Understanding Paul Ryan

Many of us continue to shake our heads over Speaker Paul Ryan. Why does he keep postponing endorsing our presidential nominee?

Is it pride? Is it values? Is it fear his members will lose their seats in November because of Trump? The latter is the one most pundits have landed on in a move sympathetic to Ryan.

I don’t think it’s any of these things.

If you read this explanation from The Conservative Treehouse blog, it will give you a sober and rational explanation for Ryan’s actions.

If you look at what Ryan’s agenda items are, as shared via various interviews and op-eds, you’ll note they are almost entirely disconnected from the electorate, from Main Street.

Speaker Ryan is working on a set of legislative agenda items which are entirely divergent from the prioritization of the electorate. Traditional special interests are now exclusive interests.

If you look at the origin of the legislative priorities from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, you’ll find they are Wall Street priorities – they are also Paul Ryan priorities. A Puerto Rico bond holder investment bailout appears at the top of the current list.

Nationalist priorities like a federal budget, border security or military finances, now fall far down the priority scale. As long as those who finance the political system are happy, Ryan’s job is secure.

Corporate interests now determine legislative priorities. You can attempt to refute this assertion, but reality speaks for itself.

This is fundamentally why Donald Trump continues to tell Paul Ryan that his endorsement is essentially unneeded. Trump tells Ryan not to compromise his “principles“, because Ryan’s principles are not in alignment with the priorities of nominee Donald Trump.

At their very core Donald Trump is a nationalist-minded politician; hence “America First” as the guiding principle. Speaker Paul Ryan, in his 18th year inside the DC bubble, is now a globalist-minded politician in alignment with Wall Street, not Main Street.

Nothing about this difference will ever reconcile.

In 2011 when Ryan created the budgetary pathway, President Obama put him in the front row of a policy speech where he ridiculed Ryan into irrelevancy. It was an inflection point; Ryan didn’t fight for it, he sulked. With the Pathway To Prosperity rebuked by the larger UniParty, Ryan’s compatriots attended his delicate sensibilities.

Wounded, Ryan never recovered from that undressing. Nor did he ever attempt to push for a federal budget again. He lost. He acted as a loser. U.S. CoC president Tom Donohue, noting an opportunity to expand his own influence, stepped in to sooth the battered ego.

In many ways Donohue was the bridge Wall Street used to connect Paul Ryan to Mitt Romney only a year later.

Ryan doesn’t think about the closed manufacturing plants in Janesville Wisconsin, because he see’s himself as bigger than Main Street. He is absolutely beholden to those who pen the scripts he repeats to the electorate. Ryan is now listening to those who reinforce his goals are to carry out larger agenda items in Indonesia, Vietnam and Taiwan via the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal.

When Ryan hears the word “immigration”, he defines it as the corporate need. When Trump hears immigration, he defines it by considering an impacted U.S. worker.

When Ryan hears the word “jobs”, he defines it through the Wall Street service economy. When Trump hears the word “jobs”, he thinks about people creating things, building things, manufacturing things.

Ryan’s legislative priorities are now disconnected from our representative opinions of those priorities. Affirming those priorities, to the antithesis of the U.S. electorate, is also why corporate media -in particular Right-Wing corporate media- will attempt to protect Ryan from the consequences of focusing on their synergistic needs.

In the era of the UniParty, the corporations which control the funding of the structure will now oppose any entity who can/would disrupt their plans and objectives. The traditional Democrat vs Republican stance is no longer valid. Both represent the interests of their financiers, Wall Street.

This is why Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump begin their campaigns against the same oppositional forces. The difference between the two groups of supporters, is that Donald Trump’s primary team, us, have more historic reference points and were able to overcome the Republican side of the UniParty apparatus by highlighting what was factually evident and irrefutable by the Uniparty defenders.

Many Sanders supporters, sans PUMA’s, don’t have the same points of reference; they cannot fight their way out of their pigeon holes. If they do actually unite and decide to make that battle urgent, Philadelphia will be uncontrolled chaos.

No-one should expect to see nationalist-minded Donald Trump unifying with globalist-minded Paul Ryan in any way other than mere shallow optics. Nor will any member of congress (House or Senate), who holds Ryan’s “principal outlook”, be an integral part of the Trump campaign or Trump administration.

Exactly the opposite is true amid all elected officials. Just like there was in 1979, there are two factions antithetical to each other. The difference between 1979 and 2016 is we will not see any acquiescence to the opposition.

Remember, absolutes: “we either have a country or we do not“!

There will not be a vice-president Bush.

Donald Trump will not cede an inch – instead he will call out the opposition, even within his own party, and label them as the opposition. “We either have a country, or we do not”.

Trump is taking all opposition down to the mattresses. This contrast is not about ego or even ideology…
…. This contrast is about Making America Great Again.

It’s hard to argue with his points.

The irony is that many on our side who are Never Trump are really Never Republican. What are party stands for is not represented by Glenn Beck, Bill Cristal or Rich Lowry. They are elites who want to keep the party that way. We in the great mass flyover population want to keep our country American, not globalist; want to protect our own people; want prosperity again, not redistribution; and want a strong defense as a means of protection.

Paul Ryan does not.

... Leave a Reply