Does Ryan Bring Substance to the 2012 Election?

The country is abuzz about Romney's choice of Wisconsin Congressman, Paul Ryan, as the vice presidential nominee.

Many have criticized the so-called "risky" choice, arguing that Ryan fails the simple two-pronged criterion for nominees: (1) Does the candidate enlarge the political base, and (2) does (s)he do nothing to alienate the existing political base?

​Regarding the first issue, presidential nominees often choose a running mate who is from a swing-state or has slightly different political viewpoints, with the hope that they will garner new votes.  Ryan offers neither of these benefits.  It is uncertain, at best, that he would carry his home-state of Wisconsin-- a state which, although "moderate,"  swung Blue for the last six elections.  Furthermore, as Ryan and Romney belong to the same ideological camp on most major issues, Ryan offers no advantage in capturing votes that would not have already been cast for Romney.

​Not only is Ryan not likely to bring in new Republican votes, his policies have alienated certain members of the national Republican constituency.  Recipients of entitlements like Medicare and Social Security, for which Ryan has notoriously attempted to cut and privatize, are especially likely to view Ryan disfavorably.  This could be disastrous for Romney in Retirement Mecca, otherwise known as the Great (Swing) State of Florida.

​So that leaves us to wonder: Why Ryan?  Aside from a charming smile and genuinely nice attitude (yeah, that's how we do in Wisconsin), Ryan is most known for his federal budget proposals, which emphasize slashing federal entitlement programs to offset huge tax cuts.  While Ryan has been lambasted as an ideologue (it is well-known that Ryan made everyone on his staff read Ayn Rand) and an extremist, one cannot deny that he is consistent, articulate, and well-informed about his particular vision for the economy, however much you might disagree with it.

​By choosing Ryan as the VP nominee, then, Romney explicitly makes this election about the economy.  Each party now represents very different, and, yes, very thoroughly reasoned approaches to the economy and the federal deficit.  This will, as it stands now, not be an election about personalities, flip-flopping, bridges to nowhere, and other red herrings, but actual (economic) policies.  Every political scientist in the country should be falling over dead from shock right about now.

​Of course, things may change.  Scandals may arise, gaffaws may be made (I'm looking at you, Vice President Biden).  Or maybe someone will remember that there is still a war in Afghanistan, a raging domestic battle over women's reproductive health, and an educational crisis that also could use some attention.  Regardless, as it stands now, the election is shaping up to be a contest of substance over spectacle. 

Political Experience: Too Much of a Good Thing?

What makes a good president?

Leadership. Confidence. Eloquent communication. Organizational skill. Clear Vision.  Ability to compromise. Commitment to Integrity. Political experience...

Hold the phone there...

As counter-intuitive as it may sound, experience may actually be a liability to a presidential candidate. A recent New York Times article exposes how this is exemplified in Rick Santorum's campaign for the Republican nomination. Michael Shear reports that while Santorum has attempted to run on the basis of his 16-year Congressional career, his congressional track-record is now being used to portray him as an inconsistent “a creature of insider politics” who does not really uphold conservative values.

Shear neatly points out that this sort of mudslinging is very common when congresspersons run for office. While it would seem logical that legislators would want to run on their congressional record, proving their experience and know-how, it also opens them up to an intense amount of criticism. As Shear notes:

For every vote that becomes an effective campaign talking point, there is another that threatens to lead a candidate into explanations requiring awkward, process-laden Senate-speak. And those votes often cast a spotlight on the messy compromises and partisan accommodations that are a regular but despised part of the legislative process in Washington.

One sees, then, that there is a catch-22 to running for presidential office. One needs experience, of course, to run for such an essential position. However, the more experience one has in the spotlight of our nation's Congress, the more likely one is to have exposed oneself to liability. That liability could be a compromise on health care, supporting an issue which earned political enemies, or voting for a bill that contained a substance-less earmark (remember that Bridge to Nowhere?), but, regardless, it could cost just enough votes to lose the election.