-
Putting Heritage in DeMint Condition
May 10, 2013 | 57 comments
-
Military Might, Out of the Wilderness
May 8, 2013 | 115 comments
-
Not Wanting to Write About Nothing Good
April 30, 2013 | 126 comments
-
Perez Abomination Grows
April 23, 2013 | 81 comments
-
Tea Partiers for Freedom
April 16, 2013 | 12 comments
Streetcar Line
More Kemp, Please
The next step in Romney-Ryan messaging.
Paul Ryan is doing very well indeed on the stump so far in the early days of his vice-presidential candidacy. He can and should do even better, and the Romney-Ryan ticket also should better frame its overall message.
First, just to be clear: Asking Ryan to do better takes some gall, because he’s the best communicator on really complex issues that Republicans have had on a national ticket since Ronald Reagan left the scene. His demeanor is just about perfect; he’s likable, believable, knowledgeable, understandable, and persuasive; and his one-on-one political skills are first-rate.
But with a few tweaks, Ryan can move into the realm of the inspirational. He’s not quite there yet.
Ryan is doing well at criticizing Barack Obama in just the right tones. He is doing well at making the case for saving Medicare. He is doing well at making the case that he and Mitt Romney are serious about fighting a crushing debt load and focusing on job creation. Yet, quite curiously for somebody who wrote speeches for Jack Kemp, the small things missing from his message so far are exactly the Kempian messaging touches that need to accompany his already Kempian can-do attitude.
No conservative was better than Kemp at spreading the message that it is conservatives whose policies are compassionate. The message of compassion, framed rightly, is absolutely crucial for two groups of swing voters: first, the lower-income range of blue-collar workers; and second, suburban professional moms and moderate, unmarried single women who together, according to some detailed polling analyses, create the largest single bloc of persuadable voters — negative about Obama, but previously unenthused about Romney. Reading between the lines on the latter group, it seems they are non-ideological and thus against Obama not because of any aversion to what he believes, but because he hasn’t produced good results and hasn’t governed or campaigned like a unifying figure. They are, however, very concerned that policy be compassionate, in whatever way compassion can best be achieved.
What Kemp did so well was to draw the link, explicitly, between compassion and opportunity. He used the language of compassion (and Ryan should explicitly use the word “compassion”) in a way that virtually equated compassion with “opportunity society”-style policies. There is a real compassion in taking the heavy boot of government off of entrepreneurs and small businessmen. Consumer Product Safety regulations, for instance, that hurt second-hand stores and even music students, along with taxes on medical devices like pacemakers and prosthetic limbs, are exactly the sort of burdens that would be removed by compassion involved in limiting government.
Ryan is doing a good job talking about problem-solving — but it sounds like he is more interested in solving the problems of government accountants than in offering a sense of why individual citizens’ own lives will be better in a Romney-Ryan opportunity society. (Note: The “opportunity society” phrase itself is old enough by now to sound a little hackneyed, so he probably needs a new label; I use it here merely for convenience of expression.) His demeanor is, to his credit, marked with a can-do ebullience; but his words are not the words of Kempian uplift.
Consider, for instance, this snippet from Kemp’s 1996 speech accepting the vice-presidential nomination (Ryan himself may have written it, for all I know): “Our appeal of boundless opportunity crosses every barrier of geography, race and belief. We may not get every vote, but we will speak to every heart. In word and action, we will represent our entire American family.” Boundless opportunity. Speak to every heart, and represent the entire American family. This is the language of inclusion, of caring, and of optimism — without ever equating compassion with what government can give to somebody.
Later in the speech came this:
Democratic capitalism is not just the hope of wealth, but the hope of justice. When we look into the face of poverty, we see pain, despair and need. But, above all, in every face, we must see the image of God. The Creator of All has planted the seed of creativity in us all, the desire within every child of God to work and build and improve our lot in life, and that of our families and those we love.
And in our work, in the act of creating that is part of all labor, we discover that part within ourselves that is divine. I believe the ultimate imperative for growth and opportunity is to advance human dignity.
Dr. Martin Luther King believed that we must see a sleeping hero in every soul. America must establish policies that summon those heroes and call forth the boundless potential of the human spirit.
