Thoughts on Paul Ryan's Retirement Announcement

Although I'd read a few speculations at various times in the past that Paul Ryan might decide not to run for re-election again, I was surprised and a little saddened by Speaker Ryan's April 11 announcement that his time in Congress will conclude at the end of his current term.  Of course, had things gone as I thought they should in 2012, Ryan would have left the House years ago and would be busy carrying out his Vice-Presidential duties in the Mitt Romney administration.  While I'm sorry he'll be stepping aside, a transition to a new phase of life will probably be positive for Mr. Ryan personally.  He's been a successful politician and has risen to a powerful position, but those achievements have also made him a target of copious amounts of criticism from multiple directions.

It's not always true, but in this case, perhaps upsetting those on all sides is an indication he's been basically on the right track.  Liberals have long portrayed Congressman Ryan as a mean and heartless ultra-conservative and an enemy of vulnerable people like the elderly and poor.  Meanwhile, plenty of folks on the "Right" now see him as a squishy "establishment RINO," whatever those terms even mean these days, and a dear friend of mine recently explained that she thinks he's part of the problem in Washington, D.C.  While different people can have legitimate criticisms of or disagreements with individual actions he has or has not taken, I think that the generalized negative judgments of Speaker Ryan are unwarranted.  This is a guy whose goals include a retirement system that will still be solvent for seniors in the future and an economy where out-of-work citizens can find jobs, and who spends time traveling to visit groups striving to improve lives in distressed communities.  These are not the hallmarks of some cruel monster.  Likewise, a pro-lifer who supports tax reform, second amendment rights and free trade, and is one of the few politicians willing to stick his neck out to try to get people to address the looming problems with Social Security and Medicare is certainly not a wimpy moderate.  This list sounds to me more like a pretty standard description of what was known as a conservative not that long ago.

But then, while I've always considered myself a conservative, my take on the political scene, which I guess involves a mix of realism and idealism, leaves me out of step with most Republicans right now.  I am well aware that politicians are only human and that our government systems don't always make it easy to make changes or solve problems.  As a result, I don't expect to agree with public officials about everything, and I don't deem them utter failures or sell-outs if they aren't able to achieve all of the things on which they campaign.  However, while this may currently be considered too high a bar, I would like candidates or office-holders to at least be basically decent people if they expect me to side with them, defend them, or invest in them.  (I'm thinking, for a start, of individuals who don't punch reporters, don't brag about tawdry actions in books or on video, and don't abuse minors -- go ahead, call me an "elitist" dreamer.)

I have some differences of opinion with Paul Ryan, including a less-lenient view toward immigration issues, and I would certainly prefer it if the federal government in which he plays an important role would stop increasing spending and deficits so much.  As a skeptic of the present occupant of the Oval Office, I've found it disappointing to see the degree to which Speaker Ryan appears to have become a friendly working partner of Donald Trump, but I can (rather grudgingly) understand that there really isn't much good that could come from a more antagonistic relationship with the president.  With Trump as a foe, Ryan wouldn't have much chance of accomplishing any of his legislative goals.  Plus, most of us don't have a lot of say in the sort of people our co-workers will be, but we still have to try to get along and work together.  Still, I do think that Congressman Ryan has sometimes crossed the line into saying overly positive things about Trump or making claims that Trump shares more conventional conservative views when these things just aren't true, although the Speaker may have somehow convinced himself that they are, and this has been my biggest problem with Paul Ryan's actions in the last couple of years.

None of these things has made me reject or turn against Congressman Ryan, though.  I still see him as someone on my side with whom I largely agree -- someone who is trying to do lots of the right things in office, and probably most importantly, someone who seems to be one of the "good guys," which can make up for a lot with me.  After all, if, for example, it's possible that a politicians faith might be an influence leading him to take positions I favor on life issues, maybe I shouldn't be too upset if it also might contribute to a more sympathetic take on "undocumented" immigrants.  And if I like someone partially because he is a "nice guy," I guess I can't fault him too much for being polite and collegial with others of whom I may disapprove.

In 2016, Congressman Ryan had a couple of campaign ads that struck me as notable, especially given the political atmosphere at the time.  They involved some constituents who talked about why they supported Ryan and described him as a good neighbor and husband and a man of integrity and faith, accompanied by images of the Speaker in church and at community events, etc.  I found myself wondering, a bit cynically, how much success any politician is likely to have making the public believe he or she isn't a corrupt, sleazy crook, considering the common popular view of those involved in the business, which, unfortunately is not unsupported by much in the news.  I was also curious, though, what made Ryan think that voters even cared about a candidate's character any more or that, if they did, they'd even find being the type of traditional upright citizen depicted in these commercials to be a desirable or positive attribute.  As for me, I don't presume to know what public figures are really like, but I do appreciate that Paul Ryan at least seems to believe that being seen as a good person is still a worthwhile aim.

All in all, then, there is a lot to like, admire, and respect about Paul Ryan.  He has been doing what has to be a very demanding job and dealing with a lot of pressure for some time now, and it's understandable that he might want to move on to something else and spend more time with his family.  Despite the complaints of Ryan's Republican naysayers, I'm not at all sure how likely it is that his successor, in Wisconsin's First District or the Speakership, will be a better representative of the conservative movement or a stronger spokesperson for conservative ideas and policies.  In any case, I am glad to have had a serious and responsible Representative for all these years.  I wish Mr. Ryan well in his future endeavors, and I hope that he'll be able to make the most of his last few months in Congress.

Two Debates and a Video: More Steps on the GOP's Path to Disaster

The last couple of weeks have been a strange but eventful stretch for the 2016 presidential campaign, and we seem to have reached yet another new low for the GOP.  Recent developments, even some that many may have seen as at least somewhat positive, have only made me sadder about the state of conservatism and the Republican party.

