Paul Ryan is a Featherweight Partner

August 15, 2012

By Saeed Qureshi

 So finally Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has overcome his dilemma, confusion and prolonged search by choosing Paul Ryan as his running mate for the vice presidential slot. Paul is a diehard conservative and believes in capitalism as an article of faith. He is unswervingly motivated by the philosophy of Ayn Rand who vehemently supported laissez-faire capitalism. Born and educated in Russia Rand moved to the United States in 1926. She was a novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter. Laissez-faire is commonly known as free market economy that props up a no holds-barred economic paradigm with least government interference and regulations.

As such Paul Ryan stands for special interest lobbies and overarching corporate sector in the United States. Therefore, no wonder if he opposes officially sponsored welfare programs like Medicare, Medicaid, social security and food stamps. He wants to do away with these essential benefits and replace or change these with his half-baked recipes and utopian alternatives. For instance he wants Social security to be privatized and thus thrown open to the economic predators for grabbing their pound of flesh.

Already in American society, the divide between highly privileged and affluent sections and those of poor and financially is yawning. On one hand the Republican leadership wants to keep the wealthiest both individuals and conglomerations unleashed from higher taxation. On the other they want to inflict the unkindest cut on the marginalized and indigent segments by snatching from them the federal humanitarian support programs for their bare minimum survival. With this mindset that is patently partisan in favor of the privileged individuals and profit driven corporate sector, would the Republican candidates be still sanguine to carry the day and win the November elections. Visibly such a perspective appears to be a far cry and a frivolous hope.

Mitt Romney is kicking around cajoling and flattering the robber barons of this magnificent country and disregarding the woes of the indigent and hard pressed sections of the American society. This attitude brings home the bizarre reality that how far-removed and unmindful he is from the real issues.

We want capitalism in this country but not a naked, ruthless; fleecing kind that pulls downs the huts but spares and safeguards the palatial mansions. By taking away or curtailing such basic relief and social benefits as social security, healthcare and food stamps to buy grocery, we would be creating a huge class of have-nots and plunging into the pits of misery those who are already surviving on these.

As the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan authored the document “The Path to Prosperity: a Blueprint for American Renewal in March this year”. In that document he has proposed replacement of Medicare with a voucher program, privatizing the social security and handing over food stamps program to the states as block grants. These measures would hit hard the veterans, the retired, the middle class, seniors and lower-income Americans. Thereafter, there would so many bottlenecks for the economically hard pressed and poor Americans to buy grocery and medicines, as well as pay their utility bills.

Whilst a worthwhile system is already in place what could be the guarantee that the new system envisaged by Congressman Paul Ryan would excel the previous one. The private managers of this program would not give away the social security to the eligible and deserving people as easily as the government is directly doing.

It is time that the American economic paradigm is restructured and it should be a blend of both capitalism, free economy and state sponsored social benefits and safety nets. One may call it a stitch of socialism with the capitalism. The cut and dried capitalist system with an underlying concept of lasses-fair that the congressman Ryan wants to introduce does not offer desirable relief to those Americans who are left with no other option except to get the federal or state assistance for living and sustenance.

Paul Ryan is aggressive, a self-made hard worker who has climbed up the ladder of power by dint of incessant struggle from a scratch.  In his early years while working on Capitol Hill, Ryan buttressed his earning by working as a waiter, as fitness trainer and doing similar menial jobs. He should therefore, be in the best position to understand and comprehend the sufferings of a common man. He should devise and enunciate such economic plans that help in quashing poverty, levying taxes on the affluent and high income sections.

Instead he is vouching and propping an economic system that would deprive the poor and needy Americans of the benefits they receive to survive. His motivations are in sync with the themes of the Tea party which is hard on poor and soft on the opulent.

 As the media is already dishing out opinion on his joining the Romney team, there is less optimism being expressed about his future role in streamlining the murky social economic milieu. His approval rate in the public opinion is neither promising nor robust as to nurse hope that he would beef-up Romney chances for a victory.

To be a fanatic in America is a discredit because the people here judge a candidate by his sobriety, the strength of his moral character and the viability and efficacy of his agenda for uplift and advancement of this country. Paul is not that spectacular orator or an intellectual who would move the crowds and motivate them. He may play to the far right Christian galleries and corporate magnates but his real worth would be gauged if he also speaks for the downtrodden of this country and for the economically oppressed classes.

He is less logical and more aggressive, less confident and rather incoherent when speaking before a gathering. He is made that way. His response to the questions is invariably disjointed, a kind of knee jerk reaction that falls short of the pitch. He is indeed very sincere and totally committed to his conservative creed and ideals. But his plans and projections must also impress and influence the public opinion as well. In Madison where he was the featured speaker a limited but defiant crowd jeered Rep. Paul Ryan with such despising expletives “Shame on you, Paul Ryan, you Are an embarrassment to the State.”

If this is the bumpy and inauspicious beginning of his political journey, more severe and unruly situations may come in his way that could adversely impinge upon his political future as well. How would Romney view this initial setback and rebuff that Ryan has been exposed to at his debut public meeting? Is it a liability or an asset for Romney who too lacks the charisma and passion to sway the American public opinion in his favor in a big way?