Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"The New Paul Ryan Is All About Heart"
The New Paul Ryan Is All About HeartBy Jonathan Chait at New York Magazine
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/04/new-paul-ryan-is-all-about-heart.html
"SNIP.....................
The most impressive thing about Paul Ryans political career is how successfully he has evaded any interrogation of his motives. Reporters are a famously cynical lot, prone to analyzing politicians words or deeds as maneuvers for self-advancement. Yet Ryan has carried off a brilliantly rapid ascent to power and influence within his party while being paradoxically described along the way as lacking political ambition. His intentions are forever pure. When reporters trailed Hillary Clintons listening tour of New York, they described it as an attempt to defuse the charge of carpetbagging, disregarding the possibility that she had developed a strong and genuine interest in agricultural life upstate. Even the cosseted John McCain had trouble persuading the media that his disavowal of his immigration bill, when running for president in 2008, represented a heartfelt response to his tour of the border, as opposed to a campaign ploy.
No such suspicion has haunted Ryan as he has embarked on a tour of poor, urban America. Ryans behavior certainly fits his political interest the GOPs empathy gap, its growing demographic handicap, and the disastrous 47 percent tape all obviously highlight a dire need for Ryan to position himself as a heartfelt champion of poor black America. This is not to say he does not believe in the role he is playing. Whats striking, rather, is how successfully he has persuaded the media not merely to accept his self-definition but to go farther, lashing out accusatorily at the suggestion Ryan is not quite on the level.
McKay Coppins has a long report on Ryans journey of repositioning or heartfelt conversion, depending on your level of credulity. Coppins, like all reporters allowed access to Ryan, takes the latter interpretation. (This is the price of admission readers have to pay for Coppinss inside reporting.) Coppins presents criticism of Ryan as rabid,a caricature, and personal, and Ryan himself as wounded, misunderstood innocent:
When I mention one of his most rabid critics in the commentariat, the liberal New York magazine writer Jonathan Chait, he begins to chuckle. That guy hates me, he says. I dont even know what he looks like. Never laid eyes on the guy. But he does not like me. ...
....................SNIP"
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
9 replies, 862 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
9 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"The New Paul Ryan Is All About Heart" (Original Post)
applegrove
Apr 2014
OP
Nope. He's fudging the numbers/facts to make his case/narrative, as per usual.
applegrove
Apr 2014
#3
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)1. all heart, no brain?
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)2. You mean he got one finally? nt
applegrove
(118,022 posts)3. Nope. He's fudging the numbers/facts to make his case/narrative, as per usual.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/04/new-paul-ryan-is-all-about-heart.html
"SNIP..................
How to resolve this tension? One way is to assert that the best way to help poor people is to cut their subsidies. Ryan does indeed make this case, and Coppins endorses it:
If [Ryans] rhetoric lacks poetry, his arguments against the current state-centric approach to aiding the poor is compelling. Since Lyndon B. Johnson declared a war on poverty, the U.S. government has spent an estimated $13 trillion on federal programs that have resulted, 50 years later, in the highest deep poverty rate on record.
This statistic is one of the very few fact-based policy assertions in Coppinss story. It is wildly misleading. Ryan is using a measure of poverty that excludes a lot of the subsidies government gives to the poor. Hes saying, in other words, that giving poor people money doesnt make them less poor, if we disregard the money government gives them. If we count such subsidies, then the War on Poverty has in fact reduced deep poverty substantially:
Government policies have significantly reduced the share of the population in poverty, and the share in deep poverty, throughout the 45-year period we examine, and with especially pronounced effects during economic downturns, in particular, during the recent Great Recession. Overall, we find that in the absence of government benefits, the poverty rate would have risen from 25 percent to 31 percent from 1967 to 2012, instead of falling from 19 percent to 16 percent. So in 2012, government programs reduced poverty by 15 percentage points nearly half of its pre-transfer level up from a reduction of 6 percentage points about a quarter of its pre-transfer level in 1967.
............SNIP"
"SNIP..................
How to resolve this tension? One way is to assert that the best way to help poor people is to cut their subsidies. Ryan does indeed make this case, and Coppins endorses it:
If [Ryans] rhetoric lacks poetry, his arguments against the current state-centric approach to aiding the poor is compelling. Since Lyndon B. Johnson declared a war on poverty, the U.S. government has spent an estimated $13 trillion on federal programs that have resulted, 50 years later, in the highest deep poverty rate on record.
This statistic is one of the very few fact-based policy assertions in Coppinss story. It is wildly misleading. Ryan is using a measure of poverty that excludes a lot of the subsidies government gives to the poor. Hes saying, in other words, that giving poor people money doesnt make them less poor, if we disregard the money government gives them. If we count such subsidies, then the War on Poverty has in fact reduced deep poverty substantially:
Government policies have significantly reduced the share of the population in poverty, and the share in deep poverty, throughout the 45-year period we examine, and with especially pronounced effects during economic downturns, in particular, during the recent Great Recession. Overall, we find that in the absence of government benefits, the poverty rate would have risen from 25 percent to 31 percent from 1967 to 2012, instead of falling from 19 percent to 16 percent. So in 2012, government programs reduced poverty by 15 percentage points nearly half of its pre-transfer level up from a reduction of 6 percentage points about a quarter of its pre-transfer level in 1967.
............SNIP"
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)4. I forgot the
sarcasm thingy. :-P
applegrove
(118,022 posts)5. Oh cool. I thought I had not been clear.
DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)7. Oh, ok. Like this then?
Blue Owl
(49,934 posts)8. (Cheating) Heart, that is
n/t
Mrdrboi
(110 posts)9. All about heart for the 1%
No heart for the Common 99% folk.