A momentous potential turning point in 2016 American politics occurred on Wednesday, one that would have been largely ignored in the kinder, gentler times of 1996 or 1986 or 1976.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, without any prompting, delivered a salient speech on Wednesday that could be viewed as a treatise on a return to good government and civil political discourse. Or it could be seen as the beginning of a subtle Ryan-for-president sales pitch in advance of the likely chaotic Republican National Convention this summer in Cleveland.
Either way, the Wisconsin Republican’s remarks may represent our best hope for avoiding a 2016 slugfest in which a polarized American political system plunges over a cliff.
During a 30-minute Capitol Hill dissertation billed as the “State of American Politics,” delivered before a crowd of idealistic Republican and Democratic congressional interns,
Ryan carried himself in a way that neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton could muster at this stage in a high-stakes presidential contest.
Within the prevailing hyper-partisan atmosphere across the nation, Ryan didn’t mention Trump by name but he bravely engaged in criticism that was unmistakably aimed at the GOP frontrunner.
As Politico reported, the speaker decried identity politics, criticizing those who pit groups of Americans against each other.
Doesn’t have to be this way
Ryan also looked beyond 2016, saying he didn’t want to “talk about politics as it is today, I want to talk about what politics can be.” He said to the interns on hand:
Our political discourse, both the kind that we see on TV, and the kind that we experience among each other — it did not used to be this bad. And it does not have to be this way.
Now — a little skepticism? That’s really helpful. But when people distrust politics, they come to distrust institutions. They come to lose faith in government. They lose faith in our future.
We are slipping into being a divisive country. We are speaking to each other in echo chambers where we only talk to those who agree with us, and we think that there is something wrong with people who don’t agree with us. We question and impugn motives instead of test the original thesis. That is where it doesn’t need to be, where it wasn’t and where it shouldn’t be. So the whole point I would make is if we are going to keep this beautiful American experience going, we’re going to have to stay unified as a country.
While many Democrats detest the speaker on ideological grounds, Ryan chose a particularly rocky moment in U.S. democracy to declare that ideas can still trump ideology:
Ideas, passionately promoted and put to the test—that’s what politics can be. That’s what our country can be. It can be a confident America, where we have a basic faith in politics and leaders. It can be a place where we’ve earned that faith. All of us as leaders can hold ourselves to the highest standards of integrity and decency. Instead of playing to your anxieties, we can appeal to your aspirations. Instead of playing the identity politics of “our base” and “their base,” we unite people around ideas and principles. And instead of being timid, we go bold.
We don’t resort to scaring you, we dare to inspire you. We don’t just oppose someone or something. We propose a clear and compelling alternative. And when we do that, we don’t just win the argument. We don’t just win your support. We win your enthusiasm. We win hearts and minds. We win a mandate to do what needs to be done to protect the American idea.
I was wrong
Ryan went one step further, admitting that his embrace of the tea party message that America is divided between “makers and takers” was a mistake.
There was a time when I would talk about a difference between “makers” and “takers” in our country, referring to people who accepted government benefits. But as I spent more time listening, and really learning the root causes of poverty, I realized I was wrong. “Takers” wasn’t how to refer to a single mom stuck in a poverty trap, just trying to take care of her family. Most people don’t want to be dependent. And to label a whole group of Americans that way was wrong. I shouldn’t castigate a large group of Americans to make a point.
So I stopped thinking about it that way — and talking about it that way. But I didn’t come out and say all this to be politically correct. I was just wrong. And of course, there are still going to be times when I say things I wish I hadn’t. There are still going to be times when I follow the wrong impulse.
That is an extraordinary statement. But the cynics persist.
Moderate Voice columnist Elijah Sweete insists that Ted Cruz and Kasich are pawns in a GOP establishment game to nominate “none of the above” in Cleveland.
“For all the endorsements and general tomfoolery, nobody who is anybody in the Republican Party really wants Ted Cruz to be their presidential nominee,” Sweete wrote.
“… Lindsey Graham, who officially has endorsed Cruz, said that Kasich would be a better president. That means he is endorsing someone, Cruz, he thinks would not be a good president. Huh?”