It seems like a long time ago, but the Vice Presidential debate took place less than two weeks ago.  It appeared that Mike Pence was widely thought to have “won.”  I would agree that he probably came across as more personable and less annoying than his opponent, largely because he engaged in fewer interruptions than Tim Kaine.  Pence also had some success putting Kaine on the defensive about various aspects of Hillary Clinton’s record and platform, and he did express at least some more traditional conservative views, which have been sorely lacking in this general election campaign.  Yet, I can’t actually praise Mike Pence’s performance, because so much of what he said did not reflect reality.  For one thing, most of the more typically Republican things that Pence said don’t match up with the positions Trump has taken, so it might be rather misleading to suggest to viewers that they would be the policies supported by a Trump administration.  Kaine frequently brought up various controversial Trump comments or proposals, saying he couldn’t believe Pence would defend them.  It’s understandable that Pence often chose to instead change the subject to something he’d rather discuss, but on multiple occasions he opted to just deny that Trump had actually made the statements or suggestions, even when they were quite public and well-documented from speeches, interviews, campaign events, etc.  How dare anyone suggest that Trump and his team have said positive things about Vladimir Putin?  Of course Trump knew about Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine and was actually asserting that such a thing wouldn’t happen again with Trump in charge.  There were plenty of other examples, as well, and Pence’s indignation as he tried to rewrite the history of this campaign was extremely exasperating.  Also, when asked to explain what should be done to better handle various troubling international security issues, Pence just said that a stronger America would be the answer, following his running mate’s lead of making broad promises without providing specifics about how they might be accomplished.  So, if Pence may have helped his ticket to some degree during the debate, he did so in large part by being vague, evasive, and either delusional or dishonest, reflecting the unfortunate spread of such tactics and characteristics from the nominee to others in the GOP.

Of course, any discussion of the VP debate faded into the background a couple of days later when the video of Donald Trump’s vulgar comments behind the scenes of an Access Hollywood appearance several years ago was released.  I can’t say that I was particularly surprised when I head about it, because I’ve been convinced for a long time that Trump is a man of exceedingly low character.  The reactions of various others to the tape were interesting, though.  There seemed to be quite a few commentators, even some who’ve been friendly to Trump, who felt that this new controversy had rendered him unelectable, but I wondered why they assumed this to be the case and thought we’d need to wait to see the impact.  It is certainly difficult to imagine past presidential candidates remaining viable after something like this, but voters have been letting Trump get away with outrageous things that they would never condone in other politicians throughout this campaign.  And, true to form, a great many of Trump’s supporters made it clear that they would be sticking with, or even defending, him in this case, as well.  Now, over a week later, it appears that even this video did not deliver a fatal blow to Donald Trump’s candidacy, but it did hurt him in the polls and even led quite a few Republicans to renounce support for him.  It struck me as particularly unfortunate that this episode might actually wind up spelling defeat for some of these other politicians instead of Trump, because it seems likely many of Trump’s overzealously devoted fans will refuse to vote for Republicans who have unendorsed or otherwise not supported Trump.  This might make the difference in competitive House and Senate races, and it’s another sad development that Republicans may now lose because they don’t want to be associated with blatantly immoral speech.

After the Access Hollywood comments became public, some conservatives even asked Donald Trump to step aside from the campaign and let someone else take over.  That’s a scenario I’d love to see, but, of course, Trump made clear that he wasn’t going anywhere.  Throughout last weekend, though, I did hold out hope that he might at least decide to skip Sunday’s debate, so that I would be spared from watching what promised to be an ugly spectacle.  Alas, he did show up, and, as expected, the debate was a pretty unpleasant event.  Naturally, Donald Trump and his fans thought that he won the debate.  I didn’t come to that conclusion, and, contrary to what The Donald has been claiming, plenty of poll results agree with me.  However, I will say that Trump did make much more of an effort this time to keep the focus on his preferred topics and talking points, and this made him seem somewhat less unprepared and out of place.  I still think that Donald Trump’s performance was very problematic and would have been considered disastrous for other candidates.  Trump once again was repeatedly sniffling loudly into the microphone, which is a small thing, but it seems notable from someone who has made a big deal of questioning his opponent’s health.  He also spent much of the time while Hillary Clinton was talking wandering around the stage or hovering behind her.  I don’t know if he was trying to be distracting or intimidating or if he just felt bored and restless, but I wouldn’t think this behavior would come across well to members of the general viewing public.  While Trump did manage to occasionally make a point about an actual policy issue, he still seems very out of his depth on matters of substance.  For example, listing some of the problems with Obamacare was a good start, but Trump still was very short on ideas of his own for a better policy, other than the elimination of “lines around the states” that we heard about in a memorable exchange with Marco Rubio during a primary debate.  Trump’s answers regarding foreign policy, exemplified on Sunday by his statements about Russia and the situation in Syria, also remain troubling.  He seems to almost reflexively defend Russia and to be unable to see that they and Iran are not on an anti-ISIS mission in Syria.  The controversy regarding Trump’s videotaped comments about women was obviously going to come up during the debate.  Trump may have started out by saying that he wasn’t proud of the things he’d said and was apologizing for them, but he also tried to immediately pivot to the idea that it was much more important to talk about terrorism and security.  Of course these are crucial topics, but there would be plenty of chances to talk about them in other segments of the debate.  In follow-up questions, moderator Anderson Cooper had to ask Trump three times whether he had actually done the things he’d described in his conversation with Billy Bush before Trump finally briefly said that he had not and again tried to change the subject.  Some have described Cooper’s questions as “a trap,” but I think they were entirely fair and reasonable.  Before and during the debate, Trump had been trying to downplay the statements in the video as just “locker room talk,” but this ignores the fact that it was talk in which Trump was saying that he had repeatedly engaged in unacceptable and abusive behavior.  Cooper was trying to get Trump to address this important issue, and he needed to be persistent because of Trump’s evasiveness.  To me, Trump’s overall response to this controversy has not been one that really conveys contrition or is likely to convince neutral observers that Trump really does, as he claims, respect women.