So far, this is a spirit of outreach, of human connection, that Ryan has not articulated. But everything we see of Ryan indicates that it is a spirit fully consonant with everything he believes and with how he lives. And it is a spirit that a man of his superb political talents can communicate, not least because he can do so in all sincerity, with the perfect comfort of someone doing nothing other than being himself.
As for the ticket as a whole, it has yet to lay out a compelling vision — a “picture, about how it’s gonna be,” to borrow a line from a treacly pop song — that citizens can see, and aspire to, in their own minds’ eyes. The vision doesn’t need to be a gauzy, Reaganesque “shining city on a hill.” The secret to Reagan’s vision wasn’t that he provided an image, but that he joined an image with substance. His subtext was that in a time of malaise, he wanted to let Americans be Americans again, rather than the “wee, sleekin, cowrin, tim’rous, beasties” (with apologies to Robert Burns) into which Jimmy Carter and the Soviets threatened to turn us.
The vision does, however, need to be almost palpable, and it needs to match the Romney-Ryan ticket’s strengths. Romney and Ryan clearly are problem solvers, guys who are competent and knowledgeable, and guys who believe that the American character is that of a people who still believe they can achieve their goals if only others, or government, wouldn’t get in their way. Fortunately, Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute already has identified and outlined exactly the sort of message that melds the Romney-Ryan strengths with the Kempian opportunity society in whose soil Ryan’s roots are so deeply embedded. The key, says Brooks, is “earned success.” The pursuit of happiness is achieved is rewarded, Brooks said, not with manna from heaven, but through the knowledge that one has accomplished success and has the chance to accomplish more.
About the Author
Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (42) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Quin Hillyer
More Articles From Streetcar Line
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/21/more-kemp-please
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- We Have Her Example
- Public Nuisances
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Jack in Wi| 8.21.12 @ 6:25AM
Please no Jack Kemp. I was a big supporter of his. I gave money, saw him speak, and met him. He had a terrific personality, was good looking, and tried to be an intellectual. In the end he was a flop. His housing policies turned into a dismal failure. He had some good ideas but he could not close the deal. His campaign with Dole was one of the most dismal one run in my lifetime. If Romney loses to Obama he may top it. Hopefully he does a lot better job.
Moe Blotz| 8.21.12 @ 8:07AM
Perhaps Mr. Hillyer meant that Mr. Ryan should articulate the ideas of the late Mr. Kemp whilst on the hustings. The next time Paul Ryan meets you for a workout, please impart upon him some of the vast knowledge that you have blessed us with here.
Doctor Right| 8.21.12 @ 9:25AM
The economy was roaring in 1996; there was NO WAY the public was going to vote Clinton out.
Dole/Kemp was not "dismal;" it was impossible.
TLP| 8.21.12 @ 6:16PM
Like a broken clock, Jack is absolutely right.
Kemp was a Flop.
Ryan doesn't need to be anyone, except Paul Ryan.
And, if you ask me?
Paul Ryan is head and shoulders above whatever Anyone thinks Jack Kemp was.
btims86| 8.21.12 @ 6:53AM
One problem with Kemp......he was an open borders, "diversity" liberal republican, like Bill Bennett, Michael Medved, Bill Kristol, etc.
We have a very weak economy and these Neocons are clamoring for more, more, more imporation of half the world, in order to "prove" that they are not RACIST.
Ryan has a strong open borders leanings. Romney has some too but less. They both must be watched.
JD| 8.21.12 @ 12:12PM
Open borders are not a problem so long as we enforce security and the rule of law and don't hand people massive social welfare when they come here. Social welfare is the reason we need restrictive immigration policy.
btims86| 8.21.12 @ 1:38PM
Wow, what a foolish comment. "Open borders is not a problem"? Where to begin with you........you really want the population to be ballooned to half a billion and why may I ask? Secondly, what is more likely, we lower immigration and enforce the borders and immigration laws, or we greatly cut back social welfaree programs?
Bonus question: If the American people, who roughtly 70% want reduced legal immigration, don't have a say in setting immigration policy, who should get to decide the policy? Because for the past 30 years, foeigners have decided our immigration policy, through the mechanism called "family reunification". Foreigners decide how many of their families get to "migrate". The American people have no say because the Beltway Class nearly all get paid off by the immigration racket's lawyers and businesses who profit from continued mass immigration.
