chattering classes was “controversial,” a description vague enough at times to have little meaning in today’s divisive political environment. In Ryan’s case, the word is used to describe his disdain for entitlements and government spending, including his proposal to systematically ramp up the Social Security retirement age to 70—potentially unpopular with Baby Boomers and some of those who follow in the next generation. But give Ryan credit for possessing the backbone to at least talk about Social Security—possibly the most sacred of all the great entitlement cows.

Disguised as a bold move strategically, Paul Ryan is in fact a do no harm kind of choice. Romney can remain cagey and elusive and even evasive on his feet; Ryan, meanwhile, can take the hardest blows while in turn throwing nasty jabs and punches at the Democrats (think of the duo of Gerald Ford and Bob Dole in 1976). Ryan will solidify the support of GOP traditionalists and conservatives, and perhaps generate some actual enthusiasm for the ticket between now and Tampa. Ryan will have little negative impact on Romney’s reserve of safe Red states, and he will likewise make no difference in those states already deemed safe for President Obama. The electoral map remains a relatively level field.

So this brings the challenge for both President Obama and Mitt Romney right back—as it seems to have remained for months now—to those seven or eight battleground states. In that sense even the Romney-handler’s choice of venue was strategic: the backdrop was one of naval hardware and military colors in one of those critical states—Virginia.

Romney’s only challenge will be to make his own fiscal and budgetary positions align comfortably with Ryan’s, with whom Romney himself has sometimes dramatically disagreed.

Romney’s selection of Ryan means this: Romney will expect no quarter, and none will be offered. And we can expect the next three months to include even more of the brutal negative advertising since Ryan can be expected to draw heavy fire from Democrats and liberals, as well as close political scrutiny by the mainstream media.

With polls showing Obama maintaining a slight lead over Romney, there is a chance that the race to November may harden into the basic numbers we see now, with little movement save for the small post-convention bounces. In this kind of tight race, the nasty broadsides tend to increase, with the net effect of all those negative ads being that voters will become impatient, disheartened and bored.

Romney, as challenger, will want every vote he can get. And that means stepping out of his comfort zone. Bold moves carry great risk. The question is: will this risk carry a reward?