I’m sure that Trump’s fans loved the way he aggressively attacked Hillary Clinton and criticized the moderators in this debate, as well as his pre-debate press-conference with some of the women who’ve accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct, but I don’t know that these tactics will help him with the general public at large.  Trump said that Hillary would be in jail if he were president, referred to her as the devil, and said that she has “tremendous hate in her heart.”  (I’m not sure exactly where Donald Trump acquired the ability to discern what is in another person’s heart or whether he plans to use this skill in evaluating foreign leaders, potential advisors, cabinet members, etc.  Perhaps that’s a question for the next debate.)  To me, all of this rhetoric goes too far and is much more personally hostile than we’d expect from a candidate on stage with an opponent.  As a result, voters might dismiss Trump’s harsh criticisms as over-the-top rhetoric and could even come away with a more unfavorable opinion of Trump, not Clinton.  Trump complained about the moderators, saying that they were not giving him as much time to speak and making the debate “3 against 1” in Clinton’s favor.  While it might be safe to assume that the moderators are not fond of Trump, I’d say his criticisms were quite exaggerated.  The moderators did ask both candidates about matters they’d probably prefer to avoid and tried to keep both of them within time limits.  Especially since Trump criticized the moderating team for failing to bring up Hillary’s e-mails right after Martha Raddatz had asked her a question about that topic, many people may see his behavior as a whiny overreaction.

Now, Hillary Clinton did not have a fantastic night, either.  She seemed to want to deal with most of the things Trump threw at her by dismissing or ignoring them, and, while that might be the right idea generally, leaving some of these things unanswered might allow them to do more damage.  Time spent discussing her private e-mail server, her negative comments about some of Trump’s supporters, and the scandals of her husband’s presidency does not help her cause.  Clinton is certainly not my ideal candidate, so I naturally found plenty to disagree with in her answers, perhaps most notably her description of the considerations she’d use in choosing Supreme Court justices.  Her criteria didn’t seem to include knowledge of and faithfulness to the law and the Constitution, and she recited quite a list of liberal views she hopes the Court will either uphold or enact.  Still, I thought that she held her own during the debate, tried to connect with the audience members posing questions, and, overall, probably came across as a prepared and fairly reasonable candidate, especially in comparison to the still erratic and unconventional Trump.

There apparently can never be enough bizarre happenings in politics this year, and the week after the debate was a real doozy.  Several women came forward to allege that Donald Trump had, in fact, accosted them in the ways he described in his “locker room talk.”  He denied the accusations, but for some reason he also thought it was a good idea to call these women names and belittle their appearance, even though he’s been claiming that Hillary Clinton mistreated her husband’s accusers and using that as an indictment against her.  Despite all of the new scandalous allegations, Trump has still retained a great deal of his support, including from some (though not all) religious conservative leaders.  The way they’ve chosen to defend so many things that go against the values and behavioral standards they have long professed in order to justify their support of Trump is almost hard to believe.  Most Republican politicians are also still backing Trump to varying degrees, even if they don’t really want to talk about it.  House Speaker Paul Ryan told his fellow congressmen that he won’t campaign with or defend Donald Trump from now on, but he did not take back his endorsement of the GOP nominee.  Even so, Trump was not pleased, and he spent some time lashing out at Ryan, John McCain, and other Republicans he considers disloyal to him.  Some in Trump’s campaign even openly suggested that many of his supporters might vote only for him, not for other Republicans running for lower offices, in November, showing how little they truly care about the “team” or any real chance to enact any of their supposed agenda in Congress.  Trump also stated that, because he doesn’t  think he is getting sufficient support from the party, he now will feel free to toss off the “shackles’ and pursue his campaign to Make America Great Again the way he really wants.  Wow.  If Trump was restraining himself up to this point in the campaign, we should all be afraid of what might come next!  To sum everything up:  this whole political situation is a huge mess for Republicans, and speculation about the upcoming election results is a cause for apprehension.  Will Donald Trump deservedly lose, perhaps by a lot?  Will other Republicans, or even the whole party, be damaged by his takeover of the GOP and all that has gone on because of it this election cycle?  I guess we’ll find out some of the answers in a few weeks, but things look pretty bleak for conservatism and the Republican party right now.

Whose Party is it Now? Belated Reflections on the Republican Convention

Last week, as Donald Trump’s poll numbers declined and he continued his unusual campaign strategy of dwelling on self-destructive controversies and attacking other Republicans, there was talk that some GOP party leaders were getting increasingly concerned about having him as their nominee and speculating about the possibility of replacing him if he should choose to quit the race.  I would be ecstatic should such an unlikely event come to pass, but it’s quite strange to hear about this resurgence of Republican dissatisfaction with Trump.  After all, one of the main things that the Republican National Convention just a few weeks ago made clear was the appalling degree to which the GOP has thrown itself behind Donald Trump.  Far from a political organization trying to make the best of an unfortunate outcome to the primary season by giving qualified support to the outsider who crashed their party, they turned over the keys to him and became his dutiful, often fawning, minions.

Not only has the Republican Party become the GOT (Glorifiers of Trump), it seems that no dissent, or even skepticism, whatsoever is to be tolerated.  This was made all too evident throughout the convention by the dubious methods used to steamroll those making a last attempt to force a roll call vote on the rules, the exhortations from speaker after speaker that everyone must vote for Trump or be guilty of committing the horrific act of giving support to Hillary Clinton (who should instead be “locked up”), and the overwrought angry reaction to Ted Cruz’ non-endorsement ot Trump (to which I’ll return shortly.)