I invite to re-think you views and not spout overly-simplistic pablum.
JD| 8.21.12 @ 5:25PM
You can't split my position in half and then expect me to defend it. I'll just re-state my second sentence:
Social welfare is the reason we need restrictive immigration policy.
Jack London| 8.21.12 @ 8:19AM
Yeah right - "boundless opportunity" for their rich friends and a brutal attack on the poor. That's the Romney-Ryan 'compassionate' ticket. It's all on the record and why their only chance is not to mention it but talk with forked tongues.
c. j. acworth| 8.21.12 @ 8:38AM
Jack, as I told you not long ago, "The Iron Heel" was lame, stick to writing dog stories.
pogybait| 8.21.12 @ 9:47AM
Nothing can control the corrupting power of an exponentially growing government bureaucracy, and the only result so far with Obama, has been economic and social quagmire, which has been useful in maintaining power and at the same time keeping the population in serfdom. If we continue to unite this cause, it will no doubt cause the end of American Democracy.
TeaPartyNow| 8.21.12 @ 10:23AM
Did you see the video of Paul Ryan looking that reporter in the eyes last week and lying about the stimulus money that he wasted? Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney are both very good liars. And the right is too hard up to care anything about their records or their personalities. Romney/Ryan will lose. Those two are damned and they know it. If the right could pull it's head out, it would see them and all of us after them, going straight to hell.
The American People will be sick and tired of Romney/Ryan if we aren't already, very soon.
Ken (Old Texican)| 8.21.12 @ 10:46AM
Tea party,
thank you for that deep insight. Soros does not pay you today.
Drunken Sailor| 8.21.12 @ 11:52AM
Ken,
Close. He is a Santorum supporter who hasn't got the message that Rick did not get the ticket. Unfortunately he hasn't figured out that Romney, while not everyones cup of tea is still better than Obama.
He is just here to bleat.
Oldefarte| 8.21.12 @ 12:57PM
Then you must """""STUPIDLY"""""favor the current administration, since everyone only has two choices, right??????
TLP| 8.21.12 @ 6:22PM
How ya doing, O.F.?
I feel your passion in every one of your posts, and I'm with you, brother.
Just, don't let them get you down.
In the end, it, like everything, is in God's Hands.
I refuse to believe that God will let us fall in to the abyss.
Keep the Faith, my friend.
And, be well.
We will prevail.
Oldefarte| 8.21.12 @ 7:34PM
As long as we can continue reading your words of wisdom, there will always be true HOPE. 11/7/12 will be a defining moment as to which prong of the fork we take, and if Obama/Biden prevail, we best follow the path of Tony Scott!!!!!!!
TrueBlue | 8.21.12 @ 7:56PM
The stimulus money that was in the hands of the Democrat Congress during the last two years of Bush and first two years of Obama you mean? And NOT in Paul Ryan's hands... I see a lot of these accusations with no proof to back them up.
Jacob McCandles| 8.21.12 @ 3:30PM
Rich vs poor blah blah. How do you not bore yourself into a coma? Seriously, how do you stand yourself?
Von Mises Jr| 8.21.12 @ 8:23AM
Romney/Ryan should simply announce the end of bailout nation. GM will solve their wage and benefit problem or they will face reorganization under new management with new contracts. GE WILL pays taxes next year. Liberal States will deal with their pension shortfalls or their employees will be SOL (Christie would be great to make this point).
The average guy is out of patience with favored sons getting bailed out on their backs while they have to figure out how to survive on their own and then subsidize the government picked winners.
Hayek’s "Road to Serfdom" taught that in centrally planned economies, government MUST pick winners and losers. We are sick and tired of the average citizen always being the loser.
Al Adab| 8.21.12 @ 9:37AM
Free markets and free men should be the goal. Government policies which create and perpetuate a dependent class harm the nation and the individuals concerned. It is the depth of cynical politics that one of our major political institutions panders to a growing underclass, which their policies created, to continue themselves in power. All too many have trade their birthright of liberty for a bowl of government pottage.
fmm| 8.21.12 @ 8:46AM
Bush destroyed the meaning of the word compassionate and would you remind me of Kemp's successful run for VP? Times have changed and Ryan is perfect for these times as he is.