Sweete asserts that all this back-and-forth effort to stop Trump will eventually arrive at the Ryan doorstep:
“Why Ryan? Because this is the Republican Party. All things being equal, the nomination goes to the next in line. Ryan ran for VP last time and took up the unenviable task of House Speaker at one of the most difficult periods of history, with some success. No one looks more ‘next in line’ than Paul Ryan.
A Kemp disciple
True, Ryan budget proposals of this year and previous years failed to reflect a willingness to maintain a rigorous safety net for the nation’s poor. But the Wisconsin congressman is a disciple of Rep. Jack Kemp, an unorthodox GOP lawmaker and HHS secretary from the Reagan era who pursued ways for conservative policies to improve the lifestyles of the poor.
Like Kemp, Ryan is not a country club Republican. He is curious; he is studious; he is eager to explore issues and arrive at a pragmatic destination.
Yet, liberal publications quickly belittled Ryan’s speech and his attempt to engage in unification. Salon insisted in a Twitter post that the speaker was actually little more than another Trump. Seriously?
Those moderates and centrists among us who can objectively dissect the 2016 candidates would have to conclude that Hillary’s resume is ideally suited for a future president. Yet, Bernie Sanders supporters vow to not vote for her if she’s the nominee. In a broader sense, Clinton’s disapproval ratings, her widespread lack of trust among the electorate, would quickly result in a presidency that would be even more divisive than what we have seen over the past seven years with Barack Obama. It’s baked into the cake.
Democrats would surely respond to such a prediction with a ferocious, partisan counterstrike, insisting that congressional Republicans have created a poisonous atmosphere toward current and future Democratic presidents.
Surely, there’s a lot of truth in that statement. But liberal Democrats who approach the November election in a standard, my-team-first mode fail to appreciate the destructive ugliness that is coming in a Trump vs. Clinton presidential faceoff.
In the midst of an overwhelmingly angry, disaffected electorate, both candidates are weak and flawed in a manner that modern two-party American politics has never collectively experienced.
After months of an unprecedented political bloodbath, I could easily foresee a fall general election with voter turnout in the 30 percent range, which would fully undermine whoever takes the oath of office in January 2017.
Pushed into a unifying Speaker spot
But Ryan, who insists he has no plans to swoop in at a bitterly contested convention and offer himself as an alternate nominee, nonetheless has emerged as the one uniting force in the entire Congress.
Looking back, the Wisconsin lawmaker initially insisted in 2014 that he had no interest in serving as House speaker, once the revolt against John Boehner initially materialized. Yet, he stepped into the void when it appeared that House Republicans, particularly the tea party contingent, were willing to engage in an ideological implosion. Ryan smoothed the rough edges without altering his political persona.
In March 2016, a similar situation is emerging in the presidential race – times 10.
Ryan insists he is not interested in cleaning up a messy, perhaps violent GOP convention. But, like the dicey situation over the speakership following the 2014 elections, when the July convention arrives, Ryan may have no choice.
A majority of Americans long ago concluded that a President Trump would be a disaster for U.S. policy and for the United States’ reputation worldwide. As Ted Cruz desperately tries to derail Trump, his fringe ideological statements put him in the same “dangerous” category as Trump.
Polling shows that John Kasich is the lone GOP candidate who can beat Clinton and satisfy a majority of voters. But the Republican Party nominating process has so marginalized the Ohio governor that he has little chance of becoming the nominee, even if the GOP engages in a dramatic whiff of reality in Cleveland.
Veteran Republican leaders desperately seek a respectable way out from an incoherent, vulgar primary season that is leading to an outcome in which bombastic billionaire Trump will serve as their standardbearer.
At the same time, Democrats seem convinced that, despite all of Clinton’s baggage – plus Trump’s crude ability to dramatically multiply a competitor’s weaknesses – she is on the road to the White House. If so, she will arrive battered and worn.
Perhaps the Dems need to bite their tongues and engage in the political modesty displayed by President Bill Clinton 20 years ago. Hillary’s husband arduously worked with conservative congressional Republicans to achieve seemingly implausible accomplishments, such as welfare reform and budget surpluses.
Step back. Is Ryan a pragmatic member of Congress in the mold of Howard Baker, Sam Nunn, Bill Bradley or Evan Bayh?
No. But is he a stable, respected figure who can lead the nation out of this divisive mess, allowing us to avoid a long-standing wound in the heart of the American political system?
Let’s hope so.