I’m sure that The Donald and his supporters enjoyed the four-day pep rally for his campaign, but, for me, the convention in Cleveland just brought ever more reasons to feel disappointed and dispirited.

I will confess that I couldn’t force myself to suffer through large doses of the convention proceedings themselves.  I did read and listen to quite a bit of coverage about them and watch a few speeches, including those by some of our prominent Wisconsin officeholders (Sen. Ron Johnson, Gov. Scott Walker, and House Speaker Paul Ryan) and former leading presidential contenders (Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.)  From  the outside, it seemed  that the dominant common themes of the week centered on a) Hillary Clinton being utterly terrible so that b) it is therefore imperative for Republicans and conservatives to unite in support of the election of Donald Trump.  Governor Walker added in some mentions of the success of his conservative reforms here in Wisconsin, but, overall, his speech was a pretty typical example of this basic formula.

Now, I can certainly understand that it is a lot easier to provide right-leaning voters with reasons to be against Hillary Clinton than arguments to make them excited about being for Trump.  Still, one would normally expect a party’s convention speakers to devote considerable time to communicating the beliefs, goals, and policy ideas of the organization to the audience in the hall and at home.  Not only was this missing to a large degree, but, when conservative substance did make an appearance in a few addresses, the context or response gave it a bittersweet (to say the least) effect.  For me, this only added to the sense of frustration and exasperation caused by the GOP’s nomination of someone who does not represent traditional Republicans or conservatives at all.

For example, Paul Ryan’s speech did attempt to put forward a vision for moving the country in a better direction, and it’s good that someone was actually discussing things like freedom, tax and health care reform, and a government that protects liberty and respects Constitutional limits.  Normally, Ryan’s statement that politics should not seek to divide people into groups and play one against the other and his expression of the ideal that “everyone is equal... no one is written off” would be fine arguments to use when attempting to persuade voters to choose Republicans.   However, the GOP nominee this year has hardly avoided rhetorically lumping people (Mexicans, Muslims, the media, politicians, etc.) together, has been leading a campaign often described as some sort of populist uprising of the working class versus the “elites,” and is rather fond of deeming certain people “losers,” “weak,” “chokers,” or assorted other lovely nicknames that don’t exactly emphasize the inherent equality and worth of every individual.  Trump also is much more likely to share his thoughts about poll numbers, his admiration for various authoritarian dictators, and his plans to punish people who say things that he doesn’t like than to spend time talking about the Constitution or any of those other mundane conservative topics brought up by the House Speaker.   Considering all of these unpleasant factors, Ryan’s assertion that “only with Donald Trump and Mike Pence do we have a chance at a better way” doesn’t exactly seem like the most logical of conclusions. 

On a similar note, even though Marco Rubio only appeared to the RNC in what was basically a 90-second campaign commercial and spent most of that limited time criticizing Clinton, I found the remarks he did make in support of Trump less than convincing.  Rubio asserted that Trump would make conservative appointments to the courts, which is at least something that Trump has said, even though I’m skeptical about the worth of any commitments made by someone so completely unreliable.  Rubio’s claims that dealing with terrorism and bringing debt under control are good arguments in Trump’s favor were even more questionable.  Trump may recognize that there are problems in these areas, but his comments about foreign policy and terrorism (including his bizarre praise for Saddam Hussein as a fighter against terrorists) have not inspired confidence in his ability to lead on that issue.  During his presidential run, he’s suggested plans that would require even more government spending (for infrastructure, healthcare, etc.) while opposing any reform of entitlements and proposing various versions of tax cuts, so it’s difficult to see how he could avoid making our national debt worse -- not that he’d necessarily mind that, as someone who’s said that he “loves debt.” 

Ted Cruz’ address to the Republican convention was notably different.  For one thing, rather than just delivering some “rah-rah, vote for the GOP team” remarks, Senator Cruz actually aimed to give a well-crafted speech that went somewhere and made a case for his brand of conservatism.  I can’t say that I personally loved everything in the speech, like the criticisms directed toward the political establishment and trade policies, but those notes should have appealed to the Trump supporters in the crowd.  Overall, though, Cruz did a good job in describing some of the big ideals that are part of his vision for our country’s future.  He advocated more freedom in many forms and aspects of life, more limited government, and leaders who follow the Constitution and defend the rights and liberty of the people.  In the portion of Cruz’ presentation that received the most attention, he  encouraged listeners to vote in November’s election and offered up the advice to people to “vote your conscience; vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom and be faithful to the Constitution.”  Ordinarily, Republicans would be expected to cheer someone stressing these themes, but in this backwards year, Ted Cruz received boos in the convention hall and plenty of criticism afterwards even from people who had been his supporters.  Why?  Because, while Cruz said nothing bad about Donald Trump, he did not give an endorsement to the man who spent months attacking him and his family.