Who Knows?| 8.21.12 @ 12:29PM
Second that.
Conservatives should avoid the word, "compassionate", like the plague.
cicero| 8.21.12 @ 9:05AM
All R&R have to do is point to every one of the Obama policies, and promise to repeal them, and not to do that again. In addition, they have to bring the bottom 50% back into the real world, and make them contributors, to some extent, rather than just takers. The Dems know that once the majority becomes aware of the fact that they can vote themselves the wealth of others, there is no way to stop them, and the democracy will fall. This is exactly what "community organizing" is all about. Overload the system, cause it to collapse, and take control out of the chaos.
Ken (Old Texican)| 8.21.12 @ 9:36AM
Quin,
well recieved. A little less green eye-shades please,
or at least, powerful parentheticals ie:
(Mr. Obama has forcibly "borrowed" $300,000 from each and every one you. That is not American.)
(We will give you smal business owners at least a four year head start, by throwing out 900 regulations and cutting your taxes.)
irish19| 8.21.12 @ 9:36AM
"In addition, they have to bring the bottom 50% back into the real world, and make them contributors, to some extent, rather than just takers."
This is the absolutely essential component if things are to be turned around.
C'mon Man!| 8.21.12 @ 9:38AM
Seems you are just nit-picking here. Ryan is a hit and is doing great. Leave him be.
Ken (Old Texican)| 8.21.12 @ 10:49AM
C,mo'n Man
Ryan and Romney both will appreciate thoughtful comments here...we he'ppin them!
swimdog| 8.21.12 @ 11:12AM
Great satirical piece Q old buddy- you really could have had greater impact however if you would have limited your comments to one page, shortened up a few of the paragraphs, the mantra seemed to be all over the board, your sentence structure was okay but if you shorten it up and were a bit more concise you might then have the right stuff to turn "okay" into "pretty good"...and maybe if you tightened up your tie just a tad in your picture you wouldn't look so much like you just had a 4 martini lunch...But hey, don't get me wrong old chap- you're off to a "very good start"!!
BackToBasics| 8.21.12 @ 12:03PM
With the MSM complicit in the re-election of Obam, Ryan so far is mostly speaking to the choir, no matter how good he is. Too many will not make up their minds until they see the debates. The questions and "rebuttals" will be done in such as way to make the dems look as good as possible.
Fortunately, Romney-Ryan are so much better that they should win the debates, especially Ryan.
JD| 8.21.12 @ 12:14PM
People don't watch debates. They wait until the next morning and let CNN tell them how the debate went. You can guess how that works out!
BackToBasics| 8.21.12 @ 3:38PM
JD, maybe they don't watch too much anymore. I can remember before the internet when they were much anticipated and watched. Still they should help RR a little, hopefully enough.
I read your comments yesterday, 8-20, to Ross K.; so well stated. You spoke of frustration and reading between the lines I believe it was based on your not being able to persuade others to sound reasoning.
If you haven't already done so, if you have the time and inclination, perhaps you could make a series of pamphlets, hardcopy and on a online site, sell them, and get your message out this way. Working through Christian organizations and receiving help from online sites such as WorldNetDaily and churches may be the most effective way disseminate the material. Just a suggestion.
Sound reasoning is still instructive to many and can still persuade.
JD| 8.21.12 @ 5:22PM
It is one thing for someone to disagree. It is another to refuse to address. The latter is the most frustrating. You put honest effort into a debate, but cannot win because the other player takes his ball and goes home.
This dastardly "religion" label, which is used to pompously dismiss unanswerable positions, is particularly annoying. In a free society, nothing is banned from discussion.
BackToBasics| 8.21.12 @ 7:47PM
from your reply - "It is one thing for someone to disagree. It is another to refuse to address."
I think they refuse because in a direct confrontation they know they cannot win. The only resort they have is to call you names or give you a label. In the name-calling the crude use crude language but the more refined will give you a label such as "religious/religion/religious argument."
Most all those who change their minds do so over time and in the quiet of their own thinking. They may not do so very often in a direct confrontaion. Over time though, sound reasoning can still be effective.
Who Knows?| 8.21.12 @ 12:56PM
I like very much the “earned success” phrase.