I don’t actually see why Trump’s fans had such a problem with Cruz’ comments, unless even they know that their favored candidate would not meet the qualifications to be the choice of conscientious voters.  Cruz deserves credit, not blame, for declining to proclaim that Trump is an example of the type of leader he believes should be elected.  To me, attempts like those from Ryan, Rubio, and others to positively present traditional conservative policies or values and then imply to members of the public that they’ll be getting someone who believes in those things if they elect Donald Trump are highly inaccurate.  They seem like “bait and switch” efforts, aiming to convince voters of something that plainly is not true, even if those doing the talking sincerely want to believe in it themselves.  Considering the nominee’s history of deceptive business endeavors like Trump University and the Trump Network, this might be a fitting approach to take, but those trying to justify and promote Trump’s candidacy, however reluctantly, shouldn’t be surprised and upset if polls show that, at least for now, large segments of the voting public aren’t falling for the con (or slick sales pitch, to be more generous.)  It’s too bad that, thanks to the poor judgment of primary voters, Republicans don’t have the chance to offer the general electorate a much more appealing and higher-quality candidate.  Going forward, we’ll have to see if the party even attempts to showcase thoughtful, genuinely conservative politicians in the future or settles into its new role as the latest acquisition of the gaudy, celebrity-focussed Trump brand and likely heads for intellectual bankruptcy.  I’ll keep my fingers crossed, but the signs so far do not  look very promising.

GOP Convention Not Much Reason to Celebrate

It’s no secret that I have been very upset and discouraged by the way this year’s presidential contest has played out.  For the last couple of months, I’ve certainly continued to have plenty of thoughts and opinions on the matter that I really wanted to express, but, for whatever reasons, this just didn’t happen for a while.  It would be nice if I were returning to writing due to a much-improved electoral landscape, but, alas, this is not the case.  Difficult as it might have seemed for this to be possible, I’m actually afraid that prospects for the future have been getting even worse.

Throughout the Republican primary process, I watched in horrified amazement as voters, many of whom have even called themselves conservatives, decided that Donald Trump, a long-time liberal who remained inconsistent, uninformed, and unprincipled, was qualified to be President of the United States.  Rejecting an array of vastly superior candidates, enough people cast their ballots for the bullying billionaire to make him the presumptive GOP nominee by early May.  As if that outcome, which I’d feared ever since Trump entered the race with sustained high poll numbers last summer, were not bad enough, further disheartening developments have followed his (presumed) securing of the nomination.

Despite the fact that Trump has spent a great deal of time during his campaign insulting, belittling, and attacking members of the GOP, he and his supporters now insist that the party must unify behind him.  Disappointingly, not only have more and more Republican voters, officeholders, and commentators gotten on board to support or endorse Trump’s campaign, but attempts have been made to pressure all holdouts to do so, as well.  The RNC, the very epitome of the so-called “establishment” that Trump and his followers hate so much and accuse of “rigging” the system against poor Donald, has been working overtime to squelch any opposition to Trump, including by defeating any proposals for changes at last week’s meeting of the convention’s Rules Committee.

For the moment, I can still wish that the GOP delegates will rebel anyway and choose to nominate someone other than Donald Trump at the convention or that something might actually come of the efforts to recruit another independent (hopefully at least somewhat conservative Republican) candidate to challenge the major-party tickets, but it seems highly unlikely that either possibility will come to the rescue.  With the Republican convention already upon us, we still face the prospect of a general election this fall with no good options, and I can accept that people will make different decisions about the best way to handle these circumstances.

Personally, I firmly decided last summer that I would never vote for Donald Trump, and I don’t intend to budge from that position, especially as Trump has only gotten worse in many ways over time.  I will probably always be upset with those who championed Trump during the primary process and voted to make him the nominee.  I cannot comprehend how anyone could have thought that it would be a good choice -- let alone the best option -- to make that man the leader of the free world, and I resent the fact that his fans have taken away our chance to vote for a Republican candidate worth supporting -- and there were many of them in the race this year.  Sigh...  Still, I am willing to have a little understanding or sympathy for some of those who’ve joined Trump’s bandwagon more recently, even though I find their decisions unfortunate.  Elected Republicans who might be troubled by things about Trump probably do feel a strong sense of loyalty to the party that would likely make them very reluctant to oppose its presidential nominee (even one who has never displayed any such attachment to the GOP himself.)  More generally, I can see how a reasonable person might recognize the problems with Trump, but come to the conclusion that the alternative, Hillary Clinton as president, is even more unacceptable, and therefore decide to vote for Trump anyway.  I don’t think, though, that it is helpful or fair for people to suggest that this is the only possible way to view the situation or that those who see things differently are somehow betraying the party or conservatism.  Nor do I believe that declining to cast a ballot for Donald Trump is equal to supporting Hillary Clinton, and this notion should not be used to try to “guilt” people still uncomfortable with Trump into voting for him.  (I wouldn’t even say that actually choosing to vote for Mrs. Clinton is unthinkable for a Republican this year, but that’s a different topic for another time.)

As bad as it is to hear politicians I do like and admire (such as Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan) endorsing someone as unworthy of the presidency as Donald Trump and having to offer awkward explanations for their support in light of their previous (and still valid) criticisms of him, recent signs point to an even more disturbing fate for Republicans.  I’ve been especially saddened to see that many in the Republican party seem to be moving well beyond giving Trump reluctant support as the “lesser of two evils” whom they hope might be at least a little better than Hillary Clinton in some areas.  They are now actually explaining away, excusing, or defending some of the ridiculous or outrageous statements that Trump makes all too often or even adopting some of his positions that are unorthodox for Republicans, to say the least.

Prior to the announcement of his selection as Donald Trump’s running mate, I heard a clip of Governor Mike Pence advocating the election of Trump, whom he described as a “good man” and a “strong leader.”  Fortunately for me, I wasn’t eating as I listened, or I would probably have become a choking victim, because I remain completely convinced that Trump is nowhere near either of those things.  In the past, Pence was very critical of Trump’s proposed temporary ban on Muslim immigration, but he now says he supports it.  I don’t think anyone will be very surprised if most of the other differences of opinion that have existed between the Governor and the reality TV host disappear in the very near future, with Pence migrating to Trump’s point of view -- whatever that might be at any given moment.