“Earned” and “built” are words that mean almost the same thing, and lord knows Obama’s mooning of America, by saying “You didn’t build that”, needs to be one of the dominant themes repeated, every day until the election.
It’s almost too late to awaken the American “giant”, to wit her flickering spirit---the can do, individual responsibility animating core. Can you imagine a politician, in say, 1875, as the west was still being “won” and settled, running on “You didn’t build that”?
Even NOW half the doctors are said to be burned out. What about when more and more people get fatter and fatter; and sicker and sicker---THERE’S a bubble soon to burst. Somehow, what can’t continue, stops.
Look around. Of the whole “ordered matter”, buildings, roads, landscaped gardens, myriad machines, furniture, etc, what percentage of it did YOU build? Isn’t it obvious that there’s a whole lot of “earned success” still standing that was “built” by now dead people, and that a majority of us are living as spoiled children who’ve aged, chronologically, but remain attached to our parent’s tit?
How piquant!
Liberals blast those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, and it turns out THEIR supporters, and they themselves, are that. Mirrors are lacking. Or, averting eyes abound.
Recognize responsibility, personally?
Fat chance!
Oldefarte| 8.21.12 @ 1:06PM
In other words, you're saying by "His demeanor is just about perfect; he's likable, believable, knowledgeable, understandable, and persuasive; and his one-on-one political skills are first-rate" that Ryan is no Joe Biden. Of course no one is, and never could be. The sadness over same comes from the realization that he is currently only a heartbeat away from becoming the POTUS. As to Kemp/Ryan and their compassion, I'd possibly argue that yes government should/does represent a helping hand to those in need. However, the question should be WHO IS TRULY IN NEED? The indigents who continuously have multiple children which become purposefully ward of the state/government? The migrants who come to this country illegally? The financially inept who take out home mortgages that they know they cannot pay for? The consumers of numerous new/expensive vehicles etc instead of repsonsibly purchasing health insurance? Are they in need of compassion from government or instead should they be weaned from the teat of same???????
David| 8.21.12 @ 1:53PM
Forget the word "compassionate". That is what Bush ran as. The dems are already saying that Romney and Ryan will take us back to Bush. Why the flip should they call themselves "compassionate"?
JD| 8.21.12 @ 5:23PM
I agree. The term is tainted.
Oldefarte| 8.21.12 @ 7:47PM
I would hope that most everyone would be "compassionate" but the crux of the issue is WHO PAYS FOR THAT COMPASSION? Politicians who are Democrats give very small percentages of their personal incomes to charity, while Republicans give much larger amounts. Democrats however desire instead for the government [ie taxpayers] to pay for their given through governmental programs/benefits to their indigent constituents. IOW, they want someone other than themselves to PAY FOR THAT CHARITY [ie you and me, not them]. The forced through taxiation charity that these Democrats legislate demands that we pay for their charitable giving, while they take credit for same politically. Charity whether it come directly from your wallet or indirectly through your Form 1040 still costs money which could/should be used to feed/clothe/house/educate your family instead, and these Democrats constantly bemoan the need for you to pay more, give more, spread/redistribute your wealth etc so that they can claim the titles of THE ONE TRUE BLACK JESUS OF CHICAGO etc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReaganConservative| 8.22.12 @ 3:34AM
Isn't it Amazing how all the great inspirational communicators of the Republican Party are Conservatives. Ronald Reagan being the greatest, which all Republican politicians who seek elected office strive to emulate and aspire to, wittingly or unwittingly.
But why was Reagan so great in his inspirational communication skills and ability. Why was he so effective. And why did the people listen to him, rather than the standard Republican GOP establishment RINO.
Because besides being an avid reader who ensured he knew everything there was to know and understand about what he was for, and against, it was his ability to effectively communicate those ideas and principles for which he is so greatly remembered.. This ability was his passion and dedication to these vital ideals and principles of all that is good on this earth- Humanity, Freedom, liberty, Democracy, the US Constitution, ie; all that they embody, he embodies. Reagan was truly the embodiment of all that he believed, which transferred into all he said and did.
This is why the phony progressive GOP establishment people can never capture that same Reaganesque essence and stature that inspires people.
Paul Ryan is one who can and will inspire people in time, because he also embodies all that Reagan embodied.