Closer to home, I’ve found some of Paul Ryan’s recent comments about Trump particularly disappointing and almost hard to believe.  He has criticized Trump in the past, including calling Trump’s comments about the judge hearing the Trump University case textbook examples of racism.  Even after Ryan endorsed Trump, he said that he would still offer criticism if necessary, although he hoped he would not have to do so.  Lately, it seems that the Speaker may be letting that latter inclination and his belief that the chance to enact positive legislation depends on the election of the Republican (even if in name only) nominee outweigh good judgment, common sense, and plain truth.  Following Trump’s speech about the way terrible, destructive trade hurts our country, Ryan, who has been known as a supporter of free trade and various related international agreements, claimed that he and Trump were basically “on the same page” on the topic of trade because they both want “good deals” for America (echoing one of the shallow celebrity’s favorite phrases.)  For this to be true, either that page must be awfully large to accommodate both Ryan and Trump, or Ryan has changed his mind pretty dramatically.  Even worse, after initially seeming concerned to learn that Trump had (again) said positive things about Saddam Hussein, Ryan later seemed to dismiss the problematic nature of these comments, saying that Trump had put them into the context of discussing toughness against terrorists.  What??  There is no proper “context” for Donald Trump’s statements.  Although I’m sure Hussein was quick to kill anyone who might have targeted him (along with lots of innocent people), he was no terror-fighter, as he harbored and funded many terrorists.  Also, until Trump came along, the notion that we’d be better off with Hussein still in power in Iraq or that we should emulate his methods of dealing with suspects or enemy combatants certainly didn’t seem to be a mainstream opinion.

If I were able to offer my Congressman some advice, I’d strongly suggest that he try very hard to avoid being pulled into the trap of Trumpism.  Having decided that a Trump victory is the best outcome he can hope for this year, Speaker Ryan may well be trying to look at the presumptive GOP nominee in the best light and give him the benefit of the doubt wherever possible.  This might be a nice thing to do on a personal level, but, if it leads Ryan to try to convince himself or the rest of us of things that just aren’t true (regarding the degree to which Trump shares common ground with traditional Republican politicians or the acceptability of Trump’s controversial statements, for example), it will be counterproductive for the advancement of any of the conservative principles the Speaker has sought to promote.  Although he has his strong critics, Paul Ryan seems to be one elected official who is fairly widely seen as a decent, principled person who cares about ideas and good policies.  That type of positive reputation isn’t all that common in politics, and I’d hate to see Congressman Ryan damage it in trying to lend some of his credibility to Trump’s election efforts.

Unfortunately, the entire Republican party may suffer harm of that sort as a result of Trump’s victorious attempt to conquer the GOP during this election cycle, especially considering the extent to which he is now being embraced by the party as a whole.  Whatever traditions, values, principles, and policies the GOP may have been known for in the past, it is likely that people will now associate it with the brash, reckless, authoritarian attitude and often incoherent proposals of Donald J. Trump, Republican-Come-Lately.  This is a very sad result from an election year that initially offered such promise for Republicans and conservatives.  I know there are those who would be glad to see the recent incarnation of the GOP go, but the new Trump-centric version is far from an improvement.  With these things in mind, it’s difficult to see the Republican convention in Cleveland this week as a celebratory party rather than a wake for the impending demise of the party as we knew it, so maybe the balloons and confetti would be more appropriately replaced with some solemn music and wreaths of condolence.

Cruz, Ryan, and the Stampede to Trump

With the way things had been developing in the Republican presidential contest in recent weeks, lndiana’s primary on May 3 seemed like it might be the last real chance for those hoping to prevent a Trump nomination to turn things around.  Before the vote, most polls suggested that Trump was in the lead, possibly by a rather wide margin, over Senator Cruz, who really needed to do well to revive his campaign’s hopes, so the situation did not look promising.  By that Tuesday afternoon, I realized that Indiana felt very much like a repeat of Florida to me.  Back then, Marco Rubio, my candidate at the time, desperately needed to win in Florida to maintain any chance in the race, but polling, overall, indicated that Trump would almost certainly prevail.  As a supporter, while I definitely hoped that the polls had been wrong or that something would change voters’ minds at the last minute, I still expected the worst.  Of course, Trump did win easily in Florida, and Senator Rubio left the race that night.  And in Indiana, alas, there was no big, last-minute upset victory for Ted Cruz.  In fact, there were even more similarities to the Florida situation than I would have thought, because Ted Cruz unexpectedly suspended his campaign when the Indiana results came in.  With John Kasich doing the same the next day, Donald Trump was the only candidate left standing and the “presumptive nominee.”  Even though it most likely wouldn’t have affected the eventual outcome, in my view, it would have been preferable if someone had stayed in the race at least until Trump actually earned 1237 delegates.  You never know if something drastic might happen to alter the situation (such as Trump testing out his hypothesis that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue without losing supporters,) but, in any case, people in the remaining states who do not support Trump would have at least had an active candidate for whom they could vote.  I can understand, though, that it would be tough to keep campaigning, dealing with negative media stories, and facing attacks from Trump and his supporters if you don’t really see any chance of success to make it seem worthwhile.  Ted Cruz was a very worthy candidate and went through some tough times during this race, and I wish him well as he continues to serve in the Senate.

It’s unfortunate, but the voters of America keep finding ways to disappoint me this year.  A few weeks ago, after Ted Cruz decisively won the Wisconsin primary, I mentioned that I was concerned about polls showing people really didn’t want to have a contested convention and that a majority of respondents thought the nominee should be the candidate with the most delegates, even if it was not a majority.  Well, it would seem that the views reflected in these polls were held by quite a few people and did indeed harm the anti-Trump movement.  While one would have hoped that Trump’s continued obnoxious behavior and outrageous statements would have motivated more people to seek to stop him and to choose another candidate, it seems that the opposite happened instead.  Voters apparently heard Trump’s whining and complaining about the rules and delegate selection processes and sided with him -- deciding that somehow Ted Cruz’ knowledge of the rules and success at getting friendly delegates elected was somehow a bad thing or even cheating.  As for Trump’s insistence that he was essentially entitled to the nomination, even if he didn’t get the required delegate majority, because he would have the highest number, and his related assertions that Cruz was not a viable candidate once he no longer had a shot at reaching 1237 delegates?  Well, despite the long-standing rules, voters seem to have agreed with Trump’s claims and/or not wanted to deal with the potential trouble he and his spokespeople “suggested” might happen at the convention and elsewhere if Trump were denied the nomination.  They voted for Trump in increasing numbers in the last several states, not only in the Northeastern contests which he was always expected to win, but also in the heartland state of Indiana, which finally snuffed out any hope of a better GOP nominee.  (The “momentum” generated by Trump’s big win in New York -- his liberal home state -- and the media’s heavy promotion of that notion probably contributed quite a bit to this trend.)  Sigh...

Then, of course, as soon as Donald Trump became the presumed nominee, more and more Republicans, including former critics, started announcing their support for Trump, with varying levels of enthusiasm or reluctance.  I will have more to say about this unfortunate development at another time, but for now, I’d like to focus on one prominent party leader who did not  immediately join the stampede to back Trump -- Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan.

(On a side note, I found it interesting that Paul Ryan expressed some surprise that we had arrived at the “presumptive nominee” point of the race so quickly.  He had thought that the competition would have lasted at least through the June primaries, if not all the way to the convention.  Until quite recently, many thought that would be the case, but, alas, some voters were extremely eager to nominate Trump.)

Especially considering Paul Ryan’s previous attempts to avoid weighing in much on the primary race and his prominent roles as House Speaker and chairman of the upcoming convention, I was a little surprised when I first learned that Ryan had taken the stance that he was not currently on board with announcing support for Donald Trump.  I was glad to hear it, though, because it was important for someone to make the point that Trump has not been representing conservative or Republican ideas and principles and that the party’s nominee should be expected to do so.  Ryan did say, though, that he wants to support the nominee but isn’t there yet, indicating that he most likely will eventually back Trump.  Still, the predictable response from Trump and some of his fans was to overreact and attack Ryan, with Sarah Palin even suggesting that this would end Ryan’s career as she vowed to help his challenger win this year’s primary race for his House seat.  Many people seem to believe that Paul Ryan (and presumably every Republican) owes blind, unquestioning, immediate allegiance to the new supposed “leader” or standard-bearer -- isn’t that really the sort of principle-ignoring action the so-called “anti-establishment” folks were supposed to be angry about??  I would think that the criticism directed at Ryan, along with some comments from Trump and his camp asserting that he doesn’t need (or even want) all Republicans to unify behind him in order to win, might actually make it more difficult for Ryan to shift his position on Trump while giving a rational explanation.  Trump so far doesn’t seem interested in running, as Ryan hoped, a “campaign Republicans can be proud of” -- unless shifting more positions to the left, belittling anyone who doesn’t bow down to him, and suggesting that the entire nation should follow his financial example by failing to honor our debts makes GOP hearts swell with pride these days.  Paul Ryan is in a tough situation, but I applaud him for at least temporarily stepping back from the wave of misguided “party loyalty” sweeping so many Republicans into the Trump camp.  Not that he asked, of course, but it would be fine with this constituent if Ryan did not “come around” to expressing support for Trump.  I’m sure that Ryan has plenty of Congressional business and elections to work on and discuss should he choose to avoid further comment about the presidential contest.

Of course, there’s not much chance of that happening, and efforts to try to bridge the gap between Trump and Ryan have already begun.  From what I’ve read and heard about the meeting the two men had this past week, I’m a little concerned about the way this discussion process may play out and the effects that it might have.  One account said that Ryan had explained basic principles of conservatism and their importance and that Trump was receptive to listening.  Once again, I was struck by the absurdity of the predicament we are now in.  Donald Trump is set to be the presidential nominee of the Republican party and has been running for the office for almost a year.  Yet, he still  needs elementary lessons in conservative beliefs like limited government, separation of powers, the right to life, etc.?  Heaven help us all...

That notion is bad enough, but other matters related to the conversation seem to come from an alternate reality.  The joint statement issued by Trump and Ryan afterward is one example.  It sounded more Trumpy than Ryan-like, containing generalities that minimized divisions within the party rather than presenting any evidence of resolutions regarding matters of substance.  When the statement and RNC chairman Reince Priebus referred to the “few differences” between Trump and Ryan, I’d expect that many of us simply didn’t believe the phrase was accurate.  But, if people did believe it were true, I think it would more likely make them think less of Ryan than reassure them about Trump!  To hear the Speaker himself talking about how positive it is that Trump has brought in so many new voters to the party, claiming that Trump had a “good personality” in their meeting, and saying that he believes he and Trump share some core conservative principles (concerning the Constitution, executive overreach, etc.) around which the party can unify this fall was rather painful.  The “new voters” issue is a common Trump talking point and may not necessarily be a good thing if it means people who’ve tended to vote for Democrats are opting this time for someone who’s running as a Republican because his views are really more those of a liberal Democrat.  And, while Trump may have managed to be nice to Ryan for a short time (when he wanted something from him), we’ve seen plenty of evidence over the years to show us the truly unpleasant nature of Trump’s insulting, bullying, and self-centered personality.  As for the matters of principle listed, the statements that Trump has made during the campaign about things he would intend to do have made it clear that he is not particularly concerned about the Constitution and the limits it places on executive powers.  He might complain about some things Obama has done, but he seems to envision an extremely powerful role for himself should he become President.  Ryan has stated that the party needs to have real, not fake, unity, so I’m concerned that he seems to be saying things about Trump that are not true, no matter how much Ryan would like them to be.  I certainly don’t think we need the ultimate result of Ryan’s substance-related reservations about Trump to be a final stamp of approval “verifying” to the public that Trump adheres to conservative ideals that he in truth does not.  If Paul Ryan wants to give his support to Trump, he can and should find reasons for doing so that do not mislead the voters and further increase the likelihood of Trump’s nomination distorting or destroying the conservative movement and its reputation, results I am confident the Speaker wishes to avoid.

Now, Paul Ryan did say that this meeting was only the first step in a process to work towards true party unity, and he doesn’t seem at this point to be in any rush to say that all of his concerns have been alleviated so that he can fully support Trump.  I appreciate that, as it helps to -- for now -- maintain at least a little distance between Trump and the Republican party as a whole, so that members, particularly conservatives, can still reasonably point out that they do not agree with all of Trump’s comments and positions.  Again, I don’t think it would be a bad thing if Speaker Ryan’s unification process remained ongoing all the way through the election.  However, I suppose that, all too soon, most remaining resistance among Republican officials to the not-so-charming reality show host will fade away, and the Trumpian takeover of the party will be complete.  At least until then, I’d like to offer my support and encouragement to Speaker Ryan for his efforts to keep reminding everyone about the things for which the Republican party and conservatism have traditionally stood -- ideas and beliefs that are far more important than big rallies, good poll numbers, or high TV ratings.

Paul Ryan Under the Microscope

After Kevin McCarthy announced late last week that he was no longer a candidate to become the next Speaker of the House, Representative Paul Ryan was often mentioned as a possible popular choice for the job.  There were plenty of stories last Friday about many people (both fellow political figures and reporters) repeatedly calling Ryan and following him around Washington, DC before he “escaped” back to Wisconsin, so that one could half expect to stumble across him trying to hide in some inconspicuous location here -- perhaps disguised as a tree in a park, for example.

While politicians generally love being in the limelight as much as possible, I think that Mr. Ryan would have preferred to avoid a lot of the attention this time.  I would imagine that it must be gratifying to know that many of your colleagues and others believe that you would be a good choice for an important and prestigious position such as Speaker of the House, and it would also be flattering to have them go out of their way to try to convince you that you should seek the job.  However, if these attempts at persuasion remain frequent and persistent even after you have repeatedly declined, at some point they would likely become burdensome pressures rather than welcome compliments.  I actually feel quite sorry for my Congressman these days, as I think he finds himself in a rather unenviable situation.

Congressman Ryan is reportedly still thinking about the possibility of changing his mind and becoming a candidate for Speaker.  I obviously don't know all of the factors he is weighing as he makes his final decision, but as an outside observer, it looks to me like the scale is overwhelmingly tipped against running.

To start with, there are a couple of basic but very important arguments against Ryan taking on the Speaker’s role:  it is not what he wants to do, and he already has what he has considered his “dream” job for a long time.  If he would be most satisfied being Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and spending his time working on policies about taxes and Social Security, etc., why should he give that up?   I think that it would be better, for Ryan and for all of us, if he continues doing the job that best fits his interests and strengths rather than taking on something that does not suit him as well, especially since his heart certainly does not seem to be in it.  Ryan has also indicated that the additional time commitments required of the Speaker would be problematic for him, because they would keep him away from his family more than is already the case. 

These factors would apply to Paul Ryan even if the vacancy for Speaker of the House had occurred under “normal” circumstances, but right now, most sensible people would likely have serious reservations about the position.  As long as Barack Obama is President, there are severe limits on what Republicans in Congress can actually accomplish, but the voters who elected them expect some results.  The very serious disagreements among House Republicans about goals to pursue and tactics to use make it difficult to reach consensus and secure the votes necessary to pass things.  Under these conditions, the next Speaker is going to have a very difficult job indeed.  Since the dissatisfaction of some House members with the current leadership actually resulted in the impending departure of Speaker John Boehner and the abandoned candidacy of his expected successor, Majority Leader McCarthy, anyone thinking of running for Speaker should anticipate that some close scrutiny and possibly unpleasant evaluation may stand between him or her and the position.

With that in mind, when I first started reading that Congressman Ryan was being discussed as the most likely (or even only) consensus choice to be the next Speaker of the House, I did wonder if those, including the members of the Freedom Caucus, who had led the charge against Boehner and McCarthy were really OK with Ryan.  While the present situation was precipitated by their great dissatisfaction with the current leadership, Paul Ryan has generally been supportive of the leaders and their decisions, and there has been some unhappiness on the Right with the Congressman in recent years.  In the week since the flurry of discussion about a possible Ryan candidacy for Speaker began, I don’t know if concerns about him have been raised by his colleagues in the House, but some members of the conservative media have been detailing their criticisms of him and his perceived shortcomings as a potential Speaker.  Since this is happening even though Congressman Ryan has not yet even agreed to be a candidate for the job, I can only imagine that it would greatly intensify if he were to actually do so.  While I also disagree with or question Paul Ryan’s positions on some issues, such as immigration and trade promotion authority for the President, and would have preferred that he advocate some different approaches to the conducting of business in the House, I still consider him a valuable member of the conservative team and support him overall.  I would hate to see him be talked into running for House Speaker against his better judgment only to be rejected as McCarthy was and have his reputation and career tarnished in the process.

Were Paul Ryan to actually become Speaker of the House, it is possible that he would do a great job, and I wish him well whether he decides to seek the position or not.  But, do I think he should run?  Yes -- as quickly as he can away from the Speaker’s race and those trying to convince him to